The Forum > Article Comments > Meet the family > Comments
Meet the family : Comments
By Stuart Horrex, published 1/9/2016I, like my fiancé, am an Australian citizen, so the natural question is, why should we be forced to leave our own country to get married?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 1 September 2016 7:27:38 AM
| |
I think the author is already creating a "segregated" system by labeling people "straights" as he does in this article.
I do not want to be given a label by a homosexual, and they can keep their labeling for themselves With all the references to america in this article, maybe the author should go and live in america, and stay there. As for Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, 89 minutes into the first sitting of Parliament and the members of the Labor party and the Liberal party were was hurling abuse at each other. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-and-the-parliamentary-art-of-talking-through-his-paper-hat-20160831-gr5d64.html But this was acceptable, as long as the person being abused is not homosexual. But here is a picture of a homosexual being brutalized by police officers in Sydney. http://cdn.scahw.com.au/imagevaultfiles/id_52860/cf_8/sydney-mardi-gras-2011_13.jpg And here is a picture of a group of thugs who are out to hunt down homosexuals in Sydney http://www.elindependiente.mx/galerias/mardi_gras_gay2_04032013.JPG And here is a picture of a lesbian who has been forced to wear a horribly grotesque piece of apparatus on her face. http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sydney+Gay+Lesbian+Mardi+Gras+Parade+NLuuI11h8lQl.jpg So this is the suppression and oppression of homosexuals in Australia? Posted by interactive, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:08:32 AM
| |
Well done "interactive", now I will go read the article and get back to you!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:39:34 AM
| |
Personally I couldn't care less if you want to get married.
Go ahead, do whatever you want, you're most likely going to anyway. But I'll oppose marriage equality anyway because of all the 'mission creep' towards the kids. First it will be marriage. Fine.. whatever.. But then you'll want to adopt a kid and indoctrinate them that your lifestyle is normal. NO And you'll want to keep pushing to normalise homosexuality with a token queer on every TV show. NO And you'll keep pushing the gay agenda onto heterosexual families in schools. NO Meetups in public toilets for sex. NO Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:41:13 AM
| |
Private life has the right to be lived without interference.
However "marriage" , like "motor car" has a certain meaning. A lock and key can "marry" but not 2 keys ( except twins , which is probably an incestuous marrying - dunno about male twins). A man's best friend is his dog , male or bitch. Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:53:14 AM
| |
Stuart
The act of marriage is the exchange of vows, not the signing of the register. You have the same right to marry as heterosexuals; always have had. What you can't do is get the government to *register* your sexual relationship. (Why you would want to, and what business it is of government's, is beyond me.) By the way, do you support marriage equality for polyamorous? Are you prepared to fight for them in a pitched battle? If not, then you're not for marriage equality and don't say you are. The discussion of "marriage equality" for homosexuals is all too inadequate. It fails to address the real underlying issue, which is, why should government be registering sexual relationships in the first place? What's your answer? I think the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, and the de facto relationships legislation should all be repealed, as the starting point. The central planning of sexual relationships is just as flawed, dysfunctional and illegitimate as the central planning of anything else, being based on a flawed view of human society. There is no justification for what you are suggesting, because governmental registration of sexual relationships either should not exist in the first place, or should be extended to any consensual sexual relationship. Your rationale does not make sense, and is only seeking for yourself an unjust exclusive privilege the exclusivity and injustice of which you decry in others. The fact is, you don't want a plebiscite because you know very well the majority of Australians don't agree with you. Of course this only begs the question why a majority should decide on matters of sexuality. But this applies equally to all questions of sexuality, not just yours. Why should yours become legal, and others' continue to be illegal? Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 1 September 2016 9:52:14 AM
|
I pity you for being such a delicate flower that you need the whole of Australia to be made a "safe space" for you by blocking any discussion that makes you uncomfortable.
If you had to choose between a Plebiscite in Feb 2017 and legislation in April 2017 or waiting until 2019 or 2022, which would you pick?