Poirot,

Two simple questions:

Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

If you are, then it is only reasonsble to ask you to define what marriage means to you.

You baulk at answering and being accountable, trying to make me your excuse. This is a discussion forum. You can't just seagull: fly in and fly out, leaving a deposit behind as you are inclined to do. It is your choice though.

It has been propose by Tony Windsor that a second referendum take place in September to allow the people to decide the question of gay marriage. Like most Greens I agree with Windsor's proposal.
Naturally, we could expect the cashed up Catholic Church to lead the no vote, with Archy Pell in the forefront of the negative campaign. Pell will mobilise his band of pedophile priests to scream an hysterical NO from the pulpit. I see nothing wrong with that, its their right to free speech, bring it on.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html

>>It has been propose by Tony Windsor that a second referendum take place in September to allow the people to decide the question of gay marriage.<<

Tony Windsor should have paid more attention during his civics lessons and so should you Paul:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14924#257777

Cheers,

Tony

As the thread was started by Josephus...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5746#160902

To settle several issues at one fell swoop shouldn't any plebiscite test public opinion of Josephus' view of marriage being legitimate only when it involves two people who have coitus (without interfemoris, interruptus or reservatus) with each other and no-one else during their entire lives?

.

Dear onthebeach & Poirot,

.

Your discussion reminds me an important aspect of the subject in hand which has not yet been evoked on this thread.

It is a common feature of nature that the males of animal species generally seek to dominate the females and maintain them in captivity. We human beings are no exception to the rule. This prehistoric practice persists, even today, in certain cultures in the Middle-East.

At the same time, men seem to harbour a deep-rooted inferiority complex with regard to women. Men try to dominate women but women are more powerful than men. Women can give birth. Men can't. Moreover, men's lives depend entirely on their mothers for far longer periods than for any other animal species.

As a result, the mother occupies a very special place in the psyche of men.

Men's vision of other women is even more complex. Not only are they intimidating by their unique potential to create, but they also possess the power to seduce and bewitch. And, to top it all off, they are "disgustingly impure".

And if women are strange creatures, what about homosexuals who are even stranger - neither totally men nor totally women ?

The female fruit is treacherous. Bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality are perceived as straight-out aggressions and a danger to mankind.

For some of us, it is as though they conjure up some sort of horrifying, bestial image like that of a hermaphrodite, which is totally unsupportable.

This needs to be understood and taken into account in our exchanges.

Mark Christensen, the author of the supporting article here, has identified the problem as being the enforcement of "civil rights". He considers "It is this message – not bigotry – that motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage."

Personally, I see quite a lot evidence that it is religion, not "civil rights", which motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage.

I suspect that this opposition has deep roots in men's inferiority complex with regard to the female sex and what some of us perceive as its derivatives or something worse.

.

Much of the argument against gay marriage is based on the perception that sexual acts performed by homosexuals are perverted therefore endorsing marriage between such a couple is in someway condoning this perversion. If that was true, then some in society could denounce heterosexual marriage in the same way, as it to may also involve perceived perverted acts. based on the antagonists moralistic view. Therefore any form of marriage can be denounced.
Tony what is that about civics? Is not a plebiscite of the people the ultimate act of a democracy.
plebiscite; a direct vote of the qualified voters of a state in regard to some important public question.