With the gay marriage debate seemingly occupying the majority of our politicians valuable time, I just don't get why gays won't compromise because after all, the best result is for both sides to give a little, and the gays don't appear to want to budge an inch.

It's my opinion that there is a very simplistic approach to this whole debate, and that's to not just amend the marriage act, but to add to it with one simple clause, 'a union between two people'.

Seriously, what is the problem with having two choices when choosing ones vows, the first being as is, between a man and a woman, and the second, between two people.

By making this simple amendment, those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman can continue with their long held tradition, while gays, or anyone who openly supports gay marriage can choose 'between two people.

Could this be a simple option that can end this debate?

Dear Rehctub,

Nothing will end this debate because what drives it is anger and hatred. Even if gay-marriage was supported by the state exactly as the campaigners claim to want, they would then find a different pretext to continue their war. They are probably angry at their missing or abusive parents, then project their anger at anyone and anything which resembles their authority, first and foremost - religion. They fail to realise that no amount of changing the future can fix their past and broken childhood.

One thing I'm happy about, is that "our politicians valuable time" is spent on this trivia (as well as tax-payer funded holidays with their family) - otherwise they would be spending this time to actively devise new tortures for you and me.

rechtub,

You may be interested to know that the Howard govt came up with the definition of " marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'." when they changed the Marriage Act in 2004"

Previous to that, laws did not define marriage.

"Gay couples will be banned from marrying or adopting children from overseas but will be allowed to inherit their partner's superannuation under proposed changes to marriage laws announced today.

Less than an hour after Prime Minister John Howard announced the changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation enabling the changes into parliament.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'.

The laws currently do not define marriage.

``We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation,'' Mr Howard told reporters.

''(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.''

The change would mean that couples could not marry overseas in a country where gay marriage was legal and then hope to have the union recognised on their return to Australia.

Mr Howard also said the Family Law Act would be changed to prevent, where possible, gay couples adopting children from overseas.

``We are also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples ... will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party,'' he said."

Etc....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

Love the abbottphobia on this one. Gillard supported normal marriage. Labour had 6 years and did nothing. Now the outrage from the gaybc et. Pathetic, fancy Abbott keeping his election promise.

Yes Butch, it's very simple, at present in their solemnisation speech the celebrant must inform the couple that the state recognises marriage as the union of one man and one woman, all that would have to change is for that to be rephrased in the case of same sex couples, "the state defines same sex marriage as the union of two people".

The tail is once more waging the dog with the five percent party, The Nationals, running the Coalition's agenda on the issue of gay marriage. Malcolm Turnbull continues to defy the 'Fearless Leader', what else is new, openly denigrating the indecisiveness of the government on this, as he has with other issues, Turnbull continues to be his own man, distancing himself from Abbott, Turnbull warned of the political damage the issue is doing to the Coalition in the run up to the next election. When government leadership and resolve is required in support of the overwhelming public opinion favoring gay marriage Abbott is trying desperately to fight a rear guard action to forestall the inevitable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/tony-abbott-defends-call-on-same-sex-marriage-vote/6690388

An example of a misinformation hate campaign being run by some newly formed shadowy anti gay marriage organisation. The group behind the ad is the 'Marriage Alliance', which claims that marriage equality “takes away the rights of a child” and will “accelerate the deterioration of everyone’s freedoms”.
Perhaps that’s no coincidence, given that the group was reportedly founded by ACT Liberal Party member Tio Faulkner.
Former Liberal president Ashley Goldsworthy is also a founding director of the group. Meanwhile its spokesperson Sophie York, whose book was launched by Tony Abbott, is a Liberal Party member who once ran as a Member of the NSW Legislative Council.

Read more at http://www.mamamia.com.au/entertainment/marriage-alliance-ads/#RAZBQFqOJkE77UUe.99

p/s Having dinner next week with friends, a legally married same sex couple, who have been together for about 15 happy years and the sky hasn't fallen in.

This debate is exposing the bigotry, hatred and dishonesty of the godbotherers.
They are becoming hysterical and vicious, willing to drag out the most vile arguments to defame those they disagree with.
How long before they start gay bashing and murders? Again.

You people are intolerant liars who would force your "sharia law" on all of us if you could.
Dont try to deny it. Your actions in the SSM debate are proof of the depths of evil you will stoop to to obey your fascist god.

Dont tell me I cant do something because of YOUR religious beliefs.

Keep your insane, superfairy beliefs out of my life.

Or you might just find that people get sick of your bullying and begin to really fight to destroy all religion.
Bring it on I say.

The law did not define marriage prior to 2004.

The Howard Government inserted the clause that
marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusions
of all others in 2004. So if it was inserted it can also
be removed. As can the extrs insertions that were made
at that time. The following website explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

Of course - there are people who believe for religious
reasons that marriage is a sacrament blessed by God and
that can only be defined as involving a man and a woman.
While there are some parts of the Old Testament that vilify
homosexuals. The New Testament teaches that all are created
in the image of God and that all deserve love and respect.

I do not agree in the arguments that anyone who disagrees
with same-sex marriage or who agrees with it is either bad or
wrong. The reality is that people either agree or disagree
for reasons that are sound to them and carefully thought
through.

It would be a wise move on the government's side to let the
people have a say in this issue.
Put it to a Referendum and let the matter end there.

Foxy,

I agree, let the people decide; however the matter will not end there, however the vote goes.

Dear Is Mise,

I hear what you're saying,
but I think your fears are groundless -
although understandable.

For many people the institution of marriage
involving a woman and a man for the purpose of
having children has been one of the bedrocks of
Australian society and has been common across
cultures for generations. Therefore any changes
will be looked upon by many as the doom of this
institution.

cont'd ...

Ooops, I forgot to add that also the "Gay Lobby,"
will probably not give up so easily should they
lose support this time around.

Interesting times ahead.

Paul, unless you are dining with the couple overseas, they are not legally married and you simply have to accept that.

What I am suggesting is a compromise so we can put this issue to bed, so we can move on to more pressing issues. Issues like, what are going to do for jobs in the next year or two with our car manufacturers all leaving.

Y, I agree and in fact I touched on this some time ago where I said that gays getting same sex marriage passed was just the tip of the iceberg as they will never get the acceptance they want. So we might as well offer them a bone so as to say, then they can either take it, or leave it. But either way, gays will never have marriage equality as they are couples of the same sex.

I just wish they would get over it.

Mikk, what is wrong with my proposal?

Why can't gays just use an alternative meaning to the word marriage. Why do they want to change our world just to incorporate their queer existence.

There is simply no way that I, a normal heterosexual male wish to share my marriage with same sex couples, and why should I be expected to.

Besides it's the gays who want to be recognized, so why should we have to change our world to suit them.

Fox, "The law did not define marriage prior to 2004"

Once again, that is a deliberate lie promoted by the gay marriage activists.

Since you and others who slavishly follow the Leftist 'Progressives' and Gay Pride rhetoric you would also be aware of the other side of the argument, which of course you can always be expected to be silent about, pretending the other mainstream, reasonable side does not exist.

You would be aware of the opinions of the High Court and others stating that the marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life. The High Court judges has said that on a number of occasions over many years and also commented that was the clear and well understood intent, meaning and application of marriage in Australia from 1901.

That is also the understanding of by far the greatest majority of people in developed countries, world-wide. Not that it matters because we are discussing Australia.

I would add too that it is only in very recent times where Gay Pride and other serial activists - some who are only in it to embarrass their political opponents as presently applies to L'il Willie Shorten and Labor - have seriously argued that the homosexual community wants to slavishly copy heterosexuals and worse, also be regulated by State bureaucrats and the State through courts.

Prior to that any homosexual who spruiked for marriage and State regulation of relationships was denounced as a having lost his marbles, as a ratbag and a cupboard hater of his own (homo)sexuality and others. As a 'homophobe'(sic) if the recently invented word (cultural Marxist tactics) had been around at the time.

tbc.

contd..

What has been going on is that the leftist 'Progressives' and Gay Pride activists, dominated where sex is concerned by the radical feminists who are well-entrenched in the federal bureaucracy and academia (and funded by the exasperated taxpayer!), have worked feverishly behind closed doors, especially while Labor is in government, to make State regulation of homosexual relationships a given anyway.

The fiddling of the de facto 'relationship'(sic) arrangements was proof of that. Some definition of de facto, even the federal bureaucrats who interpret it are conflicted by its murkiness, an inevitable product of ideology and idealism.

Do all or even most homosexuals want State regulation of their relationships and public service bureaucratizes and courts deciding what they once were considered adult enough to do informally and at no cost themselves? Most likely NO, if the history of homosexual thinking is considered at all.

Fact is, gays (referring in particular to the men) were damned stupid and lazy to ever allow the feminists and the bothersome leftist 'Progressives' who always presume to know what is best for others, to take over their affairs and do the running for them.

Gays have been and will continue to be used as tools (take both meanings), to beat up on those 'conservatives'(sic) the cultural Marxists see as opposing their social experiments and re-engineering of society.

otb,

Try to keep your mind open to possibilities and your
mouth closed on matters that you don't know anything
about - especially the beliefs or the knowledge of
other people and what they actually think and what
motivates their behaviour.

In repeating the same things in
each and every post on this forum - you sound as
Poirot stated on another discussion - "strange" to say
the least.

Limit your accusations of "Lies," of issues that are
on the public record, and your constant references to
"Leftist Progressives," the Leader of the Opposition
(and your childish name callings), and - the
constant references to - "cultural Marxists"
et cetera.

It may give you more credibility.
And encourage people not to just scroll past the usual
"blah, blah, blah, of your posts - which many of us
no longer even bother reading - because you never
say anything intelligent or new.

Give it a try - change your tactics.
You just may surprise yourself, and us.
Otherwise you will continue to be ignored.

In the mid sixties homosexual men were locked up for the offence of sodomy. Now in the enlightened year of 2015, it's all completely legal, and Gay's now quite rightly wish to marry. What's changed ? The sexual component of a Gay male's relationship, is still that of the unnatural act of sodomy. So now they wish to have this particular act, solemnised by a formal marriage ?

Easy to know when a Cultural Marxist is on the back foot with no facts to back up the narrative.

Others have remarked that when Cultural Marxists are confronted by the inconvenient facts that disturb their narrative, their kneejerk reaction is always to resort to personal attacks.

The totalitarianism of Cultural Marxism will be immediately apparent to migrants, many of whom have fled oppressive regimes. They would recognise the 'Never you mind' scolding and personal attacks on anyone who challenges the leftist narrative too.

It will be no surprise at all when migrants lead the revolt next federal election against the sledging of heterosexual marriage by the Cultural Marxist activists of Labor and Greens who are determined to trash the Marriage Act.

Butch
Mikk, what is wrong with my proposal?

It sends the message that gay people are unacceptable, outsiders, not the same, undeserving of what hetero couples have. It is divisive and discriminatory.
If your rights are not for everyone then they are not rights they are just privileges.
Why do heteros deserve the right to marry but not homos?

Why does it bother you what gay people do in their own lives? No one is asking you to "share" your marriage. Just leave people alone to live their lives as they see fit.

This is a slippery slope of telling others what they can and cant do because of your religious beliefs. What next? Bring back prohibition, mandatory church attendance, forced prayer meetings? How is this different to "sharia law"? Its just a different set of godbotherers.

Easy to know when a Right-Wing Blowhard is on the
back foot with no facts to support the narrative.

Hopefully, the people of Australia will be given
a chance to have an input into this issue and they
won't be stymied by the Right-Wing Blowhards.

Butch, I attended their wedding in New Zealand where they were legally married. So unless people are married in Australia they are not legally married? A man and a women married in China are not legally married if they live in Australia as man and wife? Strange!

otb,

It's obvious that Howard had the definition of "between man and woman" inserted in 2004 for a reason.

That reason being that the laws "were not formally defined", and Howard realised that ideas of traditional marriage may not stand the changing zeitgeist.

I can't be bothered to read the entirety of your long-winded claptrap, but before you deny "The law did not define marriage prior to 2004" and berate others:

"Once again, that is a deliberate lie promoted by the gay marriage activists."

Perhaps you'd like to stump up with the portion of the act that specifically defined marriage prior to 2004?

Poirot,

Perhaps you'd like to stump up with the number of gay marriages between 1901 and 2015?

Since you disagree with those High Court judges who stated that marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life.

Now, where oh where is that patient Shadow Minister to play your parlour game of tit-for-tat, where your exchanges are always frivolous and unequal and you keep moving the goal posts?

Just guessing, its all Abbott's fault, yet again? LOL

I am against homosexual marriage. I am not against homosexual unions of two ,or more, people but it should not be called marriage.

Marriage is a union between a male and a female and must remain so.

To call a homosexual union a marriage is demeaning to my wife and myself.

Why not simply call it a union or some other name and keep the word marriage out of it.

The only reason homosexuals want the word marriage incorporated is to take advantage of the respectability that now goes with it.

otb,

It's a shame you weren't on hand to advise Howard when he decided to go to the bother of changing the marriage act to include the clause that it was a union between man and woman.

Apparently (according to you) he needn't have bothered.

(We stated that prior to 2004 it wasn't "defined in the Act".....it wasn't.)

Poirot,

So you are unable to stump up with the number of gay marriages between 1901 and 2015? No surprise there.

Gays and lesbians, in fact the whole population, must have had the same understanding as those High Court judges who stated that marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life, eh what?

However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act.

Howard did what any responsible PM would do to protect the intent, meaning and purpose of a law against those who would try to circumvent or backdoor it. Backdoor being the operative word where gay pride activists are concerned.

As has been commented often enough on this forum, Cultural Marxists are not concerned about the truth, just with maintaining their narrative and abusing anyone with the temerity to think independently and challenge their spin, of course.

otb,

We did not raise "interpretations" by judges of the High Court.

We merely stated that the laws prior to 2004 were undefined in the Act.

That's what we stated.

And our contention appears to be upheld by the fact that it was necessary for the issue to be taken to the High Court for interpretive clarification.

Der.....

otb,

"However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

Absolute bollocks, as usual from you.

Here we go again, you clinging onto some irrelevancy and attempting to troll on a non-issue.

It was not defined in the Act - you know it wasn't.

So now you accuse us of "deliberately seeking to mislead and lie" to get your daily trolling jollies.

Howard changed the act because of the evolving Zeitgeist - or why would he bother?

It wasn't in the Act because it was a given according to the spirit of the times - but the fact remains that "it wasn't defined in the Act".

You can't produce the portion of the Act where prior to 2004 marriage was defined as a union between man and woman - because it doesn't exist.

That's what we stated.

All the rest is you dancing around trying to make something out of nothing.

But keep going - I'm in the mood for taking you on today : )

Poirot, "And our [Poirot and Fox] contention appears to be upheld by the fact that it was necessary for the issue to be taken to the High Court for interpretive clarification"

Cultural Marxists do bend words to suit their own purposes, that has been said already. As for correctly relating facts and history, forget it!

Migrants would see in this exchange the sly, dogged, manipulation of the totalitarian Left.

To correct the deliberate misinformation left it ever becomes thought to have any basis in fact, the High Court was likely responding to Constitutional matters raised by others (extent of federal cf State powers).

There is NO question that the Marriage Act and usage of marriage were always understood as 'one man and one women for life'.

Shadow Minister deserves a medal. How many rolled up newspapers does he go through?

otb,

"Cultural Marxists do bend words to suit their own purposes, that has been said already. As for correctly relating facts and history, forget it!"

What a laugh! - here's what you posted...

"However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

that's:

".... through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

Talking of bending words to suit your own purposes.

I don't believe the formal definition was left out of the Act for those reasons. I believe it was left out of the Act because at the time it could be taken as a given that marriage only referred to that being between a man and a woman.

It was deemed unnecessary to formally define it - so it wasn't included.

You say:

"There is NO question that the Marriage Act and usage of marriage were always understood as 'one man and one women for life'."

I agree with that statement - and I have not been arguing against that view.

My argument is you skewing things to "have a go" at Foxy and myself because we stated that the Act included no formal definition of marriage.

It doesn't.

I don't need a rolled up newspaper to swat you, I just my wriggle my shoe and detach you from my trouser hem every time I post.

(Of course, when I say "It doesn't" - I mean "it didn't" prior to the changes in 2004)

Dear Poirot,

There's an interesting website that you and others
may enjoy reading. Its an article written by Jason
Wilson for The Guardian on "cultural Marxism," which
otb consistently bleats about. It seems that the
term "cultural Marxism" is most commonly encountered
as a snarl word decrying anything right-wingers don't
like.

Jason Wilson explains that "cultural Marxism" is a
uniting theory for right-wingers who love to play the
victim. Wilson tells us that the culture war that so
defines current debates between the left and right sides
of politics has its history in the barmy theory of
"cultural Marxism."

Wilson asks what do The Australian's columnist Nick Cater,
video hat group #Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders
Breivik and random blokes on YouTube have in common?
We can include otb in that group.

Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of
"cultural Marxism" to account for things they disapprove of
things like Islamic immigration communities, feminism,
migrants, multiculturalism, Black Armband History, and of
course Emily Listers, the Greens, Labor, Leftist Progressives,
Adam Goodes, and, er, Opposition Leader - Bill Shorten, et al.

What are they talking about? Wilson tells us that the tale
varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is
integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right.
It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects
things that really happened, only to distort them in the most
bizarre ways ...

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution
failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union...

Read more at:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

Fox,

LOL, predictably you would cherry-pick a shameless lightweight submitting dumbed-down infotainment for 'Useful Idiots' to confirm their own opinions.

<January 31, 2015
The Guardian's Jason Wilson on Cultural Marxism
By Paul Austin Murphy

The Guardian employing a Leftist academic and sociologist to deny the cultural and political power of Marxist theorists and institutional professionals is like getting the police to investigate police corruption or getting the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) to write a report on the Islamist penetration of British society.

Jason Wilson's article - published last week - is titled 'Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory for right-wingers who love to play the victim'. Its subtitle reads:

“The culture war that so defines current debates between the left and right sides of politics has its history in the barmy theory of 'cultural Marxism'.”..

Recent Guardian articles by Jason Wilson's include:

'Charlie Hebdo could be published in Australia' (which argues against free speech on issues of “religion or religious identity”)

'#illridewithyou: do Australia's rightwingers hate it because they don't know their own readers?' (which is about “right-wing racism against Muslims” in Australia) and

'The right has won control of the English-speaking world' (whose title is self-explanatory).

Basically, all Wilson's articles seem to be about how unremittingly evil the Right is and how the Left should “w[i]n control of the English-speaking world” (which, apparently, has been won by the Right). This is ironic considering the fact that the subject matter being discussed here is cultural Marxism and its cultural and political power in, well, the English-speaking world (as well as beyond).

Basically, then, Jason Wilson is protecting his own political and ideological fiefdom..>

It goes on, but Jason doesn't improve.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_emguardiansem_jason_wilson_on_cultural_marxism.html

Hi BANJO...

Your remarks are absolutely, right on the money ! What continues to concern me;

Why is an unnatural sexual act (sodomy) between two male persons, seem to receive even more public affirmation, therefore allowing the Gay community to now demand it be solemnised, in the form of an orthodox and traditional marriage ? Are we all too fearful even afraid (ostensibly because of 'political correctness'), to say what's really in our hearts and minds on this issue ?

Am I homophobic ? I don't know ? But as recently as the early 1970's, homosexual males were still being locked up for the crime of sodomy in a public place. Obviously in the intervening forty odd years, there's been a massive shift in public morality and acceptability, and now it's even an offence to denigrate or discriminate, a homosexual person - as it should be, given our current community mores.

What happens in the bedrooms of adults, is nobody's business. However, as we're now living in such an advanced, enlightened and promiscuous society, I wonder what next will be scrutinized by the guardians of public sexual morality ? Perhaps a regulated trial, of sexual intercourse with animals ?

You reckon I'm joking ? Most coppers can relate the names of several of Sydney's well known practitioners of this curious form of sexual behaviour (bestiality) !

otb,

You state -
"Predictably you would cherry-pick a shameless lightweight
submitting dumbed-down infotainment for 'Useful idiots' to
confirm their own opinions."

Let's look at the "shameless lightweight," that you
describe - shall we.

Here are the facts:

1)Jason Wilson - a writer and scholar based in Portland, Oregon,
USA. He was a visiting fellow at the Swinburne University's
Institute for Social Research and then a lecturer in
Journalism and Communication at the University of Canberra.

Now lets look at your choice of "heavyweight."

2) Paul Austin Murphy (PAM) - who according to the web is a
"very small-time and ultra bitchy British blogger associated
with the political hard-right who has apparent delusions of
becoming England's answer to Daniel Pipes. His favourite subjects
appear to be the following: how virtually all Muslims want to
establish a totalitarian state, how far-leftists are actually
influential and want to do the same and how they're all working
together to accomplish this. He shoehorns everything to
communism (prefers Stalin or cultural Marxism) or Islam."

"He looks down on anyone who isn't as paranoid as he is about
Muslims. He even views David Cameron as being gullible
for allowing Muslims to be high-ranking Tories.
No, really."

He's published his "writings" in "American Thinker"
and "Counter-Jihad."

I rest my case.

mikk,

I would like to be legally recognised as the mother of my children. Sure I am recognised as the father, but that doesn't have the same connotations.

Why should I be denied the word mother just because I am Male.

Sure, as a parent I have nearly all the rights as women do (apart from abortion), but I want the word Mother. I want the government to recognise the motherly relationship I have with my kids.

Calling me a father sends the message that men are not the same. It is divisive and discriminatory.

If your rights are not for everyone then they are not rights they are just privileges.

Why do women deserve the right to be mothers but not men?

Fox,

Your cherry-picked Jason is fact-free, vacuous.

It is all narrative and outrageously embellished, theatrical. Superficial, fairy floss for the 'Useful Idiots' to confirm their own opinions.

Cherry-pick another, get that Google going!

otb,

Keep on snarling, cherry-picking, and decrying anything you
don't like.

We don't expect anything more from you.

O sung wu,
I am told that 'rimming' is a practice engaged in by homosexuals which I thought only dogs did. and people let dogs lick their kids faces.

No wonder I find the whole issue demeaning to my wife and myself and our 'marriage'

surely the difference is so great that it demands a different descriptive word for a homosexual union. But union would do.

Dear Banjo,

If you're going to discuss sexual practices - why not
include ones that are "kinky" that heterosexuals
engage in as well. Or would those not offend you and
your wife because they're performed by
heteros instead of homos?

Just asking.

Houellebecq

One pretty weak argument you got there.
Im happy for you to call yourself whatever you like.

"Why do women deserve the right to be mothers but not men?"

Nothing to do with me.
You will have to talk to mother nature about that one.
Or maybe runners magical superfriend in the sky could tell you.

Mikk, no amount of arguing fact can ever change the fact that two people of the same sex can have the same marriage fops that if a man and a woman. Get over it!

Houellebecq, a mother is one who gives birth to that child, otherwise they are only portraying to be the child's mother. An example, a step mother, so unless you give birth to a child yourself you can never be a mother, but what your position does prove to me is that being allowed to share normal people's marriages is only the tip of the iceberg, as you will continue to want more and more.

Queer people in same sex relationships can never be considered the same as a man and a woman and even if you lot do get your way, I for one will never see gays being married as equal to my marriage and you will die trying to change people's thoughts about this so you might as well get over it and move on.

It really worries me how this subject has wasted so much of our political time.

rehctub, "It really worries me how this subject has wasted so much of our political time"

Agreed.

Remember too that if Gay Marriage was a fact today, from the experience of other places the activism would be ratcheted up not down to bully educationalists, the churches, business, the community etc.

Cultural Marxism is always worse, never better. Nothing good can come of it but the intended destruction of society as we know it, which is its aim.

Yes OTB, what bothers me is why minority groups always want to change the world just to accommodate them. They are the outsiders so why should we change to accommodate them.

Dear Rehctub,

Perhaps they believe that because Australia has
a secular government and no official or state
religion exists and Governments are supposed to
treat all citizens as equals regardless - that
they are entitled to get married just like
everyone else who wants to does.

Just a guess.

FOXY as I mentioned in my last thread, what happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, is just that, private.

What I've stated herein is a practice hitherto described as an unnatural sexual act (sodomy) between male persons. Now wishing that (lawful) practice, to be legitimised by permitting traditional marriage ?

I'm NOT condemning homosexual behaviour. It's now lawful in this country. As such I have no right to publically denigrate that behaviour. Privately, I have an altogether contrary opinion.

As I've stated herein, the Gay community have asked our politicians and the general community at large, to recognise sodomy as being acceptable for the purpose of being permitted to have a traditional marriage.

Having a swipe at BANJO in that way, is a little beneath you I would've thought FOXY ?

If I'm wrong, please tell me ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Banjo was the one who brought up the sexual
behaviour of a certain group of people as being
demeaning to him and his wife. I merely
responded by pointing out the fact that
all kinds of sexual behaviour exists among other
groups of people as well, apart from the ones
he was singling out. If that was taking a
slur at him - then perhaps he should think
before he posts slurs towards others as well.

Besides what consenting adults do in the privacy of
their homes should surely be none of our business
and should not be part and parcel of the pro or anti
marriage argument. What kind of sex a couple practices
should have nothing to do with whether or not they
should be allowed to marry.

And the silliness of that argument was what I was trying
to point out.

Hi FOXY...

Sure, I do understand and agree (as stated in my previous two threads), what happens in the privacy of one's bedroom...etc. etc. !

What does confound me personally, and I believe the same issues have quite rightly disturbed BANJO as well and I FULLY support his view. If this marriage arrangement does go through, and it probably will, I can see several quite serious problems that society must ultimately confront ?

If two males marry, and they wish to expand their family by adopting a child ? Whether that child is male or female I can see some very ticklish problems arising out of the 'uniqueness' of their adopted parents marriage ?

Depending on the sex and age of the child, as they naturally develop their curiosity, in fact their entire developmental process could be indelibly harmed ? Particularly if they're exposed to their adopted parent's bedroom proclivities. Therefore without careful and proper guidance, they could grow-up with a completely distorted view of normal human sexuality ? In fact they could well emulate what they understand to be, is their parent's bedroom practices ?

For this reason I couldn't imagine for a moment, either 'parent', no matter how well intentioned they may be, and without some (personal) prejudice, would ever be in a position to properly school their adopted child in normal heterosexual behaviour. So they may make their own way in life, without any contrary encouragement, to pursue a what they may perceive as a 'normal' homosexual lifestyle ?

O Sung Wu, I am sure you have already read the arguments against your ignorant rantings, about homosexual couples and their children, many times before on this forum?
Homophobia is the true reason you and others on this forum are against gay marriage, and nothing else.
You couldn't give a damn about gay couples kids, adopted or otherwise.

Don't worry Susie, the homaphobs will subject those poor tainted children to electric shock treatment to correct their perverse leanings. Then hand them over to Father Fcukemup from the Catholic Church to have his way with them. Then after that, all will be "normal"!

'Besides what consenting adults do in the privacy of
their homes should surely be none of our business'

strangely enough the deviants who want to promote perversion to kids at school should be told that.

Fox, " sexual practices - why not include ones that are "kinky" that heterosexuals engage in as well"

Fox, "all kinds of sexual behaviour exists among other groups of people as well, apart from the ones he was singling out." and "Besides what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes should surely be none of our business"

First, the left is forever proposing new invasions of individual's privacy and that includes State intrusions enforced by law into property to inspect and to enforce the ever increasing array of laws conjured up to suit leftist idealism.

The Left believe in State control, the Big State, interfering in and even running the citizen's life. That is inherent to their ideology and modus operandi.

All here must be in housing commission rentals if they are so ignorant of the expanding 'right' of the State, enforced by new laws, to enter private property and presume to tell the owner what to do. Ask any farmer.

Of course to leftists whatever suits their ideology is right, that goes without question. The leftists are precious(sl.UK) and highly indignant where their rights might be affected.

Not suggesting that the State should have that involvement, but it is always worth countering leftist narrative that can be treated as fact if the lie and hypocrisy are not immediately pointed out.
tbc..

otb,

While it may be interesting to you to continue to
carry on about the "Left," in every one of your posts.
How about actually addressing the topic - with reason,
clarity, and intelligence. If you want to discuss anything
else - start your own thread. You're sounding very strange
to continually make every issue about "The Left."

What's wrong with you. Aren't you capable of any serious
discussion on any other topic.

Dear O Sung Wu,

The following website may be of some interest.
It's written from a Gay man's perspective and
of course will be rejected by many people.
However it may help towards a better understanding
to read what someone of that inclination thinks and feels.
He talks about the ten biggest lies we're told about Gay
men:

http://mic.com/articles/50621/10-biggest-lies-you-were-told-about-gay-men

I've learned that making sweeping generalisations about any
group and classing them all together does not allow for individual
differences between people. We're all different in our practices
and beliefs and values in many areas.

contd..

Secondly, regarding the 'kinky' high risk sexual behaviours and noting those too that fit under the sado-masochistic description, that some leftists here regard as 'tres progressive' and are frivolous about. Of course medical authorities should be concerned about the health costs of risky sexual practices. Yes, there may be consenting acts that require police attention and yes, formal charges may be considered.

Regarding the specious rationalisation that any act is defensible and probably OK if someone else is doing it. I have remarked numerous times in threads where practices such as anal sex are being treated frivolously and even spruiked(?!) by OLO's relentless warriors of all things 'Progressive' and gay, that authorities and public should be very concerned about the threat to the health, wellbeing and future childbearing of girls and young women who are being given the false idea that such practices are 'normal' and usual.

It is NOT acceptable that young women are being made to feel that they are letting their male partners down by standing their digs and refusing 'kinky', risky sex.

Doubtless they and young males are being badly informed by the proliferation and normalisation of high risk sex, anal sex in particular, in films and the media generally, even talk shows (eh, ABC?).

Honestly, how many young women would be 'bum girls' if the choice was completely up to them? Of course they should be advised of the extreme risks and that the sole 'protection'(sic) a condom is a risk in itself. Taking into account the likely very serious consequences, the only possible rational response to such demands is a flat 'NO!'.

To end, it should be a legal requirement for any man who has engaged in anal sex with another man to always divulge that to woman as a part of obtaining consent. While that does not deal entirely with the risks, it would go some way towards recognising the woman's right to basic information on which to base her decision. The incidence of cross-over of HIV to heterosexual women of childbearing age is a serious concern.

Foxy, I consider myself a reasonable person and that is why I believe we must all come to a compromise and allow gay relationships to be recognized, something i was opossed to a few yearsago BUT, there is no way their marriage should be anything like a normal marriage because they are not normal people in normal relationships because if they were we would have all been born with both male and female genilals, meaning one could play the role of husband, and the other of wife.

It is for this reason I suggest one of two options to accommodate the union of two people of the same sex.

Option one, which gays won't have a bar of, is to find another word that discibes their abnormal union, and like it or not, it is an abnormal union when comparing it to that of a heterosexual marriage, which is essentially what gays are trying to do.

Option two, add the words 'a union between two people' to the marriage act as this would allow both gays and hetro's who support GM to be recognized as married, but not in the same manner as normal couples.

To me it's such a simple solution but while gays bang on about marriage equality, they have a hidden agenda which they simply won't disclose.

Even if we do take this to the people, gays won't accept the verdict if it doesn't favor them. They will also continue to fight for the recognition of their union to be treated equally which for many paople simply won't happen. Thisnis why this BS will continue to waste so much if our valuable debate time for decades to come.

Shame on Bill Shorten and crew to promote this issue as having such importance when we as a nation are teetering on going down the gurgler as no amount of gay marriage debate is going to address issues like the looming unemployment crisis, or the displacement of millions globally.

Surely these are far more important issues to debate other than the union of two queers.

Dear Rehctub,

I think that if the clause that the Howard Government
inserted into the Marriage Act in 2004 would be removed
then this could possibly accommodate everyone.
However, I still feel that the best way is to let the
country decide what it wants with a Referendum.

Fox,

It is entirely predictable that you doggedly broken-record the gay activists' and Cultural Marxists' lie that PM Howard somehow changed the meaning of marriage. That is absolute rubbish and you know it.

To go over it again, you are already aware of the opinions of the High Court justices and others since the year dot, confirming that marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life. The High Court judges have confirmed that on a number of occasions over many years and also commented that was the clear and well understood intent, meaning and application of marriage in Australia from 1901.

That is also the understanding of by far the greatest majority of people in developed countries, world-wide.

Howard acted to preserve the meaning of marriage from a back-door assault, there being the prospect at the time of demands for recognition of homosexual marriages obtained overseas.

You and the Cultural Marxists are not about equality, or else you would also be representing the rights of those who want recognition of multiple partners, eg., Muslims and you would be saying they have children too.

If you want same sex marriage, get a Same Sex Marriage Act through. It might be a good idea if first there was an independent national study by one of the leading universities to ascertain what homosexuals think of the changes wrought already that affect them (and they were not asked about!) and what they really want.

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

I'm dumfounded and disappointed, concerning the attack you've made on me personally ? I've always valued your opinion, treated you to the respect you're due, and on some occasions supported your position on several issues.

Descriptions like 'ignorant ranting's'; 'homophobia', 'couldn't give a damn about gay couples, kids, adopted or otherwise'. All pretty stunning and hurtful accusations to be sure ?

Am I homophobic ? I honestly don't know. What I do know, I've had years dealing with many of them, generally in pretty adversarial settings. Rape by homosexual male (on one occasion) upon a heterosexual youth. Rape by homosexuals upon homosexuals, and many other acts of indecency, involving homosexuals, often committed in parks, public conveniences and public places ?

So SUSEONLINE, though I've not had the clinical exposure with homosexuals that you've had in your nursing profession, I've nevertheless seen and dealt with many of them, in some of the most disgusting and sinister circumstances around Kings Cross and it's environs, one could imagine ! For this reason I'll not quietly submit to anyone on this Forum, who would seek to lecture me on my lack of knowledge on this subject.

One more thing too, I couldn't count the number of occasions I in company with other detectives, have had to wait quietly at the St Vincent's Hospital Casualty Section, to interview homosexual stab victims !

Nor could I possibly enumerate the number of arrests I've made personally, of homosexual paedophiles, picking up young boys at the 'infamous Wall' opposite St Vincent's Hospital, a very well known haunt.

To repeat your allegation - am I homophobic ? I honestly just don't know ?

Hi there FOXY...

I'll need to calm down a bit, I've just copped a decent serve from SUSEONLINE and have just answered her ?

Thank you for that link you provided me, and I've read it. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman who authored the piece, with some of the myths and untruths surrounding homosexual practices. I've never doubted for a moment, there are some homosexual couples who've entered upon and enjoyed a very successful union with each other.

Furthermore, a Jewish girl (lady) with whom I had a previous relationship (back in the 1960's prior to my first marriage), well I met up with her quite accidentally back in 2002 or 03, and she'd formed a very sustained, loving lesbian relationship ! After carefully re-evaluating my shattered male ego somewhat, I was genuinely pleased for her. And I accept there are many men in similar quality relationships who lead very good, high valued lives ?

I don't know FOXY, I guess I'm just a dill ? I can (perhaps) see a time in the near future where homosexual activity will become so high profile, so common place, and in some instances, so trendy, governments will need to amend or repeal many pieces of legislation.

With a legal 'referential construction' similar to:-

'Where a term referring to a 'male or female person' is found; henceforth it shall be known as a 'male, female and homosexual person' ? Creating in statute at least, a 'third sex' if you will ?

As an old ex-native of an LA library, you'd well recall the reputation 'South Rampart' had, with the good men and women of the LAPD ? The epicentre of the biggest homosexual assembly outside of San Francisco ? More murders, stabbings, and crimes of violence, than anywhere else in the greater Los Angeles basin !

Anyway I'm too old and too set in my belief systems, to change those beliefs. Am I homophobic, 'intense aversion to homosexuals and their practices' ? I don't believe I am. I'm certainly not prejudicial or judgemental about them as individuals. Still.........?

Foxy, removing the words from the act would effectively make all marriages equal, and they're not, which is what the whole debate is about. While the people themselves are considered equal, their relationship is most certainly not, and I'm also not suggesting theirs is any less important, it's simply not the same and, because it's noit the same, it can't be considered as the same and that pretty much sums it up.

Imagine the world had Noha saved same sex couples of everything for the ark. Not that I'm particularly religious mind you, but it's a fair point wouldn't you say.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I fully understand what you're saying and I've also
found out in many situations that I'm not as "broad-minded,"
as I thought I was. Regardless of what we personally feel
about certain groups of people as long as their behaviour
does not hurt others, and they don't break the laws that we're
all expected to abide by - we cannot deny any body the same
rights that the rest of us have. And the right to marry is
one of those rights.

A Referendum would be an equitable way to settle this matter.

Fox, "A Referendum would be an equitable way to settle this matter"

I disagree.

General Comment
There is no way that the ideologues and activists pushing gay marriage would ever be happy with the wording of a referendum. It would always be 'unfair'. It would be more of the same Marxist disruption of parliament and no business done on the really pressing issues such as unemployment.

The activists would certainly NOT be accepting of a NO vote outcome for gay marriage.

The ONLY acceptable outcome as far as the Cultural Marxists are concerned is a YES for gay marriage, which is their toehold and wedge for creating havoc by using State power to beat up the churches and others they despise and want to undermine and destroy.

A 'yes' or a 'no', black or white, is a recipe for a running sore of discontent on both sides. That suits the Cultural Marxists.

However it does not encourage and cater for diversity and pluralism, which Australians could well prefer, ie 'live and let live'.

It should be possible to preserve the marriages that millions of Australians entered into and enjoy. Marriage is not as simple as the 'love' that the activists claim (although they make all sorts of claims when it suits them).

The only position of true tolerance is not to force both under the same definition and provisions. That might be possible with different sections in the same Act, or preferably, two Acts.

I am glum about what is very likely to be a missed opportunity to allow pluralism and diversity in the interests of social cohesion (and a fair go).

otb,

Not being either a gay activist or a "cultural Marxist,"
(whatever that means) I can't really comment on their
agendas. However the fact that former PM John Howard made
an Amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004 is not a lie and
is on public record whether you choose to recognise it or not.

Dear Rehctub,

The law is supposed to treat all Australians equally even
regarding a controversial issue such as the definition
of marriage.
Therefore what any of us personally think about this issue
should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned - certainly
in a secular country like Australia.

Still we can certainly let our MPs know our views and apply
pressure to get the desired results. And of course everyone
else is also free to do the same.

We shall have to wait and see what happens next - and who
has the greatest clout in swaying Parliament to act.

Predicting the outcome is a risky business at the best of
times.

Gawd!...you'd think otb was paid a dollar every time he posts the term "Cultural Marxist"

(Someone inform him that repeatedly using hackneyed terms blunts the impetus of his argument....and..reduces...it....to....one....long....and.....drawn....out....bore-a-thon........)

Hi there FOXY and ONTHEBEACH...

Believe it or not I agree with both of you. As you quite rightly opine FOXY, let the people decide the question of Gays being permitted to marry in the conventional and traditional sense ?

On the other hand, I'm afraid some of the more radical activists (of both persuasions - 'for & against') would most probably never accept the 'people's' decision on the matter ? However convincing the outcome of a referendum proved to be ? As you've well illustrated herein ONTHEBEACH ?

Furthermore, much of what ONTHEBEACH has asserted, is probably close to the truth. Some people, notwithstanding the substance of an issues or issues, will strenuously demonstrate, for or against it, purely to create a climate of confusion, chaos and antagonism against everyone and everything !

Moreover, having enquired of their reasoning for some of their activism, most of the 'lesser lights' amongst the rank and file of these noisy dissident's, have no fundamental understanding of precisely what it is they're actually rebelling against ! And that in itself, is a real social concern for the future ? Furthermore most fall within a very similar demographic. Unemployed, receiving government benefits, some of whom are on sickness or permanent disability benefits, but are seemingly well enough to participate in a noisy public demonstration ?

I guess it'll all come out in the wash, and old goats like me with our out of date values, and redundant standards of morality, will be 'done and dusted' sooner rather than later ?

My only concern, is how much further, will both governments and society as a whole, allow public morality to descend ? Before it's decided any further decline would be a trigger for the utter degeneration of all human morality and social mores ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

While like you I hate to see morality decline, governments cannot and must not have a role as guardians of morality. To begin with, they themselves are an immoral body - go appoint the cat to guard the cream...

Foxy, I no longer have a problem with gays wanting to marry. My problem is that in doing so those in queer relationships want their union recognized as equal to mine and that's simply impossible because my marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not what they are seeking, it's equality and that just can't happen.

They can have equality as citizens but not as a married couple as they are different and if something is different how on earth can it be equal. It doesn't mean it any less important either.

As for a ref, do you honestly believe that if the vote is No, they gays will accept the verdict and move on. I doubt it!

Dear Rehctub,

I'm not in any position to judge other people's
relationship - so privately I can't say whose
marriage is "superior" or whose "inferior," based simply
on their biological sex. That to me doesn't make sense.
It's the quality of the relationship that matters - one
would think.

As for "equality," as far as I can tell - what is being
asked is that the laws governing marriage should under
that law treat people the same. That the governments
are expected to treat all citizens as equal regardless
of religion. Religious laws are not supposed to have any
legal status in Australia. That all Australians are supposed
to be equal under the law. Despite what we may think privately.
And this means that nobody should be treated differently
from anybody else - for whatever reasons.

You may not like it or approve - but that is supposed to be
the law - race, ethnicity, country of origin,
age, gender, disability, sexual orientation,
et cetera should not come into it
according to the law. Government agencies and the
courts are supposed to dtreat everyone the same - and fairly.

cont'd ...

As for what Gay activists will do if the country
votes "No?"

I imagine they can do whatever they legally are entitled
to do. It doesn't mean that that will get very far.
The people would have had their say - and that's the way
I imagine it would stay until (and if) the people vote
again sometime in the future and over turn their decision.

Appeals happen all the time in law courts.
But they don't always succeed.

Fox, "Not being either a gay activist or a "cultural Marxist," (whatever that means) I can't really comment on their agendas"

OK, so you are 'only'(sic) the publicity agent for their spiel, while implying you may not agree with them? Jowever you do agree with them but of course, which is abundantly obvious from your posts.

Now spin that cover story that you are only trying to 'inform', with the aim of ensuring 'balance'.

Fox, "However the fact that former PM John Howard made an Amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004 is not a lie and is on public record whether you choose to recognise it or not"

A Strawman, manipulative as usual. I have never held that Howard didn't amend the Marriage Act.

The deceit of the gay activists and Cultural Marxists is in insinuating that Howard somehow changed the meaning and intent of the Marriage Act, which plainly he didn't.

Howard acted to preserve and protect the universally accepted understanding that marriage was one man and one woman for life.

Quite obviously there were no gay marriages between 1901 and the present, which proves that gays had the same understanding of marriage.

Of course it is also a matter of fact and on the public record that up until very recently when leftist homosexuals foolishly allowed the feminists and Gay Pride activists to lead them by the nose, homosexuals were adamant that they never, ever, would be conformist like heterosexuals who were constrained by State and church definition and State regulation of their private life.

otb,

For someone who has an obsession with "cultural Marxists,"
"Gay Activists," "Leftists," and American Conservative
Christian Groups and Evangelists like James Dobson and
small-time hard-right British bloggers like Paul Austin
Murphy (PAM), you are in no credible position to speak
to anyone about what they may or may not believe.

Repeating the same tired lines - does not make them true.
At least to most people whose IQ is larger than their shoe-
size.

Foxy, superior or inferier should not come in to it, although if they did I would suggest a marriage between two abled bodies, one man and one woman, as opposed to that if the same sex, has the only chance of conceiving a child in a natural way.

That aside, I would not see a gay marriage as any less important than mine, just different and this is why the two can't be shared as one in the same.

Remember this is about the 1% of queers wanting the remaining 99% to change our ways just to suit their odd arrangements, sorry, that's just not on.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

" Sigh " - Well, if the government can't or won't monitor and act to halt the burgeoning moral decline within Society, who can and will ? Most of us accept that in today's enlightened society, the churches have all but lost, most of the moral authority some of them once held. So who do we turn too, now ?

What you say is perfectly correct, governments of all political colours, are themselves, bereft of any morality of any consequence ? So what will become of humanity if we continue to allow it to slide ever so far into the abyss of complete immorality, where anything goes ?

YUYUTSU my friend - in my years with the coppers I've seen things happen, that even now, I still can't reconcile in my own mind ? Not only occurrences of a depraved sexual nature, but crimes of such violence, that even 'Attila the Hun' would never contemplate ?

Finally, at the risk of receiving another verbal belting - call me homophobic or whatever, but there's still no congruency in my own mind, that a homosexual union between two adult males, that amounts to sodomy, an unnatural act, is the basis for a traditional marriage ? After all the act of sodomy in itself, is against the laws of nature ?

And to counter the argument, what a heterosexual couple do in the privacy of their own bedroom, is entirely their business; I couldn't agree more with that proposition, to be sure.

Fox,

Once again you demonstrate the default position of the leftist extremists who are dominating the debate and demanding radical change to the Marriage Act with nothing else being acceptable.

You cannot dispute that these are often the same radicals who for years and way back to the previous Millenium where the feminists are concerned, have been trashing and undermining the institution of marriage and family, fatherhood and even breastfeeding.

It isn't just about public recognition of homosexual 'love' now is it? Not for those leftist radicals it isn't.

Unlike most homosexuals who can take it or leave it (mainly leave it) and would very much prefer not to have the Big State interfering in their private lives, the leftist radicals will be using the changed Marriage Act (if government is foolish enough to change it) as a means of pursuing their extreme leftist activism.

This video on the Canadian experience is relevant and sobering.
http://www.therebel.media/canada_legalized_gay_marriage

otb,

Once again you demonstrate the default position of
the right-wing blowhards by your usual shoe-horning
of everything to "extremism," and "radicalisation."
This time you left out "cultural Marxism."
And then you leave us with another of your "gems" -
a video by Rebel Media - a Canadian conservative
political and social media platform that emulates
American conservative - Glenn Beck.

Relevant and sobering?

Yeah Right!

Fox,

You can't deny the facts then and diversion is your knee-jerk reaction.

otb,

Another knee-jerk reaction and attempt at digression.

You have not presented any facts.

Sweeping generalisations, vague concepts, rigid stereotyped
terms - irrational, inconsistent and illogical statements
do not count as facts. And, Shoe-horning everything that doesn't
agree with your point of view to "extremism," and "radicalism,"
and quoting from American, British, and Canadian conservative
political websites presents only a very limited world view.

Lead by a homophobic reactionary right, some Cultural Nazi's are predicting all sorts of dire consequences when Australia finally falls into line with other western democracies and amends the present discriminatory marriage laws. it is no longer a question of if, but when, these well overdue changes will come into effect. No matter how much the reactionary Tony Abbott tries to fight a rear guard action to forestall the inevitable, change will come.
OTB the leading forum regressive, like others in the wider community tries to argue a change to the marriage act will some how be the thin edge of the wedge and open a dangerous can of worms with unforeseen consequences for society at large. Nothing could be further from the truth. Naturally over time progressive change to discriminatory laws and practices will have to be made, this is nothing more than achieving balance within society.
In OTB's YouTube, a Canadian homophobic and christian fundamentalists gave an example of discrimination, where a bigoted anti gay christian group had been fined for refusing to hire their hall to a gay couple to celebrate their marriage, a hall which they had advertised for public hire. This refusal was done for no other reason that to satisfy the prejudice of the homophobic Christians, and rightly the court found this practice to be no longer tolerable and illegal in a fair society. Hopefully others with similar predigest will learn from this kind of example and mend their ways in future, we can only hope.

Lol! I love the advert above for "All Gay Cruises" being used on this thread!

O Sung Wu, I apologize for my rude outburst above, as I don't really think you are ignorant. Others are though, and I just get frustrated with the lies.

We need to decide this gay marriage issue once and for all, or it will just drag on.
I think this Government and it's boring old holy Patriarch need to pull their dummy out and just allow gay marriage, rather than spend millions on a referendum.
We don't have the money for that.....apparently?

Hi there PAUL1405...

Because I'm (personally) uncomfortable with the notion that an unnatural sexual act (sodomy) between two adult males, should be considered an insufficient reason to permit a traditional marriage - I'm homophobic, a bigoted, old fashioned, 'whatever' ?

What exactly is my offence ? I just can't see where it is that I'm a bigot ? I'd certainly value your opinion please Paul.

'Because I'm (personally) uncomfortable with the notion that an unnatural sexual act (sodomy) between two adult males, should be considered an insufficient reason to permit a traditional marriage - I'm homophobic, a bigoted, old fashioned, 'whatever' ? '

come on O sung you know its because Paul says so and Bill Shorten says. Such model citizens! How could they possibly be wrong? What would kids who have been deprived a mother in life know?

Dear O Sung Wu,

If we
judged people's ability to marry by the way they
have sex -
that would probably discount quite a few people of all
persuasions. Targeting people on the basis of how they
have sex and who they love - doesn't make sense.

I read an interesting article recently that raised the
following points.

Today, any credible poll
shows an ever increasing, comfortable majority support
for the recognition of same-sex marriage in this country.
All that was being asked of our Prime Minister was to allow
his MPs and Senators to vote on the issue from their
conscience - a "free vote." This "free vote," has been denied
to the Liberal MPs and Senators -
by the PM and the most conservative elements of the Liberal and
National Parties.

We're told that this issue is about more than just
homosexual couples who want to get married. It is also about
Australia declaring whether or not it is ok for us to set
these people apart as - different, unequal, and lesser.

We're told that it is about youth who are struggling to
come to terms with their sexuality, who doubt and even hate
themselves. It is about the disproportionately high rates
of mental health risks for people like so many heart-breaking
number of Gays who have taken their own lives simply because
of who they were and who they loved.

It's about kids of loving families to whom our nation says -
"You aren't part of a real family." Like Penny Wong, her
partner Sophie and their two daughters or the PM's sister,
her partner, and her family.

We're told that this is what Gay activists and so many
Australians are fighting for.

We're also told that opposition to this is an endorsement of
discrimination. It says - "You are different. You are wrong.
You are not as good as we are."

We all can merely go according to our
own consciences on this issue.

It would be a real democracy -
if our PM allowed his MPs and Senators the same privilege.

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

Thank you very much for your very kind words, I REALLY appreciate them ! I accept, I'm pretty old fashioned, for that I'm sorry. Nevertheless I do appreciate the intent of your words very much.

G'day there RUNNER...

Mate I don't know ? Perhaps I'm just too old fashioned, and believe in my old values too rigidly ? Values I've had inculcated thoroughly into my thinking at a very early age, and values I still believe in most strongly today, right or wrong, moral or immoral ?

I realise long after I'm gone, the masses will continue to move forward, and human morality will continue to decline until what ? How far will our standards of morality be allowed to slip, before our learned, medical and intellectual ethicists, realise we've made a huge mistake, and urge us all to, make haste and immediately correct it ?

You can be sure that the agenda of the homosexual lobby will lead to more suicide not diminish it. Only the totally gullible falls now for lying manipulative lobby that tries to demonise anyone opposing those not supporting their views. Did anyone question Gillard how many suicides she caused by supporting the marriage act. We know that Labour/Greens saw over 1000 drowned thanks to their pig headedness. The deviants who want to brainwash the kids will produce far more suicides than those teaching decency.

Dear runner,

Doesn't your religion teach you about not making
judgements and the fact that one of the most
important lessons in life is the power to forgive.
It being the greatest power there is.

Except of course of Right-Wing Blowhards who are
"R-Sols" and beyond hope. (joking). ;-) (hee hee).

'Doesn't your religion teach you about not making
judgements and the fact that one of the most
important lessons in life is the power to forgive'

Foxy

How can one ask for forgiveness when you are not capable of making a judgement as to what is right and wrong? You obviously can't see how contradictory your statement is.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Your first set of questions can be split into a material aspect and a spiritual aspect.

From a material point of view, a policeman is employed to defend the goodies from the baddies. As a copper, your duty is to do whatever is necessary so that innocent citizens are and feel safe.

What is beyond your duty is to educate the baddies, to save their souls and turn them into goodies - only saints are equipped for that, not warriors as yourself. At most, you could (and should) scare the baddies into behaving outwardly like goodies, but that doesn't generate morality, only fear and cowardice. Go ahead and do so, but be clear about your one and only purpose: to defend the goodies.

From a spiritual point of view, what will then happen to morality itself?

The answer is given in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 4, verses 7-8, where Krishna, an incarnation of God declares:

"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion - at that time I descend Myself. In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I incarnate Myself age after age."

I believe that Jesus for example was one of those incarnations of God, which needed to take a human form at that time in history when morality declined to such a despicable low among the Jews. I trust Krishna's promise to come again to fix and uplift society once it deteriorated low enough.

To summarise: as a policeman you should perform your limited job as best you can, then trust God to do the rest.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Regarding your last question about about homosexuality and marriage - it's a topic I try to avoid because I consider it a private matter and its morality or otherwise depend on a number of individual circumstances.

One thing I can say on this topic is that marriage is REAL and it occurs (or doesn't) in heaven, rather than in church or the marriage-registration office: neither priests nor officials have the tools to tell whether a couple is truly married or not, so it should be left to God, not for us or for society to decide and register.

A good test, however, is provided by Rabbi Eli Mallon: http://rabbielimallon.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/5-17-14-love-and-loving

Regarding your claim that sodomy is against the laws of nature, I'm not sure that's indeed the case - however, following the dictates of nature is not a virtue, nor as Rabbi Mallon explains, a basis for marriage.

Hi there FOXY...

I can't tell you the origins of marriage ? A religious institution, or something else altogether ? I just don't know ?

I 'think' somewhere along the line, human procreation and marriage are inextricably linked ? To assist in reproducing our own species. In order for that reproduction process to occur a male and female union is prescribed, otherwise procreation is unachievable.

I suppose, down through the ages 'mankind' has found, procreation alone, is not the end of that union, in fact that 'tiny being' needs to be raised in a way to prepare them to safely embrace this sometimes dangerous and unknown world ? I guess this duty could be better discharged if it became a co-operative measure between the male and female, each contributing to the child's growth and survival in differing measure.

I suppose down through the millennia's, these unions (marriages) originally formed for the express purpose of procreation, have varied somewhat and have even been experimented with, in the privacy of one's own bedrooms, as you had initially pointed out.

That said, procreating was the genesis of those original unions in the first instance, thereafter many saw it as being nothing more then a 'pleasurable, plaything' !

However this approach by the Gay community, to have their homosexual unions officially recognised by a 'traditional marriage', has no legitimate basis in fact. Vide. The natural procreation process. I accept many Gay's have loving and very caring relationships, most just as strong and sustained as heterosexual couples, but that's not the issue really.

Homosexuals now wish to have the unnatural sexual act, of sodomy - consummated by the solemnising of a traditional marriage ? I just can't understand why ?

Dear runner,

Don't be so hard on yourself. If you don't know the
difference between what is right or wrong all you
have to do is ask the higher power that you believe
in for guidance. Or let your conscience be your guide.
Or ask your pastor. Either way, you'll find the answers.
All you have to do is seek them with an open mind and heart.

Dear O Sung Wu,

The family is the most basic and ancient of all institutions,
and it remains the fundamental social unit in every society.
Yet there are many people today who fear the end of the
family system as we know it if we recognise same-sex
marriage. They contend that the family
system is breaking down, the victim of moral decay, sexual
permissiveness, changing gender roles, or irresistible
social forces.

Let's look at the facts. The great majority of both men and
women today - begin sexual activity before marriage. The statistics
on births to unmarried mothers, usually teenagers, - are quite
high. Many pregnancies end in abortion. The
number of unmarried couples living together has more than
tripled in less than two decades. People are staying single
longer than ever, and more than one adult in five, now
lives alone. More than half of our marriages are expected to end
in divorce. New alternatives to traditional marriage, such as
the single-parent household, are becoming steadily more
common. And to complicate matters further, children can now
be conceived through artificial means, sometimes in a
laboratory dish.

What does this all mean? It means that whether we like it or not
there already exists an immense range in marriage, family,
and kinship patterns and that marriage like all social
institutions has inevitably changed over time.

Therefore a more accurate conception of the family today -
must take account
of the many different family forms that have existed or still
exist both in our country and in other cultures.

O Sung Wu and Runner are worried about the 'unnatural' act of sodomy, and kids being without a mother if gay marriage was allowed. What about the other half of the gay population- lesbians? This obviously won't be the case with their marriages?

At the end of the day, all these gay sex and children issues will still have been happening out in the community amongst gay couples, married or not.
So allowing gay marriage won't change a damn thing really.

So let's all move on like other countries have done....or are we really still that backward old colony everyone thinks we are?

Hi (again) SUSEONLINE...

Actually I think you're right. Gay's will be allowed to have the traditional marriage they now so resolutely seek. If not soon, it will be later, if not later - it'll be just a matter of time. They will be able to marry each other without too much doubt.

I recall years ago an old boss of mine, seeing how angry I was over an issue of bail, he reminded me quite timely I might add, '...don't fight the white there young fella...', in other words, the law's the law and there's not a damn you can do about it, other than move on ?

Hi there YUYUTSU...

I understand where it is you're coming from, but not being a religious person, I tend to take a purely pragmatic, and moral approach to the whole issue. Furthermore, as SUSEONLINE has quite rightly opined, it's just a matter of time before the homosexual community will win their way with the marriage issue ? And why not, I don't think I could mount a sufficiently strong enough argument to maintain the status quo anyway.

I could be wrong YUYUTSU, but from what I've heard there are quite a large number of Gay's who are practicing Christians. Obviously some Christian Churches, wouldn't necessarily oppose Gay marriage ? So why fight the inevitable ? From a purely moral objection, that particular argument seems to have slipped through to the keeper, so I really don't know ?

Apparently homosexuality has been around as long as heterosexual procreation, and far greater minds then anyone I could muster, have argued and embraced the issue for years ? I'll just have to content myself with the knowledge that I tried to argue my position herein, and failed atrociously by all accounts ? Thanks for your link to YUYUTSU, most interesting I must confess.

Time to go, my eyes are very tired.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I hope you had a good night.

You wrote: "it's just a matter of time before the homosexual community will win their way with the marriage issue"

What has the homosexual community to do with it?
Most homosexuals are not gay - and most gays are not homosexual.
The ones behind the push for gay-marriage (who indeed seem to be winning this battle), are not homosexual, but anti-religious activists. They probably even need to pay unemployed homosexuals to attend their rallies.
I already mentioned that I have a relative who is homosexual: he has a highly-respected job teaching law in university: he never even contemplated taking part in any gay activities and he has no interest in formally marrying his partner even after living happily and raising two children together for many years, who live with their two fathers and often also see their (same) two lesbian mothers. His male-partner attends family-functions and is completely accepted within my extended family.

Why fight the inevitable? because the organisers will not stop there and rest on their laurels. You mentioned Christian churches that already marry homosexuals: while I am happy about it, that must be quite disappointing for the organisers, for their aim is to break the spirit of the churches rather than see them adapt, so now they would be looking for new pretexts to attack.

Religion has no problem with homosexuality as such - the problem is rather the over-emphasis on sexuality, any sexuality, as our motivating force in life, substituting physical attraction for love and fragments of temporary physical beauty for the divine source of all beauty.

I'm sorry, but ibe had enough of those defending gays and suggesting thier relationships are normal.

While ive tried to remain reasonable, two men engaging in the act of sticking their bits up the other guys back side is way out of the ordinary and if you feel there is nothing abnormal about that and you think thier marriage is equal to that of a man and woman, then you are simply on a different planet to what im on and I sincerely hope you are excluded from any public vote on the matter as your perception of what's normal is far from what I would consider as normal.

I'm sorry but I've had enough if this garbage taking up so much of our time and can't for the life of me underatnd why such a small minority, someone suggested 1% can demand such attention from our law makers.

Even if we do take the matter to a vote e gays won't accept a no vote so It's time our law makers grew some balls and put a stop to this rubbish.

rehctub,

"I'm sorry but I've had enough if this garbage taking up so much of our time..."

Lol!...then why did you go to the trouble of starting a thread on the issue?

Also noting that your last post differs greatly in toleration than your opening spiel:

"By making this simple amendment, those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman can continue with their long held tradition, while gays, or anyone who openly supports gay marriage can choose 'between two people."

You appear to be uncommonly vexed on this issue - the reason it's so topical is that support for marriage equality has ceased to be a minority issue because it has the apparent support of the majority.

"Even if we do take the matter to a vote e gays won't accept a no vote so It's time our law makers grew some balls and put a stop to this rubbish."

That's coming from a poster with the OLO handle "rehctub".

Dear Poirot,

<<support for marriage equality has ceased to be a minority issue because it has the apparent support of the majority.>>

I presume you count me in that majority because I support marriage equality - to be achieved by making the state withdraw from having anything to do with marriage altogether.

The majority of those who want the state to bless same-sex relationships, do so not out of love for homosexuals, but out of their hate of what they perceive to be religion and their desire to hurt them who follow it.

Yuytsu,

"The majority of those who want the state to bless same-sex relationships, do so not out of love for homosexuals, but out of their hate of what they perceive to be religion and their desire to hurt them who follow it."

That's merely your opinion....seems to me the ones who are fond of segregating people and fomenting "hate" and "hurt" appear to be on the other side.

"I presume you count me in that majority because I support marriage equality..."

You presume wrong - I couldn't give two hoots what you support or why you support it.

Poirot, I started this thread because I want to know why gays won't come to a compromise, which to me is the easiest solution as all couples, whether they be stright or queer can get married, choose the words that best suit their situation, or mind set, and be recognized as being legally married, just not in the same way as myself and my wife as we chose the words between a man and a woman.

I ask again, seeing as you are an obvious supporter of queers rights, where is the problem with that?

My thoughts are that the problem is not so much the right to marry and as a result the right to marry is only the tip of the ice berg as this tiny minority of people who choose their queer lifestyles will not rest until they get recognized as being equal in every way and that's simply not going to happen. Ever!

As I said before, imagine the mess we would be in had Noha saved same sex specifies as opposed to a male and female of each. Yea right!

Suseonline, " the 'unnatural' act of sodomy"

As the poster who is forever spruiking in favour of anal sex and is silent about the well-known health problems, no doubt your inverted commas indicate that you dispute that anal sex is unnatural and you believe the reverse, ie that anal sex is somehow natural.

Anal sex is NOT natural. Anal sex is never medically advised.

http://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06/anal-sex-a-dangerous-trend-3-2/

General Comment
Gay activists try to camouflage the risks factors facts and normalise the practice of anal sex with dishonest tricks of argument, such as by saying that some heterosexuals might sometimes perform anal sex too, and, heterosexual sex has STI risks too.

The public has received precious little information about what will inevitably be the aftermath of the radical surgery on the Marriage Act if the 'Progressive' Cultural Marxists and Gay Pride activists get their wish. Yet there is plenty of information from overseas experience of continuing activism to go by.

The present deceitful marketing of anal sex as 'natural' will be reinforced by activists demanding compulsion for schools to deliver 'equality' for homosexual sex, including anal sex. The prevailing, extreme political correctness will ensure that the serious risks of anal sex are diminished and soothing assurances delivered. Political correctness deems that the 'correct' focus should be on how to facilitate anal sex, to ensure 'equal' rights for gays.

Health authorities are already concerned about HIV and other serious harm to girls and young women from the proliferation of anal sex, which has jumped from the seedy hard pornography sites to mainstream entertainment and even daytime talk shows for women. Anal sex is common in film and on The Box. Why is that so?

Girls and young women -who may one day have children- are being led to believe that they are failing their sex partners if they do not service them with anal sex and other highly questionable sexual practices.

yep its homophobic otb to point out that faeces and disease go together. I thought Susie was suppose to be a nurse.

I find it rather puzzling the assumptions some
people make about other people who are different
from themselves.

Why do so many supposed intelligent people
assume that all homosexuals practice
anal sex and that any person who is in favour of
same-sex marriage must therefore be a proponent of
anal sex?

Really?
Do all heterosexuals have sex in exactly the same way?
I doubt it.

Unhealthy sexual habits - can be practiced by anybody
of any persuasion.

Healthy sexuality is as much about physical hygiene as it is
about mental attitudes towards sex. It's also about
knowledge and education on the subject.

Barrier contraception, say the experts are a highly effective
way to ward off diseases that can be transmitted sexually.

Sexual dangerous diseases such as HIV - AIDS, genital warts
and even cervical cancer, can be prevented to a large extent
by the use of barring contraceptives - such as condoms for men.
Unprotected sex and having multiple partners is also a major
unhealthy sexual habit. Knowledge and education would help
relieve this problem. A problem shared by people of all
sexual persuasions.

'I find it rather puzzling the assumptions some
people make about other people who are different
from themselves. '

I find it puzzling that Foxy who claims to be a person who accepts facts and truth ignores the numerous studies showing high disease rates among homosexuals. Even the Red Cross would not accept blood from sodomites ( even though they screamed discrimination). These are FACTS not assumptions Foxy.

Fox,

For heterosexuals, it is the proved failure rate of condoms and even condoms plus the contraceptive pill that is used to justify abortion.

'Perfect' (ie impossible) use of condoms for vaginal sex: 98%

Typical use failure rate of condoms for VAGINAL sex: 18%

- For each method of birth control, effectiveness with typical use is provided as the percent of women who experience an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use (also known as the failure rate).

The condom failure rate where anal sex is concerned is far higher because condoms are much more likely to be damaged and dislodged. Add to that the likelihood of damage because the back passage is not designed for thrusting with a firm object. Again, a man who demands anal sex is a risk taker who is likely indulging in other risky behaviour.

Which means that women who are giving in to anal sex (or are having vaginal or other sex with someone who has had anal sex) are dicing with serious harm to themselves and compromising their future childbearing.

The likelihood of a condom failure is undeniably high even from a single encounter. For women, the negative consequences of anal sex can be very harsh indeed.

It bears repeating that gay activists try to camouflage the risks factors and normalise the practice of anal sex and other risky behaviour with dishonest tricks of argument

rehctub,

"I ask again, seeing as you are an obvious supporter of queers rights, where is the problem with that?

I don't believe I've stated my position regarding that on this thread - I'm more interested in watching the likes of you parade your bourgeois "normality" around here.

Fascinating....

And then you say things like this:

"As I said before, imagine the mess we would be in had Noha saved same sex specifies as opposed to a male and female of each. Yea right!"

His name is "Noah".

"Noah died 350 years after the flood, at the age of 950, the last of the extremely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from almost 1,000 years to the 120 years of Moses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

If you're going to argue using reason, then don't pelt us with balderdash resting on Biblical myth to try and prove your point.

It just looks ridiculous.

Reference my above post, please delete,

"'Perfect' (ie impossible) use of condoms for vaginal sex: 98%

Yeah we know Poirot you often support the sisterhood who hold the filthy creeds of the Emily's listers. Killing the unborn, selling their body parts and other gross doctrines. It would be interesting to know where else you glean your moral base from seen you are so quick to trash Scripture.

"Yeah we know Poirot you often support the sisterhood who hold the filthy creeds of the Emily's listers. Killing the unborn, selling their body parts and other gross doctrines. It would be interesting to know where else you glean your moral base from seen you are so quick to trash Scripture."

Off goes runner on another rancid little run-by because someone called out the Noah myth. OMG of course Noah lived to be 950 - and woe betide anyone who critiques such a fanciful load of old tosh!

He's dug down deep into his little book of vitriol...now Poirot often supports the sisterhood (stump up with evidence of a post on OLO when I've done such)...and by association, Poirot must support their "filthy" creeds.

Good old religiously-addled runner spits out the usual...anything that goes against the "runner code" or argues against his fundamentalist religious stance automatically becomes "filthy, gross, dirty, hate-filled, etc".

Get this straight, mate.

If you think I'm going to put up with your faux moral rectitude and take your baseless and derogatory insults lying down, then think again.

You're a mean spirited, closed-minded, vacuous troll on this forum....who spends a minimum of effort addressing issues and a maximum of effort pasting anyone with whom you disagree with the most vile epithets.

Now cough up the posts on this forum where I've defended "the sisterhood" or "Killing the unborn, selling their body parts and other gross doctrines" you mendacious little man.

' You're a mean spirited, closed-minded, vacuous troll on this forum....who spends a minimum of effort addressing issues and a maximum of effort pasting anyone with whom you disagree with the most vile epithets.'

and what a charming woman you are Poirot. Still unable to answer where your moral base comes from. No wonder you spit such venom on a regular basis. At least its towards me today giving Tony a break.

Runner,

Please supply us with evidence to what you claim are
facts. You can't just state something on a discussion
forum. You need to substantiate your claims.
I happen to know quite a few Gays who give blood regularly.
I would be very surprised if what you're claiming is true
as far as the Red Cross is concerned. Because unhealthy
sexual habits are not just confined to one particular group.

otb,

I was speaking broadly about unhealthy sexual habits.
And I did state that they can be prevented to a large
extent by barrier contraception (according to the experts).
Condoms was simply one example given. There are others
of course. And not every couple indulges in anal sex -
be they homosexual or heterosexual. Knowledge and education
is the key to solving this problem.

runner,

Don't try and weasel out of it.

Where are the posts where I defend "the sisterhood" and "Killing the unborn, selling their body parts and other gross doctrines"?

You accused me on this thread of doing that - and now you think you can slide out of it by sarcastically calling me charming with a questionable "moral base".

Cough up the evidence, runner?

I'm sick of certain posters around here typing things with no basis - and when they're called to account and asked to produce the evidence, they either skip the forum (anyone seen ConservativeHippie lately?) or like you, repeat the nature of the misrepresentation.

Who are you to talk about a "moral base" anyway.

As an advert for Christianity, you're woeful.

Does your "moral base" dictate that you jump into conversations to dump belligerent judgement and hurl foul epithets at fellow posters with whom you disagree.

Where does it say in the scriptures that to be obnoxious for the sake of disagreement is a moral act?

I'm not blaming your Christianity for your detestable behaviour - I know many Christians, most of whom are patient, gentle and self-assured.

In fact, your treatment of and attitude to people with whom you disagree would be an excellent lesson in how "not" to behave in a Christian manner.

So produce the posts in which you accuse me of the above - or apologise for posting falsehoods.

(I won't hold my breath for either)

Fox, "Knowledge and education is the key to solving this problem"

Political correctness in the media and education are exacerbating the problem. That can only get worse.

In the UK over a third of HIV sufferers are women. Apparently HIV is increasing in older women too.

Foxy

In August 2005 Michael Cain lodged a formal compalint to the Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Commission against the Red Cross . His arguement was that homosexuality was legal and that the Red Cross had unlawfully stigmatised and discrimimated against him by refusing to accept blood from any man who had sex with another man in the previous 12 months. The Commission upheld his complaint and then the Red Cross appealed and won. A 120 page report (which I am sure you will find fascinating) was produced by an expert in behalf of the Red Cross. The case lasted around 4 years costing tax payers ($$$$$) in order to keep the community safe from this insantity.

Obviously some hetrosexuals practice unhealthy sex leading to many diseases. Some people drive 10 kilometers over the limit and some 100k. The obvious fact pointed out in the report done on behalf of the Red Cross was that the estimated incidence of HIV in Australian homosexual men in general is between 60-121 greater than for Australian hetrosexual men. No doubt these findings were never aired by fairfax or abc.

otb,

Knowledge and education is the key to solving this problem.

The following article explains why:

British women apparently are putting themselves at
increasing risk of HIV infection according to experts
with new surveys revealing that almost three quarters
of women have never been tested for the virus and a
significant proportion admitting that nothing could
persuade them to be examined.

Over the past decade this specific demographic has been
hard hit with a steady rise in HIV infection.

A very high percentage of British women who engage in
sexual intercourse without a condom in the past 5 years
were uncertain whether their partner was sleeping with
other people.

Knowledge and education in the dangerous involved
through the use of - multiple partners and unprotected sex
would help alleviate this problem and the problem is getting
worse.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/28/british-women-regular-hiv-test

Dear runner,

The Australian Red Cross ensures that the Australian
Community has confidence and trust in the Australian
Red Cross Blood Service to have one of the safest
blood supplies in the world. This is the most important
driver as an organisation.

Each time you give blood they test their donation for
ABO (blood-type) RH groups (i.e. positive or negative) and
red cell anti-bodies.

They also test all donations for 5 transmissible-infectious
diseases using 7 different tests:

1) HIV/AIDS
2) Hepatitis B
3) Hepatitis C
4) Human T - lymphotropic virus (HTLV)
5) Syphillis

They also test all donations for HIV-7, Hep B and Hep C RNA
using nucleic acid testing (NAT). This process is different
from traditional testing because it looks for the actual
presence of viruses, in this case HIV and HCV.

http://www.donateblood.com.au/about-blood/ensuring-safety

Dear runner,

I forgot to add that it is understandable for an
organisation like the Australian Red Cross to ensure
that the Australian Community has confidence and
trust in the Australian Red Cross Blood Service
therefore they have to have rules that ensure that
people who take part in dangerous and risky sexual
behaviour be it heterosexual or homosexual not be
acceptable to give blood and put others at risk.
There's a list of ineligibile people in the website
I gave you which includes not only homosexuals, but
sex-workers, drug addicts, people who have sertain
illnesses and diseases, and so on.

LOL Fox, you have excelled with your spin to turn everything around the 180 degrees to make women victims at fault for not having HIV tests to tell them their bisexual partners had contracted AIDS and didn't inform them before engaging in sex.

You have also managed to mask with heaps of meaningless waffle the very sad fact that women, especially students and young women of childbearing age, are giving in to risky anal sex because they are being made to believe that their male partners are right to expect it.

That false perception by women (and men) is because anal sex and other proved high risk sex is constantly being normalised through film and the media. Australia's taxpayer funded public broadcaster for example has earned the nick of 'GayBeeCee' through the millions of dollars of free publicity it has given to gay activism and arguably because it comes up so often and is rarely mentioned as risky, anal sex and other risky practices.

Girls, young women and older women too deserve better than that. At the very minimum it should be a legal requirement for any intending male partner to inform them of any sexual history they have had with another male. It is just not good enough that women are being denied information that is crucial, vital, where their health and possible children's health are concerned and would likely cause them to refuse sex had they known.

It is NOT good enough to put it all back on them as you want to Fox and make it their (women's) fault for not demanding a condom and ensuring it was used ideally. In any event, rational women know that condoms have a failure rate too and NOT taking the risk in the first place is the only rational choice.

Also it is simply NOT good enough that girls and young women are not receiving strong and active support from educationalists and health authorities to refuse anal and other risky sex. It is where 'NO' should mean 'NO!'.

OTB,

Well said.

Thirty or so years ago a friend of mine, who could not sire a child, agreed to his wife becoming pregnant through a donor's sperm.
She had the procedure and duly became pregnant and in course gave birth to a perfectly normal and healthy baby girl.
Unfortunately she contacted AIDs from the donor's sperm and died a slow, painful and rather horrible death.
As the Aids progressed she refused to see any of her friends as she wished us to remember her as she was, a vivacious and happy young woman.

Had she gone on holidays somewhere and had an illicit relationship with some healthy young hunk and told her husband that she'd had the donor procedure, she'd probably be alive today and seeing her grandchildren.

But she was a moral young woman and a loving wife and paid a terrible price for her virtue.

As far as I'm concerned gays should be banned from giving blood because after all its their queer lifestyle choices that make themselves high risk. There is no way I would accept or knowingly allow gays blood to be given to any of my family, but that's just my personal view.

After all it's a choice they make when choosing their lifestyles

As for my Noah post, it was a figure of speech as I'm not a believer in the myth myself.

otb,

You obviously have your own set point of view.
But there are others on the subject.

I gave the Guardian
website on British women as merely one example.
Your attack on me is uncalled for as it was not my opinion
that was being expressed but those of the Guardian.
Perhaps you need to go back and actually read the given
website before you make a fool of yourself needlessly.

OTB I see little need to waste tax payers dollars educating people that it's risky to place ones penis into another's rectom where waste is expelled from. No amount of money will help legislate against stupidity as they say.

The ridiculous baby bonus is also responsible for it's own set of health problems as the lure of five grand was just too much for many, evidence being in the number of multi fathered families.

On the subject of gay men, perhaps they should be shortlisted with this who should be funding their own health treatment for issues arising from self inflicted health problems, because let's face it, something's going to have to give with regards to our over streched health budgets.

Smoking, indulgence, excessive alcohol and unsafe sex practices which should include women engaging in anal sex.

regctub,

In Queensland, lowering the age of consent for anal sex is one of the highest priorities of new Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. Labor would have done that already but they are poking about to see if there is a bit more they could slip in.

That is along with the other high priority of deep-sixing the successful anti-bikie arrangements, where a review is already under way much to the consternation of residents on the Gold Coast and SE Qld where outlaw bikie gangs rioted in family restaurants, stood over police and even surrounded a police station, causing police to be brought in from afar to rescue the trapped and threatened officers inside.

The International Socialists, the 'Progressives', who are the real brains and numbers (and media manipulators!) behind the gay marriage push see marriage and the family as institutions that must be disrupted because they are, the socialists believe, the bulwarks of their main target, capitalism.

Cutting to the chase, in Queensland we are soon to see a ramping up of the already existing international socialist influence and imperatives in education. Make no bones about it, the present priority given to 'two dads' and 'two mums' in education (and on the ABC) will be prosletysing for the 'gay' lifestyle. Normalising anal sex for heterosexauls is very much part of normalising and promoting homosexual sex experimentation among school children and youth.
to be contd..

continued.

Going back to your post, I was not suggesting that more money be allocated to sex education. However that is the strategy of the leftists, who then demand it be diverted to redressing alleged 'marginalised' of society, ie LGBT. The taxpayer dollars end up 90% propping up the public service empires and careers of leftist lesbians. 10% of the money goes into interference in the education curriculum, driving teachers crazy.

You might notice that one of THE solutions always put by leftists is for MORE education dollars, which they intend to grab for their experiments in social re-engineering.

Along with the huge majority of exasperated teachers and parents who are fed up with leftist politics in education, I would very much like to see the money presently allocated being used to buy more teachers and better facilities, than being expended on politically correct brochures and more leftist-inspired 'management' jobs in education dept head offices.

There is a bloke called "On The Beach"
And on the web he likes to preach
"Cultural Marxists," and Progressives
Are only two of his obsessives

Laborites, Greens, and Leftists too
Are enemies against his views
There's former female PMs he likes to get
And Emily-Listers he's never met

Love and Marriage is not the way
For those who happen to be Gay
Migrants and Indigenous to him are not true blue
Re-writing history he seeks to do

Therefore folks as you can see
Its chaps with blinkers like otb
With his blinkers on he will never see
What kind of land this could really be

He'd rather preach the fear and hate
And teach the young to discriminate
But - here's to the folks who are different
The folks with a "fair-go" streak

The folk who don't moan, as history has shown
it's their difference that makes them unique.
Think of what this country needs
More tall poppies - not just weeds.

'In Queensland, lowering the age of consent for anal sex is one of the highest priorities of new Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. Labor would have done that already but they are poking about to see if there is a bit more they could slip in.'

yes otb and as abhorrent as Islam is you can easily see why the regressives make it so attractive for those who ackowledge the obvious fact that we were made moral creatures despite the concerted efforts of immoral politicians and media who want to impose their total lack of character on others

G'day there REHCTUB...

Apropos your opening paragraph - surely to God common sense would deter most people from partaking in that risky practice ? And for those who wish to ridicule me about what heterosexual couples get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, I do accept that proposition entirely.

What I think you're referring too in part Butch is, two homosexual males meeting an a public place who practice that risky behaviour, only have themselves to blame if they contact VD or some other communicable disease ? Anyway, I believe I've utterly exhausted any and all of my arguments against 'same sex marriage', and have more or less been beaten down ? For that reason I cannot offer any further useful commentary on the topic, without repeating what I've already said.

LOL Fox,

I can distinctly remember you arguing black and blue that the (secondary school) Schoolies were a far greater danger than the outlaw motorcycle gangs that were ravaging Queensland's Gold Coast.

That was despite you being provided with links to police reports and videos in The Courier Mail and The Gold Coast Bulletin.

Recent History
13 February 2015 and Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is sworn in.

4 March 2015 and not only did the bikie gangs resume business during the Queensland election, buoyed up by promises by Labor and Greens that the laws affecting them would be removed, but a new gang has invited themselves to Queensland,

Violent New Zealand Black Power gang has moved into the Gold Coast and there’s nothing cops can do
ROBYN WUTH GOLD COAST BULLETIN MARCH 04, 2015

A NEW Zealand street gang notorious for brazen violence, drugs and extortion has moved into the Coast’s northern corridor and there is nothing anti-bikie police can do about it.

Black Power is actively recruiting Maori and Pacific Islander members and has moved into the drug trade in the south east corner.

The gang is escaping the statewide crackdown because it is not named in Queensland’s tough anti-gang laws..

Black Power has carved significant territory in Beenleigh, taking over what was formerly Hells Angels heartland, and police say it has been causing problems for months..

“Clearly it was an act of intimidation,” a police source said.

“When 15 gang members surround police officers in the course of their duties, it’s not for a friendly chat, is it. This is a very real concern to police.”
...
The New Zealand Police said the gang is involved “in serious violence, selling and distributing drugs, possessing firearms and offensive weapons, and using intimidation and threatening tactics in pursuit of their criminal activities”.
http://tinyurl.com/lrfwbjp

The previous Premier, Duntroon graduate Campbell Newman who was responsible for the highly successful anti-bikie laws, would have immediately amended the regulations to black-list the new NZ gang.

Labor promised to repeal the law.

What can one say to a poster who states things like -

"In Queensland lowering the age of consent for anal sex
is one of the highest priorities of new Labor Premier
Annastacia Palaszczuk ..."

Surely only an unhinged person would make a comment
like that.

And more bunkum follows. This is what prompted my earlier
response to this unhinged nasty poster.

I'm surprised that he's not being sued. Or that
the Forum isn't being sued for for this
sort of libel. It's a disgrace that it's allowed on a
forum such as this. It lowers the bar of discussions.

The claims are nonsense.

According to several articles on the web -
regarding bikie-gangs the facts are that -
Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszcuk says police are
entitled to lobby to retain the anti-gang laws that were
introduced by her predecessor.

She makes it quite clear that Labor is keeping
an election promise by launching a
review into the LNP's controversial Vicious Lawless
Association Disestablishment (VLAD) legislation.

Ms Palaszcuk said the Review was being chaired
by retired Supreme
Court judge Alan Wilson. On the Review panel are the
Queensland Police, the Queensland Police Union, the Law
Society, and the Bar Association.

The Police are represented on the Review of the laws, so they
are entitled to make their views known, and the government
will give them careful consideration.

As the Premier states, "But the premise we start with is
ZERO tolerance for outlaw motorcycle gangs."

The Premier described talk the VLAD laws will be scrapped as
"conjecture."

She stated that -

"The same laws that applied previously are being applied now."

"If police need additional resources to combat gangs, I will make
these resources available."

Fox, "The claims are nonsense"

LOL, Is that so? You are in denial but keep on spinning.

However,

Anal Sex
The Queensland Government is investigating lowering the age of consent for anal sex. Qld's Labor Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath announced she would continue to consult with the state's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community about the issues which impacted them. Labor has more legislative changes in mind.

How the general population, the Queensland electorate might be consulted if at all, is anybody's guess.

Bikie Laws
As if Labor would be tinkering with the 'anti-bikie' law if they supported same and exactly what, other than Labor's opposition to the law, is preventing the minor amendment that could have stopped that NZ gang from becoming established?

It is on the public record that Labor and Greens OPPOSED LNP Premier Campbell Newman's working, highly successful anti-bikie laws during the election that resulted in the minority Labor government headed by Annastacia Palaszczuk.

There were strong objections by businesses and residents of the Gold Coast in particular to the foreshadowed plans by Labor and Greens to withdraw or knobble the legislation that had restored peace and order to SE Qld especially.

All jurisdictions throughout Australia were and are concerned about the exponential growth in gangs and gang crime and their involvement in drugs and violence. All jurisdictions applauded Premier Campbell Newman's laws that worked and survived very expensive legal challenges by the outlaw bikie gangs.

Where the Qld Labor government is concerned it is all undo and ideology first - as well as paying off the Greens for electoral support.

It is simply amazing, there are country towns that are resembling ghost towns as mining retracts. Huge unemployment. Just one pressing problem of many!

Yet, Labor's priorities include lowering the age of consent for anal sex (despite the growth in STIs and HIV jumping to heterosexual women) and undoing the effective law and arrangements that have made the life of organised criminals damned uncomfortable in Queensland.

otb,

I stopped reading your post -
after the first line.

I shall not be reading any future posts
of yours.

Kindly stop addressing them to me.

Jeepers, Foxy...but aren't you riveted to otb's commentary on Queensland "bikie laws"?

He's festooning two threads with it at the moment - and would ya believe neither of them are hosting that topic!

The Heydon thread and the "Why are gays not prepared to compromise" thread...

BTT, otb

OTB apparently hits the mark!

Dear Poirot,

He's obviously on a mission.

Dear Is Mise,

He can't possibly hit the mark
when he's aiming so low!

"Editorial: Queensland is now at a fork in the road with the review of the anti-bikie laws
August 16, 2015
The EditorThe Courier-Mail

More than $800,000 cash as well as machine guns were seized during recent Hells Angels bikie raids across the Gold Coast.

WHEN the cat’s away, the mice will play. In Queensland, we can substitute the political policy sloths in George Street for the cat and replace the mice with the vermin that fill the ranks of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

While the Palaszczuk Government persists with its deliberate inertia over what to do about the successful anti-bikie laws introduced by the previous Newman government, the criminals are wasting no time getting back to business.

The Government is persisting with its review of the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) laws, one of dozens of probes which have helped Labor create a facade of busyness since their surprise election success.

On the issue of bikies, what is there to review? Police Commissioner Ian Stewart – the same commissioner the Government this week reappointed for another two years based on his success – says reported crime has fallen 10 per cent.

Much of that can be attributed to the law enforcement blowtorch which has been applied to organised crime – read outlaw bikie gangs.

Our communities, particularly the Gold Coast where many of these rats make their nests, are safer.

The Commissioner discreetly declined to be drawn this week on whether he supported winding back the anti-bikie laws. That he has shown no such reticence in the past in praising the value of the laws to police as a crime-busting tool tells its own story."
contd..

"On Friday, 18 former patched members of the Bandidos who had admitted being involved in the Gold Coast brawl and the following siege of a police station, strolled out of Brisbane Magistrates Court smiling after being handed sentences including a good behaviour bond, fines and suspended jail terms. They were literally laughing in the face of the justice system.

The same arrogance is evident in the increasing activity of the gangs, as revealed in our exclusive report today. Police intelligence has identified the Hells Angels, Rebels, Mongols and Bandidos selectively recruiting as they seek to re-establish their reign, having been forced to flee the Sunshine State"..

In the past 10 weeks alone, the specialist Taskforce Maxima has shut down five operations, resulting in the seizure of drugs worth tens of millions of dollars and 35 deadly weapons.

Rightly or wrongly, the criminal gangs perceive a weakness and lack of will by the Palaszczuk Government and they are becoming emboldened. Having made great strides in smashing the menace, Queensland is now at a fork in the road.

..Queenslanders will be hoping the Government doesn’t hand the gangs a Christmas present for which we will all pay a heavy price."
http://tinyurl.com/oku7lnk

<Queensland police can fight to keep anti-bikie laws, Premier says

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk says police are entitled to lobby to retain the anti-gang laws that were introduced by her predecessor.
..
Lawrence Springborg said the fact it was an election promise did not mean the public wanted the legislation reviewed.

"I don't actually accept the contention behind that because if you look at things such as the VLAD laws they have been overwhelmingly popular," he said.

"Reviewing it out of existence is probably where we are heading."

'Those laws have certainly had an impact'

Commissioner Ian Stewart said the VLAD laws were a significant weapon in the fight against bikies.

"I have been on the public record as saying I think that they were a good thing," he said.

"We've had amazing success over the last few years; those laws have certainly had an impact."
http://tinyurl.com/q7oktdq

I rather think that OTB is not only aiming well but that he has excellent sights and is hitting the target in the X ring.

Is Mise,

Nice to note that you're impressed by otb's latest rants.

I merely note the headings and glide over the rest...I certainly couldn't be bothered actually imbibing those "off topic" diatribes.

Dear Is Mise,

I beg to differ.

A person aiming so low -
is a sign of
widespread eye problems and uncorrected vision.
Plus mismatched and corroding ammunition
does not help either.

Dear Poirot,

You're right - best to avoid
those with a mission of negativity
and their repetitive hate-filled bile.

Methamphetamine is wreaking havoc, especially in those 'Struggle Streets' that Labor, federal and State routinely ignore to pursue their gay marriage agenda.

In Queensland, lowering the age of consent to anal sex is a priority of the Labor government. If 'Gay'(sic) marriage gets up in Canberra, that should give some indication of the freedom that Labor+Greens outfits will be giving to gay activists to interfere in education.

In Queensland, the cynical and very arrogant 'L Plate' Labor outfit have done what police and the public feared they would do, give organised gangs the green light to return, set up shop and engage in their previous fight for territory, plus new gangs, including from NZ.

The most fearful risks are:

- the Russian Mafia that is already in Australia thanks to large numbers of migrants that cannot be screened effectively (and of course the political correctness imperative of 'diversity'); and,

- the Colombian drug kings, who only need some of their own cultural presence to set up shop. Then it is all over, Red Rover, as far as any semblance of police protecting the community, or even themselves, is concerned.

"Alice Gorman: Bikies’ easy ride a farce
CAN you hear them laughing?"
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/opinion/alice-gorman-bikies-easy-ride-a-farce/story-fnj94itc-1227487774757

Folks, this poor leadership and political cynicism impacts on the whole of Australia, not just Queensland.

Foxy,

Stay away from the topic of aiming, you're only shewing a complete lack of knowledge.

OTB is on target; Ice, anyone?

otb,

"Forum Rules

(1) Keep responses on topic."

Dear Is Mise,

I have great eyesight, a steady hand,
great weaponry and ammunition, and
I'm a crack shot.

However, I can only tolerate a small
amount of "pigeons."

As the old adage states - "Don't play
chess with a pigeon. They knock pieces
over, crap all over the board, then fly
to their flock proclaiming victory."

While I accept OTB may be a bit off topic, the points raised do show that rather than tackle the big issue that will cripple this nation, ice as an example, they prefer to use our valuable palimentry debat time to debate gay marriage, something that effects about 1% of the population.

rehctub,

"While I accept OTB may be a bit off topic..."

Oh, I see...anything goes.

Okay then - here's a recipe for chocolate cake.

Ingredients

2 cups all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
2 cups sugar
4 ounces unsweetened chocolate
6 tablespoons unsalted butter
1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
2 eggs, lightly beaten

Chocolate Frosting

Method

Preheat the oven to 350°. Butter and flour two 8-by-1 1/2-inch round cake pans. Line the bottoms with wax paper. In a medium bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, baking soda and salt; set aside.
In a medium saucepan, combine the sugar with 2 cups of water. Bring to a boil over high heat and stir until the sugar dissolves; then pour into a large bowl. Add the chocolate and butter and let sit, stirring occasionally, until melted and slightly cooled. Stir in the vanilla.
Beat the eggs into the chocolate mixture at medium speed until combined. Add the dry ingredients all at once and beat at medium speed until smooth. Divide the batter evenly between the prepared pans and bake for about 25 minutes, or until the top springs back when pressed lightly and a cake tester comes out clean. Cool the cakes in their pans for about 25 minutes, then invert onto a rack to cool completely.
Set one cake, right-side up, on a serving platter. Using a metal spatula, spread one-third of the Chocolate Frosting evenly over the cake. Top with the second cake and frost the top and sides with the remaining frosting.

Dear Rehctub,

The Queensland Government is tackling
the problem of organised crime.

Attorney General Yvette D'Ath in a media statement explains that
former Supreme Court Judge Alan Wilson will head
the Palaszczuk Government review of VLAD laws as part of
an extensive crackdown on organised crime.

Ms D'Ath stated that Justice Wilson, who retired in
March was widely regarded as one of the State's finest
legal minds and would bring a well-earned reputation for
fairness and decency to the role.

We're told that in a distinguished career of over more
than 3 decades, Justice Wilson was admitted as a barrister
in 1982 and was appointed to the District Court bench in 1998
before rising to the Supreme Court in 2009.

Apparently he also became the Inaugural Head of the Queensland
Civil and Administrative Tribunal at that time.

Ms D'Ath stated that the government is delighted that a
legal figure of Justice Wilson's calibre will oversea this
critical review.

Ms D'Ath tells us that this is what should have happened in
the first place. A thorough analysis of important legislation
designed to protect ordinary Queenslanders from organised
crime.

Instead the LNP delivered a stunt-driven mish-mash of
legislation.

She states that - it is the job of this task-force to
examine how to focus these laws so that they deliver safe
communities across the state by taking crime gangs off the
streets.

The LNP legislation championed by its leadership team was rammed
through without proper scrutiny.

Now is the time to get it right.

It's made quite clear that the task-force will include
high-ranking representatives from the Queensland Law Society,
the Bar Association of Queensland, the Public Interest
Monitor, the Queensland Police Force, the Queensland Police
Union, the Queensland Police Commissioned Officer's Union
of Employees and Senior Public Servants.

It will work in tandem with the Palaszczuk's Commission of
Inquiry headed by respected criminal barrister Michael Byrne
QC as part of a multi-faceted assault on organised crime.

This taskforce will report back to the Government by the end
of this year incorporating the findings of the Commission
of inquiry.

Dear Rehctub,

As for same-sex marriage?

It was the LNP MP Warren Entsch who presented the
Same-Sex Marriage Bill to Parliament. Liberal
co-sponsor - Teresa Gambaro, whose office helped draft
the Bill hugged Mr Entsch after his speech.

Foxy, unfortunately the 'Usual Suspects' on the forum cannot bring themselves to eating chocolate cake, its against their racial beliefs, its the wrong color, maybe you have something in a vanilla for them?

Poirot , you're kidding, if you can't see there is a link between this thread, and labor's seemingly lack of priorities when it comes to major issues effecting this country, then I feel sorry for you and perhaps you would be better off baking a cake and leave the debating to the grown ups.

There are two sides to this debate, one being that gays want to be accepted in marriage as equal, the other being that our governments have become so weak when it comes to political correctness that they are unable to actually govern. Il bet Joe would not have put up with this type of new aged crap back in his days.

Here we have a country on the brink of a major jobs crisis and the best the percieved incoming government can find to debate is two queers gaining the right to marriage equality. QLD labor is just as lame as they are about to open the flood gates to organized crime again.

Dear Rehctub,

On the contrary the Queensland Government with
the current task force is examining how to focus
the laws so they can deliver safe communities
across the state by taking crime gangs off the
streets. The previous government delivered a
stunt-driven mish-mash of legislation. They rammed
through without proper scrutiny. And as the Attorney-General
tells us - now is the time to get it right. The task-force
includes all the appropriate high-ranking reps that are
needed for this to succeeded.

Why do you suppose Queenslanders kicked the previous
government out with such a unanimous vote - because they
screwed up - big time!

Also - you may not approve of same-sex marriage - however,
you are not in the majority on this issue.
The majority of Australians seem to support it - and
it will be the majority who will decide on the subject.
Whether you like it or not.

Dear Paul,

Here's something that may appeal:

"Take one dream. Dream it in detail. Put it into
your own hands. See its final outcome clearly in
you mind. Then mix it with a little effort and add
a generous portion of self-discipline. Flavour it
with a wholesome pinch of ambition. Stir briskly with
confidence until the mixture becomes clear, the doubt
separated from the resolution. Then bake at an even
temperature in a moderate mind until the dream rises and
is firm to the touch. Decorate with individuality.
Cut into generous portions and serve with justifiable pride.

Approached in this manner, life is a piece of cake.

(Bryce Courtenay, 1992.)

"Why are gays not prepared to compromise?"

It is right to refer to the small but noisy Gay Pride activists and not the broader community of homosexuals.

Homosexuals needed and got acceptance and the greatest majority of what would be a diverse population with differing attitudes would have left the political scene, comfortable with acceptance and legal protection.

However, homosexuals would be very regretful, angry, that now as a result of the intervention of the radical feminist rump in the leftist 'Progressives', the private affairs and 'relationships'(sic, new speak, radfem approved!) are subject to State scrutiny, reporting and regulation (of course).

Whereas once (and since forever!) homosexuals were capable and adult enough to run their personal affairs and break-ups as they chose, as a result of interference and behind the scenes political manipulation by the leftist 'Progressives' it is now the State, public servants and courts, who now presume to tell homosexuals if they are in a 'relationship' or not and how to distribute assets after.

No wins only losses there for homosexuals, but a stepping stone for the political "Progressives" aka international socialists whose target is knocking out the institutional pillars of their despised capitalist society, specifically FAMILY, fatherhood and 'traditional'(sic) marriage.

It isn't homosexuals who are unwilling to compromise. They just want to get on with their lives and they certainly didn't ask for the State regulation that now applies to them.

What has happened is that Shorten's Labor, comprising so many of the handbag hot squad for the previous Gillard government that was noted for its Gender and Class wars Labor, are devoid of policies and have chosen to run with gay marriage and global warming for the next election. The tiny publicity seeking Gay Pride activists would be nothing, squat, without the concerted effort of organised left.

It is the left that is not prepared to compromise.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham was right to slam Labor over its obsession with gay marriage, saying it should concentrate of on 'Struggle Streets' instead,
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

That should be Labor's 'Handbag HIT Squad'.

The leftist Emily's Listers, who couldn't even give credit to another women, Julie Bishop, when she enjoyed world-wide acclaim for her astute and tireless work to win unanimous backing for the UN resolution calling for “full and unrestricted access” to the MH17 crash site. See here,

<[Julie]Bishop, in particular, has been acclaimed by foreign ministers and diplomats she worked with to ensure the support of all 15 members of the UN Security Council for the Australian resolution...

Netherlands foreign minister Frans Timmermans made it clear Australia’s leadership and Bishop’s direction were crucial to the success of the UN move..

Given Plibersek’s paid-up membership of Emily’s List, which purports to support women in politics (except if they reflect mainstream values) and women generally (as long as they vote Left-of-centre), her churlish refusal to acknowledge a significant achievement by an Australian woman reflects a meagre capacity to pay a compliment, even when demonstrably earned.

When asked whether she supported Abbott’s response on behalf of Australia to the heartbreaking disaster, she replied: “I think emotions have run very high. We know now at least 37 Australian citizens and permanent residents have lost their lives. It’s a very emotional time for our country. It is important that we establish a proper investigation now so that those who are responsible can face the consequences of their actions.”

Nothing doing there..

Where Bishop builds, Plibersek destroys.

Where Bishop seeks consensus, Plibersek sows dissent — in the Middle East and with our nearest neighbour Indonesia.

Plibersek’s ill-mannered refusal to give any credit to Julie Bishop, another woman, or indeed, Tony Abbott, is symptomatic of her boorish approach to politics and goes a long way toward explaining why so many Australians have been repelled by the performance of Labor’s handbag hit squad.">

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-handbag-hit-squad-fails-to-show-respect/story-fni0cwl5-1227000616669

"Where Bishop seeks consensus, Plibersek sows dissent"
That explains the 'gay marriage' strategy of Shorten's NO POLICIES Labor too!

The issue of same-sex marriage is a
conscience issue and an important change
that's being proposed and surely all
sides of the debate have an equal right to
be heard - instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an over-view:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

Foxy, I hooe you don't think a no vote would be the end of the issue, because it won't be. These people are only after gay marriage equality as a stepping stone as their quest for equality will be endless and to give in here will open the flood gates. The next thing will will then see is someone wanting to legislate so Muslims can marry ten year olds, and have multiple wives.

Sorry, but it time governments pulled outnthe big stick.

As for the Mewman government, people willingly accepted the gifts from labor but were unwilling to pay them back and that grub from Redcliffe did so much damage.

Dear Rehctub,

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to democracy. It is
important therefore that governments
should recognise the
grievances of minorities that have little
political clout. If the losers in the
political process don't accept the legitimacy
of the process under which they have lost they
may well resort as you suggest to more radical
tactics outside the institutional framework.

However, I'm optimistic that what the voters
decide will be accepted. Most people take the
legitimacy of their particular political system
for granted very early in life.

Although I could be proven wrong in this case.
I hope not.

Sorry Foxy but I don't share your optimism because these people want more than marriage equality but I've thrashed that point to death. They simply can't accept that god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

As for governments, regardless of the side they are too worried about public opinion to get anything done which usually leads to policy on the run.

I'd hate to think where we would be Today had our forefathers who fought in the past wars gave so much consideration to queers, but they were still in the closet back then.

Dear Rehctub,

If God didn't create Adam and Steve
who did?

.....If God didn't create Adam and Steve
who did?

Channel ten Foxy because before they started to broadcast their parade in Oxford street they stayed in the closset.

Poirot, why is it that most racism is caused by the self proclaimed victims?

I hear ya, rehctub.

<<Channel ten Foxy because before they started to broadcast their parade in Oxford street they stayed in the closset.>>

Same goes for them goddamn blacks. Where was the American people's conscience vote on segregation, huh?!

I tell ya, those Lefties will be the end of us.

rehctub,

"Poirot, why is it that most racism is caused by the self proclaimed victims?"

I don't know why you're asking me that stupid question - all I did was put up a chocolate cake recipe.

Fox, " If the losers in the political process don't accept the legitimacy of the process under which they have lost they may well resort ..to more radical tactics outside the institutional framework"

Hopefully that is just hot air. If it isn't, the offending activists who break the law will find themselves in Court.

Because the most significant forces behind the political push for gay marriage are NOT homosexuals, but the Labor and Greens political parties, doubtless they may be forced to choose other issues to get headlines if and when the electorate reminds them at election time of the important issues such as infrastructure, unemployment and those 'Struggles Streets' they are ignoring.

General Comments
Labor and the Greens also need to be aware that they cannot continue to be dismissive of the load being placed on singles and young couples by their extensions (when in government) of spousal entitlements and benefits to defactos (definition of defacto broadened as well) and then to gay defactos who are all now regarded by government as 'marrieds'.

If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by 'marrieds' especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially through the inclusion on defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

As reminder, singles vote and in large numbers. Also, women feature strongly in the singles population.

Some of the prerequisites for Democracy are listed
as being - advanced economic development, restraints on
government power, absence of major cleavages, access to
information, diffusion of power, and of course the
tolerance of dissent.

A tolerance of dissent means a tolerance of criticism and of
dissenting opinions - which is considered fundamental to
democracy. Governing parties must resist the temptation to
equate their own policies with the national good, or they will
tend to regard opposition as disloyal or even treasonable.
Similarly, democracies must avoid the danger of the "tyranny of
the majority," in some cases the democratic process may work in
such a way that a small minority - for example Sikhs in India,
is rendered permanently powerless.

For groups in this position, democracy might as well not
exist, and it important that government should recognise
the grievances of minorities that have little political clout.

Because as history has shown us and as I stated earlier if the
losers in the political process do not accept the legitimacy of the
process under which they have lost,
they may resort in more radical tactics
outside of the institutional framework.

However, most people, of course, do not rationally consider the
various alternatives. No matter what country they inhabit
they tend simply to accept the system they have been socialised
to believe in.

Extensive research on political socialisation has shown the people
take the legitimacy of their particular political system for
granted at a very early age. This was stated as a response to
Rehctub's concern that a "NO" vote would not be acceptable to
Gay activists.

Why should singles have to pay for gay 'love'?

If there ever was a rationale for unearned conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.

Especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially over the years through the inclusion of defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

We're told that there are at least 20,000 same-sex
couples in Australia who experience systematic
discrimination on a daily basis. There are 58 federal
laws that deny same-sex couples and their children
basic financial and work-related entitlements which
are available to opposite-sex couples and their
children.

The following website explains further:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-community-guide

Why should first-class tax payers like same-sex
couples be second-class citizens in this country
due to their systematic discrimination on a
daily basis.

Poirot, my appolgies it was Pauls remark about the cake being the wrong color.

Foxy, if you honestly think a same sex couple raising a family is normal then I'm afraid you have lost the plot.

Dear Rehctub,

Losing just the plot isn't so bad.

Some people lose not only the plot, they also lose the
sub-plot, the script, the soundtrack, the intermission,
popcorn, credits and the exit sign as well.

Many people live in a fog. Many don't know what the plot is.
Life to some is like a movie for which they arrived over 30
minutes late.

According to new Australian research children of same-sex
parents enjoy better levels of health and well being than
their peers from traditional family units.

We're told that there are more than 33,000 families with
same-sex parents living in Australia. This is according
to the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics Census.

Some suggested explanations for the better levels of
health and well-being of children of same-sex parents were -

1) Same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional
gender roles which led to a more harmonious households.

2) Parenting roles and work roles and home roles within
same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed
when compared to heterosexual families.

What this means is that people take on roles that are suited
to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender
stereotypes - which is mum staying home and looking after
the kids and dad going out to earn money.

With same-sex families the traditional nurturing role
is shared. It's not one parent over another, the traditional
bread winning role is shared.

This leads to a more harmonious family unit and results in
better health and well being.

The following website explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healtier-study-finds/5574168

Fox,

You and predictably that bastion of political correctness the Human Rights Commission are deliberately ignoring Singlism, ie discrimination against singles, to show favouritism towards certain PC approved 'victims'(sic), some of whom could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as victims considering the financial and other support they already receive from government.

Why should singles have to pay for gay 'love'? Or any 'marrieds' love?

If there ever was a rationale for UNEARNED conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.

It is a serious question.

I don't see why young working singles and couples who:

- have to pay for their own education and are facing extreme difficulties being able to plan for their own future and children; and

- are being taxed to the hilt to provide welfare and infrastructure for migrants who lob in Sydney anyhow;

should be loaded up with the extra burden of providing unearned benefits, entitlements and other breaks for gay 'love'.

Why should singles be forced to pay for gay 'love'? What possible business case can be advanced for that?

OTB all welfare bludgers are going to bring us down not just gays, unless of cause we elect a government with balls and I doubt that's likely to happen as they get all mixed up on such minor issue and ignore the real issues we face with the gay marriage debate being a prime example.

If there is one consistent message being put by gay marriage advocates it is that marriage is simply 'love'.

The essential, traditional nexus between procreation and marriage has similarly been scoffed at and broken by the very large, dominating rump of radical feminists and leftist 'Progressives' who are the power and engine behind gay marriage.

Even apart from that, the major social institutions of marriage and family have been challenged relentlessly by the same forces who are united against what they see as a common enemy to social change.

Even the most ardent supporters of marriage and family would admit that the institutions have been hollowed out and changed substantially and there is no going back.

Leftist 'Progressive' governments, particularly the Gillard government, redefined the previous meaning and arguably the perception and social acceptance and utility of de facto and at the same time broadening it to simply a 'relationship', a loaded term and the 'new speak' of Feminists. Homosexual 'relationships' were forced under the same Big State control.

What business case for 'social good' could possibly be made to justify the present situation that young working singles find themselves in, where they are directly and indirectly being required to pay for others' 'love'?

The feminists and leftist 'Progressives' who are the cowdozers behind gay marriage have already proved to their own satisfaction and certainly to Labor and Greens that:

- 'marriage' is nothing more than 'love', forget that procreation, 'for life' and other malarkey;

- that marriage is must, not should, be turned on its head and altered forever;

- that the claimed social advantages and worth of marriage were always cr@p;

- that the State should get out of regulating private 'love' lives; and,

- that there are many other just as worthwhile and viable alternatives that are a better fit for a 'diversified' Australia, the world's leader in multicultural experimentation (whether the population want that or not!).

contd..

While others might argue the rights and wrongs of the changes, it is undeniable that young working singles and couples have been encumbered with the additional load of supporting what is now a majority of the population with a strong sense of their own and their 'love' partners entitlement to all of the UNEARNED benefits and entitlements as 'marrieds'.

Young working people are already being required to provide for an aging population and for the huge costs to provide infrastructure in large metropolitan capitals plus welfare, housing and health for very large migrant intakes.

Young workers also pay for their own education an compete in a globalised workforce where many jobs are non-permanent. These are major departures from the environment years ago when government thought fit to recognise and advantage 'marrieds'.

Why should singles be forced to pay for gay 'love', or for anyone else's love for that matter?

Dear Rehctub,

It seems that your mind-set is "welfare is not good for
business." and that the issue of same-sex marriage is a
trivial issue with which the government should not bother.
When there's far more important issues at hand - such as
cracking down on unions, national security, getting involved
in Syria, and the list goes on. This despite the fact that
all the polls indicate same-sex marriage is quite an
important issue - especially for those Australians who
experience systematic discrimination on a daily basis.

You are entitled to your opinions. They differ vastly
from mine.

Still, it will be interesting to see where voters stand on these "trivial" issues at the next election.

Foxy, I do have a problem with the way our welfare is distributed just like I have issues with job seekers getting out of bed at 11 am to look for a job, or filling their faces full of crap, or getting a purple mow hawk just so they don't get the job and don't tell me that doesn't go on.

As for discrimination on a daily basis, this group make up less than 1% of the population so I doubt many get discriminated against on a daily basis.

I just don't get why they, the queers, need to change our world to incorporate them. Why not create a world for themselves instead so everyone can be happy. A simple addition to the marriage act can do just that but that's not all they want.

Dear Rehctub,

If they are such a small group as you describe
then why on earth do you see them as such a
big threat? And to whom are they a threat exactly?
To you? In what way and how?

We're told that there are more than 33,000 families
with same-sex parents living in Australia. This is
according to the most recent ABS Census.

And here's the reality of same-sex families:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healtier-study-finds/5574168

Here's the reality of their discrimination:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-community-guide

It appears that it wouldn't do you any harm to learn
the full realities of the issue. It just may give you
a different perspective.

Foxy it's quite simple, as a straight couple I don't want the meaning of my thirty year marriage to be the same as two queers .

Fox,

As you have been advised before many times on this forum, the operative word of that same sex 'research' you linked to means that the findings should be treated with caution. Most people would be aware that any research findings are subject to various limitations which are usually not mentioned in news reports - otherwise there would be very few 'sex' findings to sensationalise. By way of example, and this has been pointed out to you by posters before, one must be very careful with the interpretation of results obtained from a self-selected sample.

Next, you talk of the 'discrimination' against gay couples who allege they cannot get access to all of the UNPAID benefits and entitlements of marrieds.

Yet so many times on OLO you have ducked the rather obvious unfairness of requiring singles to pay for gay 'love'. See here,

<Fox,

You and predictably that bastion of political correctness the Human Rights Commission are deliberately ignoring Singlism, ie discrimination against singles, to show favouritism towards certain PC approved 'victims'(sic), some of whom could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as victims considering the financial and other support they already receive from government.

Why should singles have to pay for gay 'love'? Or any 'marrieds' love?

If there ever was a rationale for UNEARNED conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.>
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 25 August 2015 10:27:22 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6959&page=29

My, " otherwise there would be very few 'sex' findings to sensationalise" should be " otherwise there would be very few 'SEXY'(sl) findings to sensationalise".

otb,

Your opinion is of no interest to me.
I don't bother reading it.

Dear Rehctub,

How can your marriage be the same as anyone
else's?

That doesn't make sense.

Beach, prattles on about singles paying for "gay love", yet we all pay a huge price for the likes of the Catholic Church to have its members engage in pedophile "love" of our children, we not only massively subsidize their institutions to take care of children, what a sick joke, we give these churches tax free status. Its the hypocritical devotees of religions which are the loudest whingers when it comes to gay marriage.

Gay marriage is radical change to marriage, turning the whole concept on its head. Among other things, it breaks the essential connection between procreation and marriage and secondly, marriage becomes temporary.

The elephant in the room is that the whole rationale for giving 'marrieds' preferential treatment, entitlements and concessions, directly and indirectly, has been lost as well.

That is especially so because the 'married' rump of the population has been increased significantly by de factos gaining married entitlements and then by adding homosexual 'relationships' (feminist new speak for their reengineered de facto) as well.

Marrieds' sole argument for special treatment is their 'love', whatever that is.

So, why should single people be forced to pay for gay 'love'?

Beach, i understand that there are benefits paid by the state to parents etc of children for their up bring. What additional benefits will gay married couples without children receive from the state, once gay marriage is legalised?

Paul1405,

That would be to ignore the extensions to the number of 'marrieds' that have already occurred and without the mandate of the Australian people.

While both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard personally opposed gay marriage, the governments they led were obsessed with social experimentation to accord with socialist and radical feminist ideology.

The notable example and relevant here was the rejigging and extending the coverage of de facto (redefined in accord with radical feminist idealism) and to include gays. All gained the unearned benefits and entitlements, being regarded as 'married' - which was the sly intent of the changes.

That was doubtless as pay-offs to Greens and other political activists for deals done for their electoral support.

Why should singles, young working singles especially but all singles, be required to pay for gay 'love'?

Beach, can you answer the question; If a childless couple, any couple, marry this Saturday, what new additional state funded benefits are they entitled to on Sunday which they weren't entitled to on Friday? Please, can you list them for me.

Paul1405,

The answer has already been given. Read the posts.

It has already been stated that Rudd and Gillard Labor governments slyly enacted law amendments (de facto changes) that redefined de facto 'relationships'(sic), including gay, providing access to 'married' benefits and entitlements.

Back to the original question: why should singles, young working singles especially but all singles, be required to pay for gay 'love?

We have values and principles in this country
that reflect strong influences on Australia's
history and culture. These include Judeo-Christian
ethics, a British political heritage and the spirit
of the European Enlightenment. Australian values
which are important in modern Australia include
equality under the law.

Therefore Australian governments are obliged to enact
laws that ensure that all Australians are equal under the
law. This means that nobody should be treated differently
from anybody else because of their race, ethnicity or
country of origin, because of their age, gender,
marital states or disability, political beliefs,
religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

Government agencies and independent courts must treat
everyone fairly. Hence Amendments to Laws are enacted
from time to time by governments -to do precisely that.
This is done to create a society that is stable
cohesive and diverse. Our values define why
so many people want to become Australians and the type
of cohesive society we can all be proud of.

Fox,

How are singles being treated fairly? The reverse is obviously true.

It has already been shown that the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments were frivolous and cavalier where singles' rights were concerned.

The Rudd and Gillard governments dramatically increase the discrimination against singles by slyly enacting law amendments (de facto changes) that redefined de facto 'relationships', including gay, providing hugely increased access to 'married' benefits and entitlements.

Fox, you yourself have posted a list of additional 'married' benefits the Human Rights Commission is spruiking for gays. You support that.

It is time that singles of all ages, homosexual singles too, woke up to the Singlism, it is REAL discrimination, of Labor and Greens that plunders their pockets to support a whole new gravy train of entitled 'marrieds'.

Why should singles, young working singles especially but all singles, be required to pay for gay 'love?

otb,

I prefer not to read your posts
because most of them are the same repetitive rants,
with no logic to them.
Not worthy of a response.

You rave on about -
"unfairness" of "singles" having to pay for "Gay love."
Which doesn't make any sense.

I presume that you are upset because in April 2008
the then government proposed greater recognition
of LGBT rights in Australia. They announced reforms to
the recognition of same-sex relationships in -
taxation, health, employment, superannuation, aged care,
and other areas.

Originally 58 Commonwealth laws existed where gay couples
faced discrimination. These were identified in HREOCS
year-long inquiry - "Same-Sex - Same Entitlements Inquiry,"
which was tabled in Parliament in June 2007.

An Audit conducted by the government in early 2008 found around
100 Commonwealth laws where gay couples faced discrimination.
The last of the legislation to remove the discrimination that
was identified passed the Senate in November 2008.

You seem to be convinced that all this has a great effect
on working "singles."

All the government did was right the discriminatory laws
against LGBT couples and families - by reforming these
discriminatory laws .
Which is what governments are supposed to do in this
country. All Australians are supposed to be equal under
the law. All Australians are supposed to be treated fairly.

However if you have serious complaints - by all means do take
the issues up with either - your Member of Parliament or
the Attorney-General's Office - I am sure that
they will be able to explain the law
reforms to you, and why they were necessary.

I find it rather interesting that someone who consistently
on this forum spruiks the rights of "decent-hard-working Australians,"
yet rants against the rights and entitlements of of same-sex couples
and by regaining their rights they are somehow causing
grief to "singles."

We used to live in a society where all people mattered - not
just a select few. Where the rights of all mattered not just
those of a select few.

Is it any wonder that I prefer to scroll past your
posts.

Beach, you simply are making up nonsense with your claim that single taxpayers are in some way supporting gay love. There is nothing in the rubbish you post that can be construed as fact. Make an outlandish claim then call it fact.

Foxy, I could not agree more;

otb,

I prefer not to read your posts
because most of them are the same repetitive rants,
with no logic to them.
Not worthy of a response.

It is easy to see when the leftists are on the back foot.

Fox is forever holding forth about how Australia is a 'wealthy country' and is always able to pay for more to swing from the taxpayer's teats. More of the 'ought be entitled' victims and drones to claim special treatment from government, but the taxpayer pays.

Paul1405, as one of the NSW Watermelon Greens thinks the same.

Both have difficulty figuring out that the government has no money of its own and all of that bucket of money is taken from taxpayers. Inevitably, someone has to pay for the unearned benefits and entitlements claimed and for the concessions given to select groups.

Similarly in employment where some group of employees is entitled to claim an entitlement (and accompanying spousal travel is an example), that allowance is taken from the allocation available generally for staff pay and conditions, which must shrink accordingly somewhere else.

To take an example, the federal public service has always led in providing advantageous conditions and entitlements to marrieds. That has a double impact, first on the money available for pay for public servants generally and secondly on the tax bucket overall. On the funds available for government services and benefits, eg age pensions, for the public the public service is supposed to be servicing.

Where some get concessions, benefits and entitlements, singles who are excluded on the basis of marital state are always disqualified and miss out, but singles still have to pay, directly or indirectly, for the entitlements of married.

However, as pointed out in earlier posts, successive socialist governments (Rudd and Gillard) through manipulating the definition and scope of de facto into a 'relationship' and including gays, have greatly increased the proportion who can claim benefits, entitlements and concessions as 'married'. That is from their employer and from government.

Plainly there is widespread discrimination against singles who are being treated differently and are being required to pay for others' 'love' (whatever that is).

Foxy,

Did you know that in NSW for many, many years women were discriminated against by the NSW Govt. Railways, particularly at major Sydney stations?

The women's toilets only had cubicles whereas the men's had troughs and cubicles; therefore the men could urinate for free but the women had to pay a penny to gain entry to a cubicle.

This was blatant sexual discrimination!!

On the plus side there were 'Women Only' compartments on trains but they have long gone.

Just as an aside, the cubicle doors at Central were all made from figured Queensland walnut wood, I bought 25 of them, for $1 each [they were covered by about ten coats of yucky green paint] from a scrapyard in Newtown in about 1995 and am still making things from the frames; the six ply top and bottom panels I used for making cupboards in the kitchen.

Dear Is Mise,

Both men and women's toilet cubicles had coin-entry
up to the 1950s and perhaps even later I'm told -
in most of
the public toilets in the major Australian cities.
For obvious reasons to maintain hygiene - to keep
out the homeless and prevent the theft of
toilet paper. It's an old left-over - I've been told
from the "good old colonial days." (penal-colony traditions
and all that).

And of course there's another practice that might
be of interest that by law - until
the 1960s all hotels had to provide stabling for horses
and a drinking trough in front of the hotel for the benefit
of horse-drawn carriages.

And good onya - for doing so well out of NSW Railways.
It must be great to have part of such a major station in
Sydney as part of your kitchen.

If you or anyone else have other "peculiar," and
interesting historical facts to share - start a threat.
It would be great to read.

Ooops, my apologies for typo errors.

It's late and I'm tired.

To reiterate the inconvenient truth, Labor and the Greens need to be aware that they cannot continue to be dismissive of the load being placed on singles and young couples by their extensions (when in government) of spousal entitlements and benefits to defactos (definition of defacto broadened as well) and then to gay defactos who are all now regarded by government as 'marrieds'.

According to the 'evolved' leftists, the large rump behind the push for gay marriage, marriage is (undefined) 'love', nothing more. They hold that the essential links between marriage and children and family and 'for life' are dross of the past.

If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by 'marrieds' especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially through the inclusion on defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

As reminder, singles vote in large numbers and often. They could easily swing seats and could return, or vote out, a government. Also, women feature strongly in the singles population.

Finally, Beach has produced the evidence of singles paying for gay love. Gay married public servants, and those in a de facto gay relationship are flitting around the countryside faster than you can say Bronwyn Bishop, all on the taxpayer. At the same time the partners of said gays, are tagging along, for what reason, obviously to provide gay love, all at the expense of straight single PS's who are forgoing well deserved pay rises from the "bucket" all to satisfy the lustful love of these gay couples. Very interesting Beach.

Interesting fact about gay couples, on average they are better educated and have higher incomes than heterosexual couples, therefore they pay more tax. Beach why are gay and lesbian couples subsidizing straight couples. From my own experience I believe this to be true, most of my gay friends have very good, well paying jobs, or are self employed. I tell my gay friends, its the "footy effect", whiles the straight lads were out kicking a football around the oval, you guys were in the library getting a better HSC mark!
Gays and children, nearly all but one gay couple I know have non tax deductible pets, mostly dogs, some have cats, rather than kids. The lesbian couple I know who have a child, have a 14 year old boy, from one mums previous relationship. 'J' plays football, rugby, both for the private school he attends and on the weekends. He has no problems with his two mums, they have a beautiful unit in an expensive part of Sydney, the boys lives with them, he is well adjusted and is a high achiever at school, his mums have instilled very good moral standards in 'J'. His father as far as I know was hell with 'J's mother and the boy himself up to about the age of 8, when she got both of them away from him

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your well reasoned and intelligent post.
As always it is much appreciated.
For me this discussion has now run its course.

Paul1405,

I am beginning to understand why so many socialists are bisexual. It is just that they constantly miss the target.

As shown here, their partners duck which wouldn't help.

Hi Foxy,
A funny story, "T" and I like to go out to listen to bands, there are a couple of Island bands we particularly like, they do reggae etc. There is a group of girls we meet up with from time to time at these nights, 3 or 4 work at the hospital with "T" (they call her Mumma), we sit with our friends, we are all good mates, they drink, dance, have a good time together. Some of the girls are knock out gorgeous. One night we were at a club, the Kami's, a Tongan band who do a mix, were playing, the girls were there, we all love that band and they draw a crowd. This bloke "Charlie" from Cronulla, we didn't know him, he had been buzzing around all night, uninvited joins our table, trying to pick up one of the girls. Helen, who's blond and near 40, Charlie don't know that all the girls, except "T" are lesbian, after much trying without success to pick up Helen he leans across the table to me and moans about his lack of success, I said something like "Now girls its time to tell Charlie here the truth." "Yeah tell him Paul" "Sorry Charlie, yum, well, we all belong to the religious cult 'The Little Children of God' and these women are all my wives, a bit like the Mormons, only more wives, I only have 8, if I had 12 I would let you have the pick of crop, that's our rule, isn't that right my wives!" That's right husband!" "Sorry about that Charlie, you miss out," He was a bit off his face by then, and put out by all that.
Charlie, had the perfect pick up line, he kept pestering Helen to come back to Cronulla with him and see his vegie patch (in the dark!) Sad to say Charlie got no where and soon disappeared. one rule these girls have, no strange guys buy them drinks, they buy their own. I find lesbian women far more uninhibited than gay men.

Foxy,

Of course there were pay to enter cubicles in the men's but men didn't need to use one to urinate, they had the trough or individual 'free to use' urinals.

Whilst being so far off topic, I'll go a bit further.
At Churchgate Station in Mumbai, India, the men's literally has a trough in the floor along one wall and it was a most hygenic setup as there is swift running water in it (where it goes I know not).
It has now been modernized and individual urinals fitted, these empty into the aforesaid trough of running water but as there is no flush mechanism on them the odour that was lacking of old is now getting rather potent and this former jewel among Indian Railway toilets is fading into the usual pong.

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

Females had even better advantages - especially in
the heart of the big cities. They were able to access
for free the lovely toilet facilities in all the
major Department Stores - like David Jones, Anthony
Hordens, Mark Foys, to name just a few where I'm told
there were even attendants that handed you hand-towels.
Females were certainly spoilt for choice in those days.

Dear Paul,

It sounds like a great night.
I wonder how much Charlie remembered the next day?

I've worked with both male and female gays and can't really
say whether females were less inhibited than males or not.
The people that I worked were very outgoing and very
professional in their work. And when we
socialised - it was still with work colleagues -
so perhaps that was restrictive for them to behave
any differently.

I do remember visiting a gay male neighbour while we
lived in Los Angeles on a Friday evening - to deliver a
message that I had taken while he was at work. I
rang his doorbell and when the door opened I was quite
taken back to see quite a few guys dressed in all kinds of "female
attire" and full make-up. My neighbour looked quite embarrassed.
I delivered the message and fled.
I think we both felt quite uncomfortable. Neither of us ever spoke
about that incident. By the way - he was a psychologist
by profession.

Dear Paul,

I forgot to add that I did learn a great deal from
working with and socialising with Gays both in
the United States and here in Australia - especially
when confronted with my own set of stereotypes that I
wasn't aware I had.

I came to slowly realise that if we are serious in our
society about equality this should mean that an
individual's rights and opportunities including those of
democratic participation should not depend on their
sexuality. We are all supposed to be treated fairly
under our laws.

And that is why I object so strongly to the arguments put
forward by certain posters on this forum - that Gays are
somehow lesser citizens and therefore deserve to be treated
differently. People who feel that their marriages will
somehow be demeaned if we allow same-sex marriage - then
their marriages could not have been that great in the first place.

To me it is simply wrong that despite being citizens,
voters, and taxpayers, Gay Australians did not have the same
rights (and still don't as far as marriage is concerned)
or in many cases had no rights - to those things in life
that heterosexual people take for granted.

After all Gays are people, first and foremost. They work,
they have lives, they love and have relationships.
They are family. They are someone's son and daughter.

Well said Foxy, that is the heart of it, the right of all people to be treated equally and with dignity no matter what!