What a load of tosh, Brian.

Whichever way you slice it, homosexuals and their supporters are a small minority who are trying to impose their views on the majority.

Marriage is between a husband and a wife, according to my dictionary.

Your "christianism" concept is false. Christians don't have to introduce "religious lore" because the Marriage Act already specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. On the contrary, you and your mates are trying to insinuate "homosexual lore" into law. You are trying to hijack a word to suit your own agenda.

Those who are bleating about "equality" already have access to civil unions and the various legal protections that entails. If that's not enough, invent a new word. Just leave "marriage" alone.

Sharia law is notorious because it orders people to do certain things and prohibits them from doing others, then it metes out punishments for those who break it.

Isn't Australian law the same in principle? It is quantitatively less draconic and its punishments are usually less severe, but qualitatively it is the same.

It's just "the devil we know"!

Now if there are suggested laws that would instead ALLOW people to follow their conscience or their religion rather than restrict them, then I only welcome it. Question being: how come existing laws prohibit people from following their conscience and religion to begin with?

Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai is a contemptible murderer and he certainly does not have my support on that count, yet as far as his refusal to stand in court, the author is wrong to claim that "There was no sympathy for him across Australia, with everyone demanding he recognise Australian laws and values.": I for one do not make any such demands of him, so it cannot be "everyone".

I see nothing wrong with a nominally christian country creating laws that protect/entrench its traditional ethos, customs and common law liberties.

If only to send Sharia law back to the stone age where it and the bigotry it instils, belongs.

New enacted laws could have been and should have been a bill of irrevocable rights and still could be?

And needed as never before in our history, just to prevent us becoming a nation increasingly dominated by an implacable fully imported entirely alien culture, who just don't even give as much as lip service to genuine religious freedom to other than Islamists!?
Rhrosty.

Shari'a law penalises women.

Under Shari'a, women can inherit only half what a man can inherit.

A man can have four wives, (or three, plus the 'overnight wife'), and he can divorce any one of them by simply saying so.

A man can beat his wife any time he likes, as long as the bruises and broken bones don't show: hence burkas.

Women can be shut up inside their father's or husband's or brother's house at will.

Young girls can be married off as soon as they get pubes.

Even before that, they can be genitally mutilated.

If a married woman is reported to have looked at another man, she can be stoned.

So, if an Australian woman, entitled to all the protections and opportunities available under Australian law, is a Muslim, under Shari'a law, she would have no such protections. The sisterhood would tell her to bugger off since, after all, all cultures are equal. Pity that all women aren't.

What a ghastly world we COULD be living in.

Joe

I can see the author's point. What's being proposed here is exactly like sharia law.

Think of it like this. Imagine you have someone walk into a Marriage office in a sharia compliant country and ask for assistance to marriage his gay lover. And then imagine someone walking into a Marriage office in this new Australia asking the same question.

In the case of the former, said person would eventually find themselves on top of an 8 storey building ready to be thrown to their deaths by the baying mob.

In the later case, said person would be told the person in the new cubicle would be able to help them.

See, basically the same thing!! No difference at all.

Honestly!! Where do these people come from?

I agree with the author on this one.

If Australia denies gay people the right to marry under the law (NOT church law), because of a push from the minority Christian fundamentalist groups, then where will it end?

We can't allow any religious group to dictate what laws can and can't be enacted in our parliament, or we are no better than places that have Sharia law.

But it's ok for the homosexual lobby to dictate what can and can't be enacted in our parliament, right, Suse?

I am not currently live in Australia, but you should refrain from allowing minority group dictate you what to do and how to change your laws. After all this is your country and no immigrants should tell you what to with it.

Emma73, we aren't talking about immigrants here.
Calwest, it isn't just gay people who are asking for equal rights though is it?
Wrong again...

There is a huge difference between 'gay laws' and Sharia law, I cant believe they are being compared. Sharia law is barbaric and doesnt belong in civilized society. Is that law not the exact reason many came to Australia to escape from? Most of the beliefs are considered a crime in Australia so the govt would be damn stupid to even consider this.

How exactly would a 'christianist Sharia law' work? The two do not mix and never will. Or will that allow the whole country to partake in child sexual assault, marry children,have several wives etc but then say seven hail marys and two our fathers?!

Suse (and others)

You've misunderstood the intent of this article when you write things like " If Australia denies gay people the right to marry..."

The author isn't talking about the gay marriage vote. He's assuming that'll get passed at some point.

What he's saying is that, after that becomes law, no one should be allowed to dissent from that vote on religious grounds and that, if they are allowed to do so, then, in he's (twisted) view that would be the equivalent of sharia. Its obviously bunkum as I showed above, which is, presumably, why you've decided to go off on a different tack.

As an aside, how can it be that failure to pass the gay marriage laws would be sharia-equivalent. If it fails it would be because of a democratic vote of the Australian people, the very opposite of sharia. To make this claims shows an appalling lack of understanding of democracy or sharia or (probably) both.

As Hugo Rifkind wrote a week or two ago, we can have all the fascinating different foods, manners of dress, dances, language etc. we like, but we can have only one set of values, i.e. the equality of men and women, observance of the rule of law, democratic institutions, freedom of belief, speech and expression - all the facets of an open society.

Of all religions, Islam seems to be the most closed-minded: absolute authority of a book, of men, and in fact a lauding of being closed-minded. Like all cultures, Muslim culture is - perhaps more obviously than most - structured around, and justifying, male domination. As such, it deserves to be criticised like all cultures should be. But it most certainly is not a friend of an open society, nor of any of its facets listed above.

But I have no doubt that some dumb-dumb pseudo-leftists will, soon enough, start going on about the recognition of Shari'a - just for Muslims of course at first - as a logical consequence of multiculturalism. So perhaps we need to have a vigorous debate about what multiculturalism means, and whether or not women's rights can be taken away in the name of culture.

Joe

What about the Tasmanian bishop who is being persecuted (under Australian stifle-free-speech laws) for handing out brochures on normal marriage as his church sees it? How about media refusing to run advertisements for traditional marriage groups? This bloke is just promoting poofterism.

"In November last year, Muslim prisoner Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai refused to stand in court or recognise the Judge, citing his ‘religious belief.’"

Yes, and he got away with it. He wasn't charged with contempt of court as he should have been. Thanks to weak judges and gutless pooiticians, this country is now run by minorities - religious and gender-bending.

Hi ttbn,

Yes, as an ex-Marxist and atheist, I was puzzled about that Tasmanian case - after all, the bishops were being taken to court for advocating something which was perfectly legal, for supporting what is actually the legal situation.

Surely anybody is entitled to simply state their support for what may be the prevailing law ? We may not like it, but since they have actually not done anything illegal, how on earth can they be hauled up before some tribunal and have to explain themselves ? Wouldn't it be up to those who seek to change the law to state their case and run the risk of being taken before such a tribunal for advocating something which wasn't legal ?

Since when did freedom of expression, even more so freedom to express an opinion that is legal, get trumped by outrage and feelings of hurt ?

If I wasn't so sensitive to the delicate needs of the LBGTYJDNI and homosexual union lobbies, I'd say 'Grow a pair'.

Joe

Re the Tasmanian Bishop and his Catholic buddies being portrayed as innocent saints being portrayed as innocent saints above, I looked it up and it seems the little marriage booklet has a go at same-sex parents by suggesting it isn't 'healthy' for the way they bring up their children.
What rubbish, when it has been proven otherwise by numerous studies. Look it up yourselves if you don't believe me.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/catholic-church-has-discrimination-case-to-answer/6939942

Fair enough, have a view for or against legalising same sex marriage, but why bring people's children into the argument? To me that is taking it too far, and obviously the anti-discrimination officers agree.
Naughty Catholic Church is in trouble...

usual Christophobic rant from the left (usual spoilt brats) who want everyone to condone and promote what is unhealthy for a society. What next? Polygamy, bestiality. I would hate to think. Once again the moral base of Judea/Christianity being attacked and being replaced by some perverted idealogy which can only come from one aother source.

btw the killing of unborn babies and sexualisation of kids is far closer to Sharia than Christian influence. Brian should remove his glasses of hatred and wake up to the moral less base he makes his conclusions from.

Hi Suse,

Anybody, or any body like the Catholic Church, is as entitled to its opinion as anyone else.

'Innocent' is an interesting word. Usually it means, not having committed any offense or crime. So what criminal offense or crime have the bishops committed ? In that sense, aren't they 'innocent' ? Or should they be bullied into silence ?

Debate. Discussion, Passionate contention and confrontation. A free interchange of conflicting views. A teasing out of issues. Fantastic. Or don't you think so ?

Joe

Loudmouth, obviously someone thinks the Bishop and co have broken a law, so what are you on about?
The anti-discrimination law is there, whether you or Runner like it or not.

Runner, some of the Churchy people are well aware of child sex abuse amongst their ranks though aren't they?
People in glass houses...

Suse,

suse wrote: "but why bring people's children into the argument?"

Because this is as much about the welfare of children as anything else.

suse wrote: "What rubbish, when it has been proven otherwise by numerous studies." ("it" being that same-sex parenting isn't good for kids).

Well its a rather heroic assertion that anything on this has been "proven" one way or the other. There is research finding both for and against on the issue.
But either way, it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, illegal to make statements which are factually wrong. So even if your claims were true (and I don't think they are) this shouldn't preclude people from opining the alternative. Its not illegal to say the sun rises in the west and the way to address someone who made that claim would be through counter-argument, not the courts. At least not in a democracy.

Clearly this is just a case of the self-proclaimed morally virtuous attacking the church which they hate. I wonder if a muslim cleric saying homosexuality was a crime would be dragged before the courts or does their victimhood status out-rank the gay's victimhood status.

Suse, given we are discussing clergy, I thought you might enjoy the following story.

Many years ago, when few westerners had ventured into the dark continent, a young cleric and his young bride set off looking for converts. They approached a village and were shown into the chief's hut.

THe young cleric explained he'd come from britain, where the queen ruled over an empire so vast the sun never set on it.

He went on to say that the queen wore a crown and sat on a throne and was attended by an army of footmen! And he was there as her representative to extend the hand of friendship.

The chief was very impressed and asked if he could have one of these crowns and a throne? Whereupon the young cleric produced a copy of an early Sears and roebuck catalogue looked up theatrical props; and showed the chief, the finest examples, who wanted both ASAP.

A runner was dispatched to the nearest telegraph and several weeks later the crown and throne arrived with a sceptre thrown in for effect.

The chief was delight and proceeded to hold court until he noticed all his people now stood head and shoulders over him!

So he ordered that his throne be lifted into a rudimentary loft and settled in to hold regal court.

No sooner than his bulk hit the centre of the heavy throne than the loft collapsed bringing the hut down with it.

Now the moral of the story is, people in grass houses, shouldn't stow thrones.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty I did like your little tale : )
I can actually imagine that happening. The missionaries tried anything to make the native peoples believe in their make-believe stories.

Mhaze, children are already successfully part of same sex couple's lives, so how will making same-sex marriage legal change anything?
It won't...

Joe,

We now live in a truly awful society, infested with people who have been left in peace for a long time to get on with their perversions and peculiarities privately. But that's not enough for them: they insist that the rest of us should actually approve of them. If we don't we are bigots. They are too stupid or arrogant to know that their sort of politics (and that's what it is all about) is just the thing to drag Western society down low enough, weaken it enough, to make it a pushover for Islam. Then these maggots will really find out who hates them and will not tolerate them as we do. Tolerance is just disliking something, but not bothering to do anything about it. They should learn to appreciate that. There is no tolerance in Islam. They do something about- actually too - people like this bloke.

Call me a "bigot", but I object to anybody walking down the street nude. I object to people urinating or defecating in the street, or making love on the beach in plain view of everybody else. I object to the idea that it is OK to have sex with children, or with animals. I object to fathers marrying their daughters, mothers marrying their sons, or brothers marrying their sisters. When it comes to cousins marrying cousins, I don't think it is right, but I am somewhat more lenient. I know it occasionally happens, and as long as it does not become fashionable, I can tolerate it. Even though I do not approve of it.

Homosexuality is exactly the same as incestuous cousins. I can tolerate it, but not approve of it. And I would be just as offended at seeing males being passionate with males on a street, as I would if I saw women walking around shopping centres in bikinis.

And I am not religious at all.

My concept of what is right and wrong may be based upon Christian principles, but I made up my own mind about things long ago.

To my mind, homosexuals have something seriously wrong with their genetics. I am sorry that they are that way, and I feel sorry for them. As long as they are discreet, I can tolerate them. I can even tolerate nudists and kissing cousins, if they are discreet and don't flaunt their behaviour in my face. I will even protect nudists, kissing cousins, and homosexuals from those who would physically harm them. I would even protect them against people who wish to discriminate against them up to a point. Because I think that some discrimination against sexual deviants is fair enough, especially with religious people who's revulsion of sexual deviancy is a lot stronger than mine. But if sexual deviants keep demanding that I must accept them as perfectly normal, and that they can flaunt their behaviour in front of me, my tolerance will come to an end. Instead of being tolerant, I will become very intolerant.

Sharia was introduced into the title of the article just to stir it up.
Lego, I agree with your comments. Except perhaps cousin marriage.
We are seeing the result of that practise being "normal" in the middle east.
It results in abnormal behaviour.
I agree I do not see how same sex marriage can be other than abnormal.
Give it another name, but marriage has always been between a man & a woman.
It was so even before religion, or whatever religion was there in
prehistoric times.
Even today hunter gatherers have marriage ceremonies between a man and a woman.
A union between a man & a man or a woman & a woman is different.
So give it a different name.

We are being over run by other peoples in the reproduction race
because they get rid of any homosexuals in their ranks.
Strangely it does not seem to be a problem with moslems.

It is largely a fashion in western societies and is brought on by
political correctness and the schools.

Suse wrote: "Mhaze, children are already successfully part of same sex couple's lives, so how will making same-sex marriage legal change anything?
It won't..."

Its perfectly legitimate to argue that those who think SSM is about children are wrong. Its even legitimate to think they are factually misinformed or even deliberately misinforming.

What is not legitimate, at least not in any society that espouses free speech, is to say they are wrong and then seek to use the law to force them to shut up. Its wrong as a matter of principle and it suggests that those using the law rather than argument are unsure that they have a winning argument.

Australia is most definitely better than countries with Sharia Law, Susieonline. Christ! What do you use for a brain?

In countries with Sharia law, a tiny minority, the Mullahs and Imams, use terror to keep the people in line when it comes to religious doctrine. Step out of line by advocating homosexuality, and you end up dead. The police will not even bother to investigate. You say something blasphemous? Your dead.

In Australia, another minority is trying to tell the majority how to think. The homosexual lobby has somehow become so influential in Australian politics that they are now even using to law to shut up the majority who think that their behaviour is disgusting. And you support them because you think it is the fashionable thing to do?

Let's have a referendum on homosexual "marriage" and let the people decide.

It could go something like this.

1. Do you support homosexual marriage?
2 Do you oppose homosexual marriage?
3. Do you think that homosexuality should be illegal?

My vote is for 3. I was once very tolerant of homosexuals but my patience is coming to an end with the homosexual assault on free speech, and the indoctrination of our children within our school system. If they want to make the majority their enemies, then let's put homosexuals back in their closets. And I am not religious in any way.

Dear LEGO,

What have homosexuals ever done to you?
They are just nice people who go about their lives peacefully, pay above-average taxes and infest the planet with fewer little human bodies than average.

The ones who force the issue of state-sponsored homosexual marriage and indoctrinate children in schools to become homosexuals, are not homosexual themselves, but communists who hate the bourgeois concept of family. They probably never had a homosexual contact in their lives.

'The ones who force the issue of state-sponsored homosexual marriage and indoctrinate children in schools to become homosexuals, are not homosexual themselves, but communists who hate the bourgeois concept of family. They probably never had a homosexual contact in their lives.'

not far from the truth Yuyutsu although I suspect they are also the ones that want validation for their own lifestyles.The self righteous left are one lot of sick puppies.

Lego said;
then let's put homosexuals back in their closets.

You can't do that at the ABC, their closet is full of Liberal voters !

Yuyutsu,

"The ones who force the issue of state-sponsored homosexual marriage and indoctrinate children in schools to become homosexuals, are not homosexual themselves, but communists who hate the bourgeois concept of family. They probably never had a homosexual contact in their lives."

Christ, half their luck. No, I really don't think so: perhaps not communists, but the moron left has probably rooted every conceivable type of acquaintance including their dogs, up, down and sideways.

This really is an absurd discussion: bullying and sexuality. When I was in primary school at Penrith, there was a big Pommy kid, a bully, and in a complete fit of insanity once, I belted him in the eye and ran like hell, utterly terrified. But he was pretty good after that. So I would recommend that if some bully stands over another kid, belt him in the eye as hard as you can - and run as fast as you can. What on earth it's got to do with anybody being a poofter baffles me - if anything I thought that bully might be one, but what did I know at ten years old ?

Oh. I get it now. Poofter kids are the ones who are supposed to be getting bullied. Not where I went to school. of course, there were kids who you thought might not ever be attracted to girls, the most superior and wonderful gender, but that was no big deal. So I should think it is even less of a big deal these days.

And even in high school, I don't recall anybody being remotely interested in picking on the poofy kids, and there were a few of them around. Some were quite good friends; booky types like me, I suppose. Nobody cared back then, maybe because it was beyond our comprehension.

So maybe putting stupid ideas into some kids' heads may even have the reverse effect. Mind you, I don't care - as an old prick, I look forward to the next generations totally stuffing themselves up, the little snots deserve it. So go for it, kiddies !

Joe

Looks like Court coverage of a rape ring in Britain indicates that secular law based on Western civilisation (not Muslim) is essential in Australia.

Reported overnight "Rotherham abuse: Six convicted in Britain over systematic rape of young girls" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-25/six-convicted-in-britain-over-systematic-sex-crimes-rotherham/7198288 :

"The systematic sexual abuse, carried out in Rotherham over more than 15 years, has shocked Britain.

The trial brought to light the workings of a violent gang, led by 40-year-old Arshid Hussain and two of his brothers, which dealt in drugs and groomed at least 15 vulnerable young girls. The three brothers, their uncle and two women were convicted of numerous sexual crimes over a period between 1987 and 2003.

The court heard abusers called the young women "white trash".

In the wake of the convictions, one Muslim organisation has declared British Pakistanis must do more to confront abuse in their communities. "These sort of men have a very negative and in many cases, a racist attitude towards white young girls," said the Ramadhan Foundation's Mohammad Shafiq, who is a distant relative of the three brothers.

"For too long as a society, as a Pakistani community, we've turned a blind eye to these sort of crimes."

COMMENT

Pakistan is culturally near Afghanistan and Iran with the latter two countries providing many or most of the disproportionately high numbers of young men who claim to be "refugees". They are safely kept in Manus Island and Nauru.

Turnbull should not accept the weak arguments of the Greens that these men should be released into the Australian community.