With all the noise being made by gay lobbyists about their right to marry, often suggesting that the majority now supports their quest, I think they have to understand that a large portion of the non gay population, simply doesn't give a toss, so the numbers are somewhat distorted.

Using the 'squeaky wheel' scenario, the law of averages would suggest they will more than likely succeed with thier quest.

So before they go to much further with this, I would suggest they ask themselves, will we be happy for our union to be classed as 'legally married', or, will that mean little to us if the general public either don't care, or don't recognize them as married.

I would suggest the latter.

After all, recognition is more what this is all about.

As I say, being legal and being recognized are two very different things, and that is something I doubt they could accept.

Being legal affords them the protection of law and from discrimination that is what I think they are after. But it also opens a can of worms they may not have thought about like in a break up someone gets half of what the other had.
Personally I hate the idea of two gay men making out in public. What they do behind closed doors I don't care, out of sight out of mind.

Philip I think that the de-facto laws opened that can of worms up for same sex couples already as it did for a lot of people who quite specifically had not chosen to make the non-binding commitment that is marriage.

I doubt that the marriage issue has a lot to do with legal protection for most, it is however one of the few remaining government endorsed points of discrimination remaining.

There are all sorts of arguments against which don't stand scrutiny when compared to the way 2 person heterosexual marriages actually seem to exist in our world.

I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business, while they stay in it marriage should be available to all consenting adult humans regardless of their gender or numbers mix. As some of the religious crowd seem to struggle with this I'll point it out again, no pets or children allowed as they are not consenting adult humans.

R0bert

Philip>> Being legal affords them the protection of law and from discrimination that is what I think they are after. But it also opens a can of worms they may not have thought about like in a break up someone gets half of what the other had.<<

Philip I believe you have it arse about. As I understand it, from the long term political activists in the Gay community, it is about the right to claim the estate of your partner should he or she shuffle off. The recognition by the State that if a person dies intestate that their recognized legal partner is the primary heir.

>>Personally I hate the idea of two gay men making out in public. What they do behind closed doors I don't care, out of sight out of mind.<<

I can't bear to look at two men with moustaches kissing and I have no issue with faggoty guys, but that sends a shiver up my spine. Two unattractive dykes do the same for me. But paradoxically I don't look away if two hot chicks are swapping saliva.

Rehctub, if by “recognized” you mean accepted by society, that aint going to happen. In the same way we differentiate races we differentiate sexuality, we may not call a gay a gay, but we identify it as a point of difference between that person and ourselves. In exactly the same way the gay person identifies heterosexuals as different from them, and as for bisexuals, they are just greedy.

What a picture, two walruses coming together, and they are both cigar smokers.

I support gay marriage for this reason.
Two gay friends of one of my sons, who met in university - I'll call them John and Bill to make the story easier to tell - formed a lasting relationship and lived together for more than fifteen years.
While Bill was overseas, John had a stroke and was in hospital, unconscious.
Bill caught the first plane back.
When he arrived at the hospital, John's family, who had never acknowledged the relationship, even though these two men were genuinely in love for fifteen plus years, claimed the right to make decisions at the hospital and said only family members could see John, thus Bill was excluded.
Bill sat in the waiting room for a little over two days until a nurse finally came to tell him that John had just died without ever regaining consciosuness.
He never had the chance to say goodbye to the love of his life.
Can you imagine his feelings as he sat in that waiting room?
I still find this deeply moving, and can only imagine if it had been my wife in there and I was not allowed to see her; because for Bill, it was the same thing.
It convinced me that any circumstances that can allow such cruelty cannot be right.
And so, for this reason, I do give a toss and actively support gay marriage.
Admittedly this happened a few years ago, and perhaps things have changed legally, but I think gay marriage would do no harm, but it might save someone else from going through such an experience.
And can anybody seriously say that the love between two gay people is any less real, any less valid than the love between two heterosexual people?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Making it legal can make it recognised. My son lives in Virginia which had legalised segregation by race. Separate schools, separate churches, separate hotels and separate toilets. The Supreme Court declared separate schools illegal. At first when one went into a restaurant one would find both blacks and whites but all black tables and all white tables. Gradually they started to mix. Now you see intermingling and mixed dating. It took a while but mixing now is voluntary. I go back there every two or three years to visit him and notice the changes.

I think it will be the same if same-sex marriage is made legal. At first some people will be uneasy about, but it gradually will be accepted and recognised.

David,I dont mean to rain on your parrade, but these are two very different scenarios, as the difference between colored and white are instantly recognizable.

You can have a bar full of gays and non gays, and have no idea who is married, if gays be allowed to marry that is.

You can also have a group of females/males sitting together and have no idea whether any of them form a couple.

So short of having a tattoo or say an arm band, I think your example has flaws.

As I say, I doubt they (gays) will be satisfied with the legal right, as I am sure they will want recognition.

After all, many married men these days, myself included (27yrs) domt wear a ring.

So strangers would not know if we were married, or just an item.

I hope all this fuss about gay marriage is not just the beginning.

Dear rehctub,

What are you worried about when you write, "I hope all this fuss about gay marriage is not just the beginning."

Beginning of what? I am a man married to a woman for over 30 years. I don't see how same sex marriage will affect my marriage at all. If one of us is in hospital the other can get in to be with the one who is sick even though other people may not be allowed to. That is because our relationship is recognised. If same sex marriage is allowed it will be the same with people with that type of relationship. They will also have inheritance and other rights other married people have, and I see no reason why they shouldn't have those rights.

Exactly what are you worried about?

Dear rehctub,

You didn't rain on my parade at all. Whether black and white people are recognisable is not the point. The point was that making something legal resulted in making it acceptable. In the case of racial segregation making race mixing legal resulted in making it acceptable. Those who do not want to mix are free not to do so. If same sex marriage will be made legal I think it will become acceptable. Those who don't want to be married to someone of the same sex will be free not to do so. What is different from the present is that those who want to be married to someone of the same sex will be free to do so, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to do so.

What will happen is that we'll just have two classes of marriage but same sex marriage will always be regarded as the lesser form, the "Clayton's Marriage", like White people who convert to Islam or Judaism, they're not "really" Jews or Muslims but under the law they can demand that people outside their faith treat them as such. Same sex marriage is always going to be second best because it's been created out of thin air by an an amendment to act of parliament by politicians who are roundly hated by the people and who agreed to starve then bomb Iraqi children so long as they kept their jobs, I'd hate to be in a situation where Warmongers, sell outs and corrupt union stooges were my only moral support. The "rights" of gays could also be taken away at the stroke of a pen if the political and managerial castes were threatened by, oh let's say the flood of hostile, medieval minded Third World immigrants who are quietly filling the nooks and crannies of suburbia. What are gay going to do in decades to come when there's two or three million Muslims and Third world fundamentalist Christians on the electoral roll?

Jay,
A fairly comprehensive rant.
Is there anybody you don't hate?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,
A fairly typical response from someone with no ideas of his own.
Care to debate? Nope, thought not, it's so much easier to just squeal STUPID! IGNORANT! EVIL! because then you won't have to think about things like African homophobia or persecution of Gays in the Third World.
What do you predict will happen to "Gay rights" when this country is over 50% Third World people and the Anglo Saxon politicians need their votes to stay in office?

Anthony,
Here's a snippet from not so long ago, "Caucasian or Mediterranean appearance" means Lebanese BTW:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/men-mauled-in-alleged-gay-bashing/story-e6frf7kx-1225971305438

Dear Jay,

You wrote: "White people who convert to Islam or Judaism"

Are you saying that being a Jew or Muslim means you're not a white person?

Jay,
Thanks for the invite to debate, and, contrary to your assumption, (making factless assumptions appears to be one of your modus operandi), I will accept.
If you would care to check the last census data, you will find there are less than 400,000 Muslims in Australia. That's around 1.8% of our
population.
So your inference that we're being overrun is - well, let's just say, a tad hyperbolic.
Second, you seem to have assumed that somehow these migrants will take over Australian culture and reshape it according to their's.
I happen to have a little more faith in Aussie culture. I think it's far more likely that within a generation or two, most migrants discover that, on balance, Aussie values and way of life are pretty good, and they tend to adopt our values rather than impose their's.
What basis do I have for that hypothesis?
Well,let's look at the previous waves of migrants to our land.
The Vietnamese? We were told by people like you two generations ago that the Vietnamese would take over, work for nothing and we'd all end up eating rice.
But what happened. The vast majority of Vietnamese people turned into outstanding, hardworking Aussies.
Let's look at the post war wave of Greek migrants. Sure they still love their Greek culture, and Melbourne has the largest Greek community in the world after Athens.
But I guarantee you that the vast majority of those people of now Greek extraction, while proud of their heritage, are also proud Aussies who love the Australian culture and way of life.
So, history and statistics tell me that you're anticipating a disaster that will never happen.
Remember what the Spanish philosopher Georges Santayana said, "Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it."
Because you are not looking at our history of migration, you are spouting the same fear mongering nonsense as did your forbears, one, two or three generations ago.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

David F,
Ask jews and Muslims if they're White, I was using White converts to illustrate a point about the legitimacy of the state using anti discrimination laws to enforce tolerance among skeptics of certain practices or beliefs. I'd be putting the gun in my own mouth by making statements about the ethnic origins of Jewish people, it's a subject which is strictly off limits for Gentiles.
Anthony,
Not the point, I clearly said that Anglo Saxon politicians will do anything to maintain their hold on government, if and when Australia is majority Third World society they will have to accomodate the views of religious and conservative Christians and Muslims or lose their seats.
We hear a lot on this site about mediaeval superstition in Christianity and it's role in supposedly victimising homosexuals but as usual those posters have a completely outdated view of the world, they're literally stuck in the past.
Christianity is no longer a White European religion, it's a now Third World faith which is rapidly expanding and will soon overtake Islam, third worlders are taught to take scripture literally, the Bible is a living document to millions of Africans and Asians.
Look at it this way.According to gay advocates they have the support of 60% of Australians, well 60% of which demographic? 60% of White Australians is about 48% of the total population, that's already a minority, what proportion of Chinese Australians support it?
Indians? Koreans? Pacific Islanders? Africans? Could we reasonably speculate that the figure is probably going to be close to zero in those groups?
From all I can gather the plan is to turn Australia into a majority Third World Nation with an Anglo Saxon governing elite, historically that hasn't worked out well, remember Apartheid?
You're debating a person who having looked at all the angles to the story isn't even opposing gay marriage anymore, let them get married but the society of today is going to rapidly disappear in the next decade or two and the anglo saxon political caste will have to come to term with their new constituents.

<<a majority Third World Nation with an Anglo Saxon governing elite, historically that hasn't worked out well, remember Apartheid?>>

Jay,
You certainly aren't one to let the facts get in the way of a good theory, are you.
I do remember apartheid, and it occurred not under an Anglo Saxon regime but rather a Boer regime.
Two very different things.
You are making wild assertions such as the intention is to make Australia a "majority third world country".
Well, what does that mean, it either is or it isn't
Do you mean a majority of Australians coming from third world countries?
If so, then that's nonsense. Even with the recent increase, we only take 125,000 migrants/annum, and not all of those are from third world countries.
And that's out of a population of 23 million.
At that rate, it would take a couple of hundred years for the third world originating component of Australians to be a majority.
And by then they would be as Aussie as anyone.
The facts just do not support your theory.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

I think you're confused. You're confusing religion with skin colour and complexion. The definition of race can be problematical, but it does not overlap with the definition of religion. Christians, Jews and Muslims come in all the different colours that other humans do.

Anthony,
Fine, instead of addressing the issue we'll split hairs, or I'll slightly re phrase my points, bear in mind I'm not a trained writer so a little tolerance please.
Apartheid governments were dominated by Whites under their own system of classification, some of whom were Anglo Saxon, most of whom were Boer, it was a disaster because it's values were not those of the majority non White population and it's policies were enacted without their consent, the connection with my previous points should have been obvious.
When Australia becomes a majority non White society in the near future the government, which will still be made up of Anglo Saxons,( who can be classed as White), they will either have to accomodate the values of their constituents or go the way of the Apartheid politicians and use force to keep these "Aussie Values" in place.
The makeup of the migrant population suggests that conservative, even fundamentalist values will prevail and even if future governments do try to enforce "tolerance" they will have to shift to a more authoritarian mode of dealing with their constituents.
I'm not particularly worried about non Whites "taking over", I'd be more fearful of weak, self hating Anglos reversing progressive legislation in order to save their own skins.
Muslims and Christians are basically straight up, they're honest about their beliefs and they tend to stay on one course no matter what pressure is applied to them, Anglophobic Anglo Saxons, such as the ones currently ensconced in Canberra are weak, vain and malleable when put under duress.
The talking point I'm using at the moment is "The progressive reforms you seek will be impossible in a country that looks like Brazil or South Africa", and as all propagandists know truth is relative when you're playing to win.

David,
I'm not confused, I've studied the issue in great detail but as a Gentile I'd put myself and the owners of the site at risk of legal action by commenting on matters pertaining to Judaism and it's ethnic or racial makeup, that is to say I do have an interest in the matter but the minority group concerned does not take kindly to outsiders sticking their oar in, so to speak. I like posting here, so lets leave it at that, I made no comment on Jews or Muslims in the post you questioned, only used the device of White converts as an example of a possible perception by skeptics of "Claytons"religious identity, now if you want to get into "Who's White?" start another thread but leave Jews and Muslims out of it or it'll be a very short discussion.

Dear Jay,

You were the one who mentioned whites converting to Judaism or Islam. If you would like to take back your statement we can forget it. However, one defines white, it refers to a race. Judaism and Islam refer to religions. The statement was nonsense.

David, I can tell you who I think is White but I can't tell you what I think about other ethnic groups in that regard.
I'm a White Nationalist as you well know, our concept of Whiteness is political, ethnic, territorial and spiritual, of course opinions vary within the various White sects but generally speaking we don't believe in a "White Race" as such. A White person is someone whose primary self described identity is White and it refers to non Jewish people of wholly indigenous European descent who identify as White, Europe being the territory east of Dunmore Head and west of the Urals with a border loosely drawn along a line through Athens/ Burgas/ Tbilisi.
So you can appreciate that in most circumstances we are a tiny minority group, maybe only a few hundreds of thousands worldwide that's why we affect the political tactics and outward demeanour of an ethnic minority under pressure from hostile outsiders.
Now I'll explain how it works from your side.
We're the ethnicity people like you call White Trash, Bogan, Redneck, Cracker, Honky, Nazi and Caveman, you know who we are because you have derogatory names for us.
I actually gave an example earlier regarding a Lebanese man in relation to alleged bias crimes, see in the article he's described as "Caucasian Mediterranean" but if he was scoring tries for the Panthers or running a youth group he'd be described as Lebanese, you follow?
George Zimmerman is described as "White" because he shot a black man named Trayvon Martin, if he'd won a Nobel prize he'd be described as Hispanic. You dig?
Anyway this is off topic, judging by our history of trading barbs you regard White Nationalists as crazy/stupid/evil and you're trying to goad me into posting what you want me to say because you view me as intellectually inferior, sorry old chap, it won't work ;)

Well, Jay,
I wouldn't use any of the terms you use to describe yourself, although I wouldn't disagree with any of them.
I would use the terms, racist and barbaric, and I would say your not smart enough to let your brain get ahead of your primitive emotions.
you're driven by your fears, like a child.
Come back when you've grown up and learned how to think.
Anthony,
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

You are a human being, and I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth or ascribe thoughts to me that I have not expressed. I am not trying to goad you into anything. I am disagreeing with you in a polite manner.

I think you are very wrong, but I don't think you are intellectually inferior. I admit I am glad that most people do not agree with you.

Zimmerman has been described as Hispanic and has not won a Nobel prize. You got the fact of his Hispanic background from the news reports as did I.

David,
Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, if so I apologise, there was a David on here that I used to butt heads with all the time, I write a few thousand words of internet posts and comments per day, sometimes I lose track of who is who.
As I said, if you want to talk about White identity then we can in another thread but for now I think I've made my point regarding "Being legal and being recognised are two entirely different things".
Having spent many hours reading on this topic I can't find any reason to oppose homosexual marriages which could be backed by a pro White argument, it's really a non issue but to me it seems like surrender by the Gay lobby and I think they're foolish to embrace Liberalism because they'll ultimately be sold out.
At one point I thought that maybe this was a bona fide Hard Left assault on the Anglo Saxon Liberal dominance so despised by my side,but it appears that they all just want to be good little church going dags or take long walks by the beach with their jumpers tied round their shoulders, so be it.
Maybe there's some Homo Wolf Cult or tribe of nude Aryan horsemen forming a fifth column to sweep in from flank and ride the Judeo Christians into the earth but until I see spears glinting at sunrise I'll try to reamin calm :)

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

I don't want to discuss White identity or butt heads with you. You have expressed your ideas sufficiently that I know where you're coming from. May you enjoy your day.

David, I respectfully suggest that engaging with Jay is a waste of time.
He's a self acknowledged racist.
What more need one say?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,
In your opinion I'm a Racist, you're only saying that because I'm White, Anti Racist is a code word for Anti White.

David,
Fine, neither do I but here's some new information which might interest you, this is from May this year by Israeli news site Haaretz :
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

Jay,
Garbage!
Racism isn't code for anything. It simply means discriminating on the basis of race. Period.
Anti racism means the exact opposite. Period.
And there is no place for racism in a civilized society. Period.
It's simple. Period.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,
In your opinion I'm a racist, have I racially abused or denigrated anyone of another race or ethnic group on this thread? I specifically said I wasn't going to comment on matters pertaining to other races but that I'm happy to discuss White identity, a discourse on which I view as always beneficial to White people.
You're just puffing up to the size of Frank Thring and venting steam over the fact that I'm talking about White identity in a positive way,you wouldn't be blowing a gasket if I was promoting Aboriginal pride, or Maori pride.
You say you are anti Racist, what you are is anti White, anti Racism is just a code word for anti White,

Say, Anthony,
Your wife, partner or significant other wouldn't happen to be Asian would he/she?
I only ask because guys with non white wives or male companions are usually the first to go ballistic when the subject of White identity comes up, closely followed by people who have never even heard of White Nationalism before I bring it up.

Anthony!, Anthony? (taps on screen)
I tell you what, you can write one of your imaginary interviews with me on your blog and we'll discuss my "Racism" in your comments section, I'll invite a few hundred pro White Netizens from across the globe to drop by and put in their two cents as well, which will also draw in the most virulent, violent anti White activists from the ADL, SPLC and assorted ANTIFA groups, your Alexa ranking will go sky high from all the traffic!. Sound good to you?
Anthony!, Anthoneeeeee!