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 > Whatever your relationship ... > Comments

Whatever your relationship ... : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 19/12/2007

Tasmania’s relationship registry isn’t a substitute for same-sex marriage but a step beyond it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Whatever. Any form of recognition of same sex relatioships is insulting to all decent people and another nail in the coffin of civilization.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 8:45:21 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 a shame when decency is coopted for aggressive prejudice. Recognition of same sex relationships is hardly a precursor to civilisational decline. Nor is aggressive conservatism. The world will continue to to plod along well after your death, I assure you Leigh.
Posted by grv.campbell, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 10:36:36 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
Perfectly decent, perfectly happy for religious zealots to stop campaiging to discriminate. Civilisation will still stand in whatever form long past the time we as humanity mature.
Posted by Al Shield, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 11:00:35 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
When women got the vote, the Leighs of the world were there to tell us that civilisation was in peril.

When Copernicus revealed that the sun did not orbit the earth, it was the Leighs who called for his immolation.

No-fault divorce, legal and safe abortion, the revolution of evolutionary science, lifing of the White Australia policy...

Every time western society has succesffully moved to improve the lot of humankind, stern conservatives have stood wagging their fingers and warning that no good would come of it. But good has come of it, and will this time, too.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 11:00:59 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
Rodney Croome seems determined to have it both ways, first arguing that a relationships register is as good as marriage (must be news to those who have accidentally 'married' their carer) and then arguing that we still need gay marriage after all.

There is a world of difference between registering an interdependent relationship (as Tasmania does) and establishing a system that only accomodates those in sexual relationships and provides for a formal 'wedding' ceremony with public vows presided over by a licensed official (as the ACT seeks to do). The first is a useful way of recognising a range of interdependent relationships; the second an attempt to enact gay marriage by a territory government determined to ignore the provisions of the Marriage Act and the policy consensus of its own party.

It is possible for state law to recognise a range of relationships: marriage, de facto marriage, and interdependent significant or caring relationships. The fact that Tasmania has replaced the term 'spouse' with the term 'significant partner' is disappointing but irrelevant. Marriage is a federal government issue so a state cannot erase it. Other states seeking to enact a relationships register can do so without changing the definitions of marriage. Federal Labor has committed itself to "ensure that any such scheme of relationship registration would not mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman."

Croome also refers to the way that the Tasmanian scheme is viewed in foreign laws. The UK does not have a system that recognises a range of interdependent relationships, so it has chosen to treat significant relationships registered under Tasmanian law as civil partnerships in UK law, ignoring those who have registered a caring relationship in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Relationships Act does not appear to recognise overseas same-sex unions, presumably because Tasmanian legislators were trying to recognise interdependent relationships, rather than homosexual unions specifically. They certainly had the opportunity to enact a reciprocal provision had they chosen to do so, as the first same-sex marriages were legalised in the Netherlands two years before Tasmania's laws were passed.
Posted by Jim Wallace, Australian Christian Lobby, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 12:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love tha neighbour Leigh
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 12:39:54 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
Sancho,
No fault divorce, systematic and government financed killing of the unborn, and evolutionary science. If you can make any kind of case for how these three things have made a positive contribution to the lot of mankind, or our western society, I would love to hear it.

Although, of these three, some have had a positive effect on the others. For example, evolutionary philosophy, survival of the fittest, the striving of the strong to eliminate the weak fits quite nicely with freely available abortion. Those of us who are strong can freely eliminate the weakest and most defenceless in our society.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 3:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is so sad about his whole issue is the condescension and self righteousness that the 'so-called' Australian Christian Lobby and its 'branch davidian like' fundamentalist followers rely on as 'decency'; as if they have the only franchise on what are acceptable social mores; that their selective use of their often widely different brands of "Holy Scripture" gives them the right to dictate to the whole of secular society what is and should be both ethical and moral. This fundamentalist dictatorship they so proudly espouse is divinely appointed by a carefully manipulated piece of text which they cudgel into a proclaimed mandate to impose their value system upon the world; namely Mark Chapter 16.

Much like the pharisees before them they have constructed their own sets of doctrines, creeds, rituals, sacrifices and generally ways to fleece their unquestioning followers into blindly accepting that because 10% of what they've said was right then everything they say must be just as true. This blind fundamentalism which has also made its way steadfastly into the halls of both established 'Christian' churches as well as those who would consider themselves independent; charismatic; brethren; home church; full-gospel; protestant and the most ritualistic of all, the 'inter-denominational' churches; carefully lifts each adherent up by their ankles and wrings every last penny from their pockets and savings accounts; all in the name of the salvation of the world.

Yet scarcely with the blink of an eye they find the freedom to condemn the Taliban for doing openly what they would prefer to remain hidden; occult; sanctified by tax concessions.

(Continued)
Posted by Graham Douglas-Meyer, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 3:49:51 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
(continuation)

When it all boils down to its essence people like the Leighs; the Jim Wallaces, the Bill Muehlenbergs, the Peter Jensens and the George Pells of this world have to scream "Bloody Murder" from the rooftops about subjects like Gay Marriage; Lesbian access to IVF; A woman's right to determine what happens to her body; because it takes our eyes off the way they disobey those other parts of their "Holy Scriptures" that command them:

To feed and clothe the poor
To work for peace for ALL humanity
To work for EQUALITY for all human beings
To respect the Dignity of ALL human beings; no matter their colour or creed.
Not to impose their will upon all people; but to demonstrate love for one another.

and Most certainly
Not to Judge anyone, as that is the sole propriety of their God; as they are unable to see the heart; the core of the person.

I hear the words of Rowan Atkinson's "Welcome to Hell" monologue...

"Apologies to All the Christians, the Jews were Right!"

PS even some of them seem to be moving in the right direction and blessing the "Loving Relationships" of same sex couples.
Posted by Graham Douglas-Meyer, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 3:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Christian principles and ethics accepted and influencing the way we are governed, do business and related to each as a community"

http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/australian-christian lobby

That as a mission statement, has to be the highest level of arrogance ever.

"Influencing the way we are governed". Isnt that what the ballot box is for.

"Do Business", Now we know were "Work Choices" came from.

"Related to each other as a community". As long as you think and believe as we do, more like it.

The ACL say they do not want to create a theocracy....Pull the other one guys!

You will never impose your unAustralian beliefs on Australians. Your being is no better than a tabloid newspaper.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 4:39:13 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
Thanks Graham,
I’m glad you got a chance to blow off a bit of steam and get that all of your chest.

Now for others who may be wondering what blind condescending fundmentalism is contained within the gospel of Mark chapter 16 and all the other stuff that Graham was going on about, I’ll type out some of it so that you don’t have to reference it.

Mark chapter 16

Saturday evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went out and purchased burial spices so they could anoint Jesus' body…

When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked, but the angel said, "Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn't here! He is risen from the dead!…

After Jesus rose from the dead early on Sunday morning, the first person who saw him was Mary Magdalene... She went to the disciples, who were grieving and weeping, and told them what had happened. But when she told them that Jesus was alive and she had seen him, they didn't believe her…

Still later Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating together. He rebuked them for their stubborn unbelief because they refused to believe those who had seen him after he had been raised from the dead.

And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptised will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them..."

When the Lord Jesus had finished talking with them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down in the place of honor at God's right hand…etc.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 4:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Man. What ever baggage you are carrying, it don't belong to you!

Respect people, respect the diversity of life, it aint yours it aint mine, its everybodies.

I have found that people that wish to control others, have a lacking in their own lives.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 6:06:07 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
Leigh

Shame on you man.

Homosexuals, who contribute greatly to all walks of society, have done it tough long enough.

You would have more credibility by criticising the millions of slimebag "heterosexual" paedophiles who often, under the respectability of marriage, prey on little children.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 8:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The tendency is for the laws of the land to follow some way behind the common accepted norms of society. The relationship law is simply reflecting the defacto situation.

With more children being born out of wedlock than in, the status of marriage (man, woman, children) being the accepted family model is crumbling. The protests by the religious right is merely a rear guard action that can slow but not stop the change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 20 December 2007 8:45:04 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
This registry or that, its all the same thing. State sanctioning of a relationship. Its the stuff of insecurity. Who needs it. Just be together and let that speak for itself. All the legal rights stuff is complete nonsense as you can make anyone you like a legal beneficiary of your possessions.

l also think the whole thing is clutching at disappearing straws. Marriage rate has halved and divorce rate has doubled in the last 2-3 decades, the genie is outta the bottle and its not going back in.

And people still get together, have kids, live life. Who knew.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 20 December 2007 11:45:49 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
The marriage contract was a deal made with the devil. It used to BOND people to each other, in a once upon a time very lop sided fashion. The idea of a contract that creates legalised human bondage is no longer compatible with recent cultural trends.

Thus was introduced no-fault divorce, to restore some semblence of humanity and expose the marriage contract for what it always was. Since the introduction of no-fault divorce, marriage has become purely SYMBOLIC, faiytale-like, romantic, imagined harking back to 'simpler times.' The contract itself has no teeth and does not conform to the workings nor intent of contract law, which is to bind participants to terms of conduct, with proscribed or court mediated penalties in the event of default. This sort of legal modus of agreed performance and remedy for default is utterly irreconcilable to the independent existence of another human being.

If you want that sort of thing you go for pre-nups or cohab agreements, which are mainly limited to division of assets. Its not possible to overide the provisions of family law. Though parties can agree to some wacky conditions, like maximum allowable weight gain and monetary penalties for infidelity. lm not sure how long the law will allow this way of implied behavioural bondage/compliance of another human being. As long as insecurity persists l guess.

Its dog-eat-dog, screw-thy-neighbour, l-me-mine ethos these days. Those who can create an escape from that nonsense in a loving and secure relationship/family, have my admiration.

You dont need the long arm of the law to make it so. In fact, inviting the state into a private intimate relationship sort of destroys the very intimacy and sanctuary of the idea.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 20 December 2007 12:09:50 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
Trade 215. If only life was simple as you have put it.

Do you have a pre marital agreement with your partner?

Are your mutual assets safe from others right to make claim on your assets?

Is your home safe from the same claim?

You will be amazed at the incidents same couples have to live with.

Should you or your partner be taken ill and hospitalised,either of you will have the right to be in attendence and be consulted on their treatment. Same sex couples can be denied that right.

Should you or your partner die, the surving partner will have rights to the funeral arrangements. Same sex couples do not have that right, and it is not uncommon that the partner of the deceased life partner,will be denied to attend the funeral.

Did you and your partner have to pay a lawyer, to cement your relationship and safeguard your mutual personal interests and assets?

If so, it aint much of a relationship!

So why should same sex couples, who just want to be together, need a legal stranger to secure their being, you dont!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 20 December 2007 6:37:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with the register at all. I think it's great if it can be used in any legal sense as a recognition of an interdependent relationship. It's a step in the right direction.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 December 2007 6:45:28 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
Kipp I guess if homos get real focussed on the money because their perverted relationship doesn't fulfil them.

Dickhe there is no reason for shame.

"Homosexuals, who contribute greatly to all walks of society, have done it tough long enough."

Yeah right they are all rich. Haven't you heard of the pink dollar? They are doing it real tough not.

"You would have more credibility by criticising the millions of slimebag "heterosexual" paedophiles who often, under the respectability of marriage, prey on little children."

Why can't Leigh be free to comment on all types of perverts? If people like Leigh don't stand up and be counted homos will prey on children if they get married.
Posted by J Bennett, Monday, 24 December 2007 8:43:02 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
Perverts exist in all shapes and sizes amongst all kinds of people.
Why do you need to attach stigmas and labels to people whose preference for a partner differs from yours? Where's the evidence for what you're claiming? A relationship between two consenting adults is nobody's business - except their own. However, they are entitled to legal recognition and rights under the law - the same as the rest of us.

I think your attitudes are rather dehumanizing to say the least.
Are you so morally superior that you feel your way is the only way in this world. Go talk to your local church leader - perhaps instead of saving the world, you may just be able to save yourself. Or at least get an ounce of humanity bestowed upon you.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 24 December 2007 9:06:53 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
"Why can't Leigh be free to comment on all types of perverts? If people like Leigh don't stand up and be counted homos will prey on children if they get married."

What planet are you on J Bennett?

I suspect you don't know the difference between a paedophile and a homosexual. Unbelievably, that ignorance applies to many other naive people also.

While there happens to be deviates in all groups, homosexuals do not prey on children.

Paedophiles do, therefore causing harm to innocent victims - many who must carry this psychological burden for ever.

I remind you that many "heterosexual" husbands insist on sodomising their wives, though they like to keep that a secret between themselves and their wives!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 24 December 2007 2:13:00 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
To assist J.Bennet:

http://asca.org.au/childabuse/ca_figures.html

Though one doubts that facts mean anything to J.Bennet.

Kipp
Rich Gayman!
First class taxpayer, not allowed to receive any government subsidies or benefits!
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 2:19:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy anyone with the brains of a fly can tell you that the obvious consequence of legal recognition of a consenting relationship is open slather on adoption of innocent children. Everyone has an interest in protecting children. I am not going to buy into your god delusion it obviously messes with peoples minds when they think calling a spade a spade is dehumanising.

Dickhea I am on planet earth with my feet firmly planted. I know about the bum boys CE Morgan has owned up to it just after calling himself an “enthusiastic heterosexual”. Just putting children in the care of homosexuals almost fits the bill but what I’m saying is more that that.

How is it that when people resisting homo rights demands said that homos agenda was to redefine marriage homo activists acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry yet now they ask for gay marriage? How is it that homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a lifestyle choice but now swear blindly they are born that way? Right now supposedly the thing is consenting adults and they claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar so I'm suspicious.
Posted by J Bennett, Thursday, 27 December 2007 8:27:23 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
Kipp thank you for the information but just because it is a big problem doesn’t mean we should risk making it worse and I have to say that I’m sorry if my tone is too strong sometimes people with your problem. I have just been arguing with a real nasty piece of work who happened to be a homo. Your activists have put you between a rock and a hard place so I don’t think there is any easy solution to your problem because you know that getting everything you want will mean that some of your group will want kids. You could go to a psychiatrist for help but your activist buddies have forced them to sell you out so you might have trouble finding one who can help you. However if you got cured you could get married and get everything you want but I can see how difficult your situation is apart from being a “Rich” which obviously wouldn’t hurt. If you have been a homo for many years change would be difficult anyway so I can understand how you would feel. I would hate and find it difficult to have to change sexual orientation if it turned out that being a heterosexual was unnatural because I’m set in my ways.
Posted by J Bennett, Thursday, 27 December 2007 8:29:23 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
Dear JBennett,

Anyone with the brain of a fly - hmmmmm? I guess you'd know more about that than I would.

Open slather on the adoption of children? Where do you get your facts? What evidence do you have that all same sex couples want children? I didn't realize that adopting a child was such an easy matter. Isn't every child up for adoption at risk in some way? What guarantees are there that a heterosexual couple are going to make good parents?

And calling a spade a spade? Well, there are all sorts of spades.
There's scoops, bails, and shovels. Or do you mean 'spades' as in
playing cards? Ace, king, queen, joker, jack, or knave?

Lighten up a little JB - It's a New Year just around the corner... Make a fresh start - you'll live longer. (And leave the flies alone).
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 December 2007 2:59:58 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
Foxy yes open slather on the adoption of children. If the law pretended that a homo couple were married wouldn't it logically flow that the kids right to a mum and dad whenever possible would be lost? How can the law say that a homo couple are the equivalent of a normal married couple but then not indulge them with kids? I don't think all same sex couples want children and every child up for adoption is at risk in some way but that doesn't mean that we need to ignore an obvious risk. We can't guarantee anything positive but the least we can do for the kids is meet their need for a mum and dad and if we can't give them that but are happy to give them to a homo couple who seem nice they might as well stay with the nice staff at the adoption agency. They might work there because they love the kids.

"And leave the flies alone"

They do say they spread disease so we should keep them zipped up.
Posted by J Bennett, Friday, 28 December 2007 9:13:43 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
About 10% of the population is believed to be predominantly homosexual, although most of these people also have some heterosexual experience and many actually marry. The great majority of gay men and lesbian women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives.

Changing attitudes have made these unions far more socially acceptable than in the past, and in fact, some churches are now performing weddings for gay couples, although these marriages have no legal force.

A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness of many courts to grant custody of children to a gay parent - usually the mother. In some cases, families with two gay adults are created, usually when a divorced lesbian mother forms a relationship with another woman.

For several years, moreover, social welfare agencies in large cities have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys - who are unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes in the custody of gay males, usually couples.

One interesting possibility, incidentally, is suggested by the rapid advances in the availability and technology of artificial insemination: if they so choose, lesbian women may be able to become mothers without having had an heterosexual relationships at all.

What is happening is that there is an increasing tolerance of a variety of alternative marriages and family styles. The reasons are linked, primarily to the nature of modern Australia as a postindustrial society. A hallmark of which is its economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism.

In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want rather than in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 28 December 2007 1:45:06 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
Foxy,

"The great majority of gay men and lesbian women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives."

Do we have some stats on this and can we clarify some timelines here (ie: long-lasting ie more than 10 minutes?)

Those genralisations aside, the other ones you make are spot on:

"a highly developed sense of individualism...In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want rather than in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs."

This was why marriage was traditionally afforded special terms as it creates a social order that is productive in more ways that one!

Since the introduction of de facto recognition, no fault divorce etc, the 'special terms' are no longer an advantage solely for traditional families. We are now only starting to see some of the indirect costs of this scenario such as, for example, the explosion in child sexual abuse.

Marriage ain't perfect, but 'liaise affair' lifestyles have unforseen costs too.
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 10:59:22 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
"We are now only starting to see some of the indirect costs of this scenario such as, for example, the explosion in child sexual abuse."

Reality Check. I don't believe there is an explosion in child sexual abuse.

Child sexual abuse has always been rampant. The difference now is that children are encouraged to speak up rather than remain silent and ashamed. Many parents (though not all) are also more observant and less naive.

I can assure you that in the 40's, in my region, where conventional marriages were the norm, paedophiles were also rampant, often disguised by their good and religious deeds, their own respectable family and their standing in the community where the naivety of parents was well and truly exploited by these fiends.

However, like most predators of any species, paedophiles prefer to exploit the more vulnerable in society and some children are more vulnerable than others, a result of trusting or frequently absent guardians.

Denying couples equal rights because of the gender of their partner, or moralising over who has consensual, adult sex with whom, reveals that we have not yet evolved into a tolerant society or developed a maturity befitting of the 21st century.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 12:39:51 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
Foxie even homos admit they are about 2.4% not 10% see your other forum. With Mardi Gras and constant bombardment of pro-gay stuff in the media that might change but to date the numbers are nothing like that.

”In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want” “Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs.”

Exactly correct but that highlights a problem because marriage is a public institution that relates to children and can never be just about self-fulfilment. Kids cannot be allowed to be victims. Kids aren’t commodities. Gay marriage is an ugly thing.

”Denying couples equal rights because of the gender of their partner, or moralising over who has consensual, adult sex with whom, reveals that we have not yet evolved into a tolerant society or developed a maturity”

Dickie if that were what was being discussed then you might be right but the issue is not denying rights but instead denying wrongs and not giving the wrongs the force of law. The who has sex with whom thing is totally irrelevant because noone is calling for homosexuality to be outlawed. But kids need to be protected. Homos just keep trying to shut people up from telling the truth by calling anyone who disagrees with them homophobic and writing off any opposition as religious nutters or accusing them of being interested in what homos do in the bedroom. If that dishonesty works their wrongs will be considered rights by the law even if thinking members of the public know it is wrong.

Gay marriage is ugly enough for kids but is anyone game to face the issue that homos next step after marriage/adoption may be to change the catch cry from consenting adult to consenting person including children? Sure no mainstream activist will own up to it but they used to deny they would seek gay marriage.
Posted by J Bennett, Thursday, 3 January 2008 10:56:55 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
"The who has sex with whom thing is totally irrelevant because noone is calling for homosexuality to be outlawed. "

You've lost me J Bennett. So what's this debate about and why do you call them "homos?"

Does anyone call you a "heter" J Bennett?

Many kids are now being raised by a sole heterosexual male.

In gay marriages, there will be two males to share the burden and statistics so far reveal that children raised by gays are well adjusted and do not become gay.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:16:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J Bennett: " Homos just keep trying to shut people up from telling the truth by calling anyone who disagrees with them homophobic and writing off any opposition as religious nutters or accusing them of being interested in what homos do in the bedroom. If that dishonesty works their wrongs will be considered rights by the law even if thinking members of the public know it is wrong."

On the basis of his persistent hateful bleating on this subject, it's pretty clear to thinking members of the public that J Bennett is a classic homophobe. His opinions on homosexual relationships can therefore best be ignored, since they are the product of psychopathology rather than reason.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:50:02 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
Reading through your postings J.Bennett, it would appear you have issues in your life that you have not dealt with.

You responded to me " However if you got cured get married and get everything you want".

What sort of comment is that other than an indication, of a person who is living a very unhappy life, who accordingly takes their fustration out on others, out of envy!

J.Bennett. Live your life and respect others, then your life may be better and happy!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 3 January 2008 5:19:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"noone is calling for homosexuality to be outlawed."

”So what's this debate about and why do you call them "homos?"

Does anyone call you a "heter" J Bennett?”

Dickie the thread is about a marriage like thing for homos and of course associated issues but I don’t believe anyone has extended it as far as calling for homosexuality to be outlawed. Hetero is the equivalent abbreviation for heterosexual but I don’t know what homos call us?

”J Bennett is a classic homophobe. His opinions on homosexual relationships can therefore best be ignored"

CE Morgan trust an "enthusiastic" analphillic hetero to be the first to latch onto the word in response.

Seriously you say that to take the piss out of me but some homos would say exactly that with a straight face and some heteros are stupid enough to take it seriously.

Gay marriage is ugly enough for kids but is anyone game to face the issue that homos next step after marriage/adoption may be to change the catch cry from consenting adult to consenting person including children? Sure no mainstream activist will own up to it but they used to deny they would seek gay marriage.

Kipp "You responded to me " However if you got cured get married and get everything you want"."

What sort of comment is that other than an indication, of a person who is living a very unhappy life, who accordingly takes their fustration out on others, out of envy!

I don't completely understand the only frustration I took out on you in the comment was my concern about your well being and "takes their frustration out" is a queer way of expressing that. You are right that there is some envy because fools consider homos like sacred cows but it is limited because I know of your problems.

"J.Bennett. Live your life and respect others, then your life may be better and happy!"

Thank you for taking out your frustration on me but I am fine. There are some people present company not included as yet who I find it hard to respect.
Posted by J Bennett, Monday, 7 January 2008 8:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Gay marriage is ugly enough for kids but is anyone game to face the issue that homos next step after marriage/adoption may be to change the catch cry from consenting adult to consenting person including children?"

Uh, ok, I'm game. That's a ridiculous assertion for which you have no proof. Australia is united in believing children cannot consent to sex - it's one of our most stable laws. The worldwide trend is the other way - countries where the age of consent was once what we in the west consider too young are increasingly raising that age. In Australian, no lobby group is attempting to change the age of consent. I have never met or heard of a gay person who is in the least bit interested in changing the age of consent.

Gay people aren't attracted to children. They're attracted to people of their own sex. Pedeophiles are attracted to children.

If you're suggesting that adults may attempt to make having sex with children legal in order to abuse them, then statistically this call is more likely to come from heterosexual men. (Not that I in any way believe that it will.) Children who are abused are most likely to be abused by a heterosexual relative or friend of the family. More girls than boys are abused, but even adult male sexual abusers of boys often do not believe they are gay.

If you have some proof for your assertion, let's have a look at it. If not, it seems to me paranoid and not really worth debating.
Posted by botheration, Monday, 7 January 2008 12:45:51 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
Okay here is some proof but be clear that I am not trying to completely get away from the issue of perverts bringing up children as being a problem by itself but am just raising an additional concern with the molestation.

There is good grounds for suspicion and no chances should be taken with kids safety. Homos are already perverts with a similar condition to paedophiles, people often have more than one mental illness so why not similar ones, and the only people who know for sure are homos and they don't have a good history of being honest about their agenda.

Of course something always leaks out (although lucky I checked it today as it wasn't working and I needed to get it from archive). Here is a link from an honest homo in America who names a bunch of politicians with similar views and it is obvious from his writing that he knows others of his persuasion agree with him. If they all disagreed why would he bother with the website?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070710185136/http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/ophocounton.html
Posted by J Bennett, Monday, 14 January 2008 9:16:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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