This afternoon I started reading a book disclosing that, since the Supreme Court in America managed to find a 'right' to SSM in their Constitution, people who hold to biblical teaching on sex and marriage now have the same status as racists in culture and, increasingly, in law.

What happens in the U.S invariably happens here; so, happy days are on the way, folks.

so be it.

If homophobia is the reason for a stance against same-sex marriage (and it virtually always is, as the total lack of any rational argument against same-sex marriage suggests) then, yes, this is on par with racism. Homophobia is no better than racism.

The only situation I could imagine, where homophobia were not the reason for an individual's opposition to same-sex marriage, would be where a theist genuinely wants same-sex marriage legislated for, but opposes it despite this only because that is what they believe their god demands.

It's official. The SSM camp is mentally ill. Suggesting that anyone against SSM is on a par with racism and homophobia. The YES camp just says something and we are supposed to take it as gospel. The NO camp says something and they are immediately set upon with the most vial and disturbing accusations and name calling. It's a shame I don't know how to send an email onto this forum because I have a copy of what happened in Massachusetts, USA back in 2004 or 7 when SSM was legalised. These are all quotes from the media of the day and still today it is going on.
The YES camp mislead and lie to get their way. When they do, watch out we will all regret it and these vermin will be slithering around under the nearest rocks celebrating there sick victory. Then wait and see what happens to you as parents. The article speaks of the addition of what is essentially pornographic material in the school library and shown explicit pictures of men having sex, etc, etc. Any attempt by the parent to question the school or to remove their child was met with vexing anger and threats 'by the school'. It is just like living in hell, and that's what these sicko's are going to push on us. I beg the govt to reject these sick animals and let us live in piece.

runner,

If by "so be it" you mean you are going to throw your pinny over your head and look the other way, you may as well do it. After SSM is secured, there will be all sorts of demands. The culture war that started 50 years ago is just about over, and we have lost it; the barabarians are not at the gate, they are inside. Scottish philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre opined some time ago that we are in for a long Dark Age similar to that after the fall of the Roman Empire.

I've been reading about Saint Benedict's solution for people not keen to be part of the mess. I can't say it has much appeal.

ALTRAV,

Yes. Insanity is probably part of it but I think that the majority seem accepting of the madness, and the majority rules. The rest of us look like having to find a way to deal with it, protecting ourselves from the loonies determined bring us down.

Ttbn

The regressives have always hated decency. Their Christophobic natures cant help but to spit out hatred

Dear AJ Phillips,

Can I say that is quite well put.

I have some Evangelist Christians as in-laws and my take has been to compare the attitudes toward slavery and those of SSM. I would make the point that there are many scriptures commanding slaves to have obedience to the slave owner as they do Christ;

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 All who are under the yoke of slavery should regard their own masters as deserving of the highest respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not be discredited.
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but even if a chance of liberty should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude.

These were scriptures quoted from the pulpits in the South defending slavery before the Civil War.

I make the point that society now rightly finds slavery an abhorrent and disgusting evil. We would of course not think of telling a slave to treat the slaveowner with respect of the kind they afford Christ. Nor would we tell him to remain a slave even if freedom presents itself. This is human morality imposing itself over practice that God would seem to fully condone. I made the argument that this is the same as SSM. There will come a time where we will be rather bemused it ever used to happen.

"The regressives have always hated decency" I'll have to agree with you there runner. My take on recognition as the elitists conservatives (regressives) thought it should be applied. Give the blacks this recognition they think they deserve, as long as they don't step out of line, and keep in their place. Shock, horror, the upperty blacks are demanding more that a bit of la-de-da tokenism, which is all the elitists were willing to concede in the first place. How dare they, step out of line like this! Next thing you know they will want equality with the good white folk. The motto should be "Boy! Know your place" and stay there.

//The SSM camp is mentally ill. Suggesting that anyone against SSM is on a par with racism and homophobia.//

How could anybody think that you're not homophobic when you make comments like these:

//these vermin will be slithering around under the nearest rocks celebrating there sick victory.//

//I beg the govt to reject these sick animals//

//It is just like living in hell, and that's what these sicko's are going to push on us.//

That last one isn't just staggeringly homophobic, it's also wildly innacurate: SSM will not be pushed on anybody, and will be every bit as voluntarily as opposite sex marriage.

//Yes. Insanity is probably part of it//

Really? Over 60% of the Australian population are mentally ill just because you don't agree with them?

Seems like an odd diagnostic criterion. Even crazy, one might say.

Well, for those like myself who are opposed to ssm, the truth is the powers to be can impose as many laws as they like, but the people don't have to recognise them and for me that will be my saving grace. Under no circumstances will I accept that a marriage between two queers (should that be the end result) will be the same as a marriage between a man and a woman.

That being said, this will plague ss couples for the rest of their lives and the lives of the queers to follow because acceptance of being considered equal is what they are after, rather than just having the right to marry.

As for changing society, this will have an impact on many including parents of kids having gay love education forced upon their children despite their objection to same. More freedoms eroded.

Sorry, but for me there will never be any such thing as equality in marriage when comparing heterosexual couples to queer couples. So for those who stand for the 'No Vote' just remember, the mind is a powerful tool.

Butch, do you refuse service in your shop to "queers", do you display a sign to that effect, or is their money as good as everyone else's.

No law is going to change your bigoted attitude, but laws will stop you and others from openly discriminating against "queers" who's lifestyle is not affecting you at all, but whose lifestyle you don't agree with.

At least all Christians are not bigoted homophobes. My Mormon niece who is non judgmental on SSM, told uncle, gay people have the right to live without others judging them. I said that's a fair attitude.

rehctub,

I will never accept SSM either, and I will never be comfortable with homosexuality, which is totally unnatural, but which occurs in a very small number of unfortunate people. You and I will be OK, as long as we see the situation not as a problem to solve, but as a reality to live with.

The twisting of society has been some time coming, but has now reached fruition. There will be fake marriage, and after that, worse things will come about. But, remember, it is possible to ignore and withdraw when society becomes unbearable. Think about the Amish, even the Mormons, monks in the past. The withdrawal need not be physical, though, it can be mental.

We will be OK, because we are normal. The others (the majority eventually: they are unable to resist) will go to hell - mataphorically of course, and do it on Earth.

Christ came to release captives [Luke 4; 18 10], so slavery is not in Christ's agenda. That people employed as slaves in NT times became Christian they were to uphold good character as Joseph sold into Egypt, or Daniel taken captive in to Babylon. No disgrace there! To get the updated story of slavery read John Newton's story, once a slave trader. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/pastorsandpreachers/john-newton.html

Regarding SSM it is not equal to heterosexual relationship as it has no possible natural fertile reproduction. It is not biological possible for two men to create another human.

It is a Marxist agenda to destroy natural family relationships and to call denial of SSM inequality. The level playing field of equality by a man who never worked a day in his life

"It is a Marxist agenda to destroy natural family relationships. Never a truer word spoken, Josephus. The Left hates families and self-sufficient communities for the threats they are to their evil plans. The family is the basis for the sovereign state, which of course, they also hate, preferring world government and the corrupt United Nations. World government because national governments want the heat taken of them; they don't like the scrutiny anymore. That's what brought about the European Union, dictator to sovereign countries in the real Europe.

Dear Josephus,

“Newton then served as a mate and then as captain of a number of slave ships, hoping as a Christian to restrain the worst excesses of the slave trade, "promoting the life of God in the soul" of both his crew and his African cargo.”

What apologist rubbish this is.

After being saved and 'saved' during the storm which converted him to an evangelical christian he went on to become a slave ship captain hauling repeated cargoes of misery from Africa until a stoke disabled him. But even after this he continued to invest heavily in the trade through his father's friend Mansley.

It took 34 years before he finally publicly condemned the trade most of that time holding Christian offices of lay preacher, then curate, then rector.

There is a singular observation from his path, that embracing Christianity in his day had very little to do with one's attitude toward slavery and instead it often gave it scriptural validity.

We have rejected slavery as a moral evil. This is not God's perspective but one we have arrived at ourselves. We will hopefully take a moral stance in this country and reject the unfairness of denying same sex couples the right to marry.

What could possibly put people into more slavery than being caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

I was just listening on ABC-FM about how the composer Tchaikovsky had a nervous break-down within hours or days of marrying a woman, and took off to Italy to recover. Can we talk about heterophobes ? Not necessarily 'hating' [or more correctly, fearing] heterosexual people, so much as being disgusted by the notion of the heterosexual act ?

After all, heterosexuals may get on okay with homosexuals, but despise the notion of homosexual acts. In comparison, we may support the right to drink, but be appalled by overt drunkenness; or the right to drive, but be angered by some hoon tail-gating us [that's you, SUV drivers]. Most of us can distinguish between the person and their acts.

Something might be legal but we don't have to like it.

Joe

" This is not God's perspective but one we have arrived at ourselves." What an ignorant and arrogant piece of bulldust from Steelredux. Where does he think the good thoughts came from in the first place?

ttbn,

How about you tell us? Because it certainly wasn't your god or Christianity.

<<Where does he think the good thoughts came from in the first place?>>

It took a country founded on freedom 245 years to realise that slavery is wrong because the Bible says it's right. That some Christians found a way to interpret their holy book such that they could justify a realisation they obviously came to without it, is not a credit to Christianity

Slavery has been around since the dawn of civilisation and probably long before that.

Depending on how you define 'civilisation' its been around for somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand years in almost every part of the planet (except Australia...just saying). And in that time there have been literally thousands of new and different civilisations rise and fall.

Out of all those myriad civilisations, one (just one) decided that slavery was abhorrent and something to be actively opposed and suppressed.

That one civilisation was based on liberal judeo-christian values. Not Confucian values or Islamic values or Mesoamerican values.

A civilisation born of the marriage (!) between liberal ideas, Greek philosophy and science and Christian notions of the individuals place in the world. A civilisation that changed forever the way the world works and man's trajectory.

That that civilisation was Christian in thought and tradition isn't the sole reason for its unique decision to eradicate slavery. But to pretend that it, Christianity, played no part is to simply misunderstand the last 300 years.

Why did the industrial revolution originate in that civilisation?
Why did liberalism originate in that civilisation?
Why did the very notion of human rights originate in that civilisation?

Christianity isn't the whole story but it is a large part of the story.

AJ,

There may be no gods, but there have been strong beliefs in all manner of gods and what powers they are believed to have, in comparison to the ignorance and powerlessness of ordinary humans. Illusory of course, but spurs to the imagination, for good and ill, I'm sure you would agree. As a twentieth-century atheist, I've never understood the need for gods, but I also believe that many of our ethical and social concepts spring from the tortuous cogitations of thousands of believers in the past struggling towards some understanding - off on tracks in all wrong directions.

After all, our ideas, yours and mine, don't spring fully-formed like Venus out of our heads, although you may indeed be far more brilliant than me, granted. But we all build on earlier ideas, which almost by definition, are less-formed, less accurate and, if we go far back enough, downright wrong, suffused with beliefs in the bounty of an all-powerful deity, if only as a means to explain the unknown. Many of those earlier cogitators, misguided as they were, were indeed giants on whose shoulders others have stood, so that we can stand others, pure and atheist, and really, really virtuous, the final consummations of humanity.

So give credit where it's due, AJ.

Joe

when you look at Marxist/feminist dogma you realise how stuffed we are. Compared to the teachings of Scripture they are manure.

Sorry, that should have read:

"Many of those earlier cogitators, misguided as they were, were indeed giants on whose shoulders others have stood, so that we can finally stand on the shoulders of those others, pure and atheist, and really, really virtuous, the final consummations of humanity."

Joe

strange how many if not most of the yes campaigners also push the gw fantasy/fraud. Among them seems to be the Hollywood moralisers. Their little secrets are very much on par with many of the catholic priests that have been disgraced. Only difference is that feminist/marxist that have covered up these guys for years are not displaying the same hatred for their own.

I cannot inderstand the need for anyone to announce that they are atheists. They have no more proof that there is no God than those who believe in God have proof that there is. I don't think anyone else cares, so why not shut up about it? There are no marks given to believers or non-believers, and it's a private matter anyway.

Now, back to the topic. The next big thing after SSM will be transgenderism. An Adelaide shrink has opined that it will be considered "in the spectrum of normality" in time. Anyone know of an island up for sale?

//The next big thing after SSM will be transgenderism.//

Nope, it'll be xenophobia. It is in the nature of the left to oppose traditional mores. Tolerance and respect for your fellow man are becoming so widespread and entrenched that in short order they will be the traditional values to which progressives stand opposed, at which point they'll embrace xenophobia. So that should make you happy.

There are quite a few transgender websites online, so perhaps it is 'normal' already.

Apparently the thing is based on "self-creation". People who "refuse to be bound by biology". It doesn't get much crazier than that in my book. There is an "elite movement" teaching new generations that gender is "whatever the choosing individual wants it to be". (Rod Deher). But we already know that from the maniacs in Australian education departments.

As the above author says, these creeps now "own the culture" as surely as the "Ostrogoths', Visogoths, Vandals and other conquering peoples owned the remains of the Western Roman Empire".

It always comes back to end of Western civilisation as per the fall of the Roman Empire.

' Nope, it'll be xenophobia.' wasn't the case at Sodom and Gommorah.

Joe,

Yes, the belief in gods had a beneficial evolutionary role, but it has mostly outgrown that now and become more of a hindrance than anything else.

And, yes, some tenets of religions have helped to provide divine authority to the ideas of some of our more enlightened thinkers of the past, when such authority was required in more superstitious times. But they did this by accident or because the thinkers of the past new how to cherry-pick, so please forgive me if I don’t sit here heaping praise on religion.

Given how major a role religion played in societies and the lives of individuals throughout the past, it would be astonishing and utterly improbable if nothing good had come from it.

--

ttbn,

Atheists don’t need evidence. Atheism is the default position. It is those who claim that a god exists who bear the burden of proof. Even you would refer to yourself as an atheist, before you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6644#99187

//' Nope, it'll be xenophobia.' wasn't the case at Sodom and Gommorah.//

Actually, there is considerable debate amongst Christian scholars as to whether the act of homosexuality or the act of inhospitality and violence towards foreigners (i.e. xenophobia) is the more significant sin of the Sodomites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Christian

But I expect you probably don't care what Christian scholars think, eh runner?

I don't have anything against homosexual marriage, but I don't want it to be conducted or registered by the state. I just don't want the state to involve itself with ANYONE's private relationships.

Perhaps we should refuse selling products and services to ALL people who marry through government!

So here is the deal: if you want the state to register the marriage of homosexuals, then allow all others who are currently registered as "married" to legally annul that registration.
If the overall result of SSM is less people in total registered as "married" with the government, then a good thing will be achieved!

Freedom of association is elementary and of utmost importance, thus anyone should be able to select whom they sell their products and services to. Even if their motives are stupid or racist, even if I do not approve of their motives, I will still fight to the death for this freedom to be maintained.

After transgenderism, it could be polygamy.

Paul, I have nothing personal against queers, I simply will not recognise their marriage as being equal to that of hetro couples should they get the nod.

The truth is we are being held to ransom by a tiny minority who expect the majority to change their ways just to suit their SS ways.

If only they would choose another word.

Dear butch,

Of the entire LGBTIQ community you focus on the Q or the queer portion. Why should they not strive for equal marriage rights the same as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans or Intersex communities?

It really is a strange and very selective phobia you seem to be exhibiting.

Why do you feel it is this very small part of the LGBTIQ community that is holding you to ransom?

I know of some very fundamentalist christians who do not recognise the marriages of formally divorced couples. Catholics must get a separate annulment from the church as well as the civil one otherwise they deem the second marriage invalid and as a result consider it bigamous.

Perhaps the Catholics are within their rights to ask these couples to use a different word for their marriages. What do you think?

Anyway ultimately you are just joining a long line of outliers who apply their own perspective on the validity of a person's marriage. Which is fine as long as you don't discriminate as a result.

SSM agenda has nothing to do with human equality, otherwise 1,193,400 in 2009 of de'facto couples would be pushing for equality and they are not.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Marriages,%20de%20facto%20relationships%20and%20divorces~55
The Equality agenda is to ultimately destroy the natural family of mother father and children as dreamed up by those wishing to destroy the moral mores of Christianity.

If you watched Insight last night you would have seen young people emotionally damaged by the destruction of their families. Children need stable loving parents and families to best survive emotionally.

Couples living together in the same household as partners, married or not can have these benefits issued by legislation if we so decide.
Equal treatment:
The changed laws  mean some same-sex couples and their families are now entitled to receive benefits previously not accessible.
Entitlements may include:
partner concession card benefits
bereavement benefits if a partner dies
exemption of the family home from the assets test when one partner enters nursing home care and the other partner continues to reside there
recognition as independent for Youth Allowance if in a same-sex relationship for over 12 months
lesbian relationships recognised as a qualifying relationship for Widow Allowance
War Widow or widowers pension
access to the Child Support Scheme
access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare safety nets as a family
allowing private sector superannuation trustees to make same-sex couples and their children eligible for reversionary benefits
enabling reversionary benefits from Commonwealth (defined benefit) superannuation schemes to be conferred on same-sex partners and the children of same-sex relationships
tax concessions.
Some same-sex couples and their families may have their benefits reduced to the same entitlements received by opposite-sex couples and their families in the same circumstances.

We do not need to call LGBTQQD relationships marriage, we can call it Civil Contract. But that is not what the lobbyists want they want to be able to walk into any Church and demand to use their premises as a Wedding venue, and if refused employ barristers to charge the Church with discrimination.

However the Church prays over the couple that they will have godly children, and the congregation promises to support them in the raising of their family.

I don't know why people have to say they have 'nothing personal against queers' - it sounds like a part applogy for your their opinions and values.

That’s some really poor reasoning there, Josephus.

<<SSM agenda has nothing to do with human equality, otherwise 1,193,400 in 2009 of de'facto couples would be pushing for equality and they are not.>>

Most of those de facto couples already have equality because they have the option of getting married. That many of them forgo that option is irrelevant.

<<The Equality agenda is to ultimately destroy the natural family of mother father and children as dreamed up by those wishing to destroy the moral mores of Christianity.>>

What is your evidence for this?

<<If you watched Insight last night you would have seen young people emotionally damaged by the destruction of their families.>>

I’m sure they are. So what?

<<Children need stable loving parents and families to best survive emotionally.>>

Yet you want to deny some families a means of promoting stability based on the sex of the parents.

You can waffle on all you like about the legal rights of gay couples, the fact of the matter is that they are still not the same, not by a long shot. And even if they were, neither you, nor anyone else here, has provided a good reason as to why they’re relationships cannot be a marriage.

The principle that Church and State should be separate is accepted by the majority of Australians. However organized religion continues its free ride on the back of the secular society. Churches pay no tax, but at the same time pocket millions in income. Government money is paid to support Church run religious education, I would label it brain washing of children's minds rather than education.
Churches, particularly the Catholic Church hierarchy, for decades allowed paedophile clergy to operate with impunity within their organization. As there is no satisfactory evidence that the religious have reformed their disgusting practices, it may still be the case. In one parish in Sydney recently the old parish priest was moved for the reason the church gives as "ill health", others think differently.
The same churches, their hierarchy, and their devotees want to dictate to others on the morality of what consenting adults do. Forgive me if I seem to be somewhat sceptical about these bigoted religious hypocrites, but I am.

Mark Latham's video editorial today, a bunch of fancy-dressed freaks with Richard di Natale grinning in their midst. Too many stupid signs and t-shirt slogans to mention, but the one that took the cake was on the shirt of a who-knows-what sex creature which read 'Gender is over'.

One expects this sort of rubbish from young morons, but di Natale! It is hard to reconcile the conservative looking man on the 7.30 Report last night, rightly calling for an audit of dual citizens in Parliament, with the bloke looking happy to be among grubs, lunatics and perverts.

Incidentally, I switched off Leigh Sales when she announced that she was about to have on yet another quack to whine about the treatment of illegal boat arrivals. The ABC is so predictable and disloyal to Australia.

Paul,

You can stop worrying about the churches. The only so-called Christian churches (pseudo Christians) who get a look in these days: who have sold out and stand for 'self' not souls, are more of your pursuasion these days. These are the churches that are no longer 'safe places' for Christians - Uniting Church, the Anglicans and, even, Catholic.

Conservative Christians, once comfortably established in the Coalition, are now politically homeless. You have nothing to worry about. You have won. Be happy. Enjoy.

Hi AJ,

In New Zealand my partners niece and her partner (same sex), sold their house to buy a larger one. They now have 6 children from the nieces extended family living with them. Those children were all abused and neglected in some way, both physically and emotionally. The children all came from dysfunctional heterosexual environments, where drugs, alcohol and violence were common place. The children were failing badly, but with the love and kindness of two caring people they are now slowly recovering, and are being given a chance in life. I don't care if those two people are female, male, one of each or hermaphrodites, I care about the children and what their "parents" are doing for them.
BTW our nieces partner is Pakeha, but without question she has taken on 6 Maori children and given her love and resources through the goodness of her heart, something the moralists detractors on here would most likely never do. Its not uncommon in Maori society for children to be "adopted" by other family when the natural parent(s) can't or wont look after them, or in some cases just as a loving act of kindness for a sibling or relative who has no children. In some ways Europeans might be shocked by what is seen as family, aka your cousin is your brother, its a bit hard to understand, and at times for us Pakeha the interrelationships within the extended family are a bit hard to fathom as well, having four equal parents for example or your auntie is your mother.

Those that call all those against SSM homophobes are just as bigoted and intolerant as those that actually are homophobes.

While I support SSM, given that most of the rights of marriage have been given to de facto straight or same-sex partnerships, that many find the change to the definition of marriage that has stood for millennia hard to swallow. I know of several couples that have spent decades doing charity and community work with one couple doing so for zero pay in 3rd world countries, who view marriage in the traditional sense.

:Anti SSM On A Par With Racism" ?? Not yet...but give it time.

Currently we are told that this is just about giving others the right to marry. It doesn't affect other's rights in any way and to say otherwise, we're told, is just fear-mongering.

But it won't be long before it will become, firstly frowned upon and then illegal, to suggest that all marriages aren't of equal value. People will still be allowed to hold their 'hateful' views privately (a sad state of affairs according to St Triggs) but it will become discriminatory to openly opine as such.

Initially it will be allowed for certain groups (churches etc) to respectfully decline to participate in these new marriage formats, but eventually it'll be found to be discriminatory and enforcement of right-think will occur.

Then they'll be on a par.
__________________________________________

What comes next? Polyamory. There is no argument used in favour of SSM that doesn't also apply to polygamy be it one man and a coupla women, one woman and a coupla blokes, and all the other possibilities. Equal right to marry whomever you love, kids doing just fine, no affects on anyone else. All apply as well to polyamory as SSM. They'll get the ball rolling 4.3 nanoseconds after the SSM legislation passes. And all those who currently pooh-pooh the idea will suddenly find that, 'ya-know-what' I've changed my mind, its now a human right and anyone who doesn't go along with it is a fascist (or whatever).

_____________________________________________________________-

Churches don't pay taxes on their 'income' because they are not-for-profit organisations. If they paid tax then their expenses would be deductible and they'd have no net income left to tax. Non-church not-for-profits are also not taxed.

I wonder if those who self-righteously demand taxation of the churches would demand that the Salvo soup kitchens be taxed, or Getup! or (horror of horrors) trade unions.

_______________________________________________________________

What is the evidence that the "agenda is to ultimately destroy the natural family".

First it should be noted that it isn't the agenda of all those advocating "Yes". But it has been a long held aim of the anti-capitalist left for over a century and its not wholly a stretch to see the other advocates as merely what Lenin called useful idiots.

To understand this needs extensive reading and consideration. MArx talked of the “abolition of the family", and Lenin for a time tried to do it. For the leftists and really any group that wants to see the elevation of the state, the family sits as a counterpoint to the state that needs to be destroyed. So you could look at the thinking and actions of people like Owen, Fourier, Frankfurt School such as (Marcuse and Reich), Sanger, Ayers, Dohrn, the Red Family colonists and a myriad other advocates for the notion that marriage is “bourgeois claptrap.”. If you care to search you'll find more than a few places where indiiduals and groups are advocating for SSM as a pre-cursory for the final assault on the family.

eg http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy

Yes, its just one view, but search and yea shall find. :)

Its not dissimilar to the understanding that the original pro-abortion advocates saw it as a means to destroy black culture in the USA. They haven't been entirely successful but not entirely unsuccessful either. Meanwhile the useful idiots supported them in their cause.

Hi Mhaze,

I suspect that, like Lenin, the Nazis also tried to interpose the fascist State between the family and their children. But perhaps the current crop of pseudo-left opportunists, if they have any principles at all apart from bringing everything down, are more Gramscian than Leninist. Maybe I've got him wrong but I think Gramsci was much closer to the Anarchists and Syndicalists, seeking the destruction of the state, all states, (and therefore of ALL social institutions) rather than being a strong Statist like Lenin and the Nazis were, who were more content to exploit social institutions while they were still useful, rather than destroy them outright.

Of course, Gramsci may have become disillusioned with the non-revolutionary - even pro-fascist - nature of the European working-class in the 1910s and 1920s and was casting around for a class which could do more damage. Lo and behold, he fixed on the intellectuals, preferably (given his Communist Party roots) of course intellectuals with working-class roots (yes, there were once some of those). When my parents were in the Old Party before the War, in the Sydney Railway Yards branch, they were the only working-class members in it, my mum used to say.

These days, there is a much smaller, and more fragmented, working class, and one less willing to throw itself onto the battlements for the good of the intellectuals, their rightful rulers. So the intellectuals (now often well-off bureaucrats) have to cast their nets wider: dumb-arse uni students who already know everything, high school students, etc., anybody they can persuade to shove a stick up the collective arse of bourgeois society.

Hey ! SSM might help the cause !

//So you could look at the thinking and actions of people like Owen, Fourier, Frankfurt School such as (Marcuse and Reich), Sanger, Ayers, Dohrn, the Red Family colonists and a myriad other advocates for the notion that marriage is “bourgeois claptrap.”.//

//But perhaps the current crop of pseudo-left opportunists, if they have any principles at all apart from bringing everything down, are more Gramscian than Leninist. Maybe I've got him wrong but I think Gramsci was much closer to the Anarchists and Syndicalists, seeking the destruction of the state, all states, (and therefore of ALL social institutions) rather than being a strong Statist like Lenin and the Nazis were, who were more content to exploit social institutions while they were still useful, rather than destroy them outright.

Of course, Gramsci may have become disillusioned with the non-revolutionary - even pro-fascist - nature of the European working-class in the 1910s and 1920s and was casting around for a class which could do more damage.//

Whilst I'm sure you guys are enjoying your political science tutorial, do you really think that the average voter gives the slightest toss about all that sort of wank? We didn't all do arts degrees...

//But that is not what the lobbyists want they want to be able to walk into any Church and demand to use their premises as a Wedding venue, and if refused employ barristers to charge the Church with discrimination.//

No they don't. They just want to get married. And like straight people, many of them aren't religious and wouldn't be seen dead in a church.

//I don't know why people have to say they have 'nothing personal against queers' - it sounds like a part applogy for your their opinions and values.//

//grubs, lunatics and perverts.//

Jesus, you sound like Mr/Mrs/Mr Garrison.

FAG DRAG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csnlMYIg1KI

mhaze,

A bold return after the porky pies you were caught-out telling a few weeks ago. Welcome back to the 'same-sex marriage' topic.

<<There is no argument used in favour of SSM that doesn't also apply to polygamy …>>

Perhaps not, but there are arguments against polygamy that do not apply to same-sex marriage. Allowing high-status men to hoard women at the expense of lower-status men, for example, isn’t exactly conducive to a healthy or happy society. So, yes, polygamy does affect others, contrary to your claim.

<<Yes, its just one view, but search and yea shall find.>>

I tried, but couldn’t find any other same-sex marriage supporters claiming that the idea of same-sex marriage was to destroy marriage altogether. It sounds like you found some. Could you link us to them? I’m still not buying this paranoid-sounding Reds-under-the-bed line and, well, let's just say there are some trust issues between us now.

<<Its not dissimilar to the understanding that the original pro-abortion advocates saw it as a means to destroy black culture in the USA.>>

Could you cite your references please?

Either way, abortion is a vital service, so it all turned out okay. It’s a pity you don’t seem to entertain the possibility that all could turn out fine in this instance, too - even if it really is all just a cunning ploy to seize political power internationally for the working class through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership.

*Snigger*

Here is a researched argument on SSM.
http://www.mffc.org.au/news/Same%20sex%20marriage%20Q&A%20%20and%20implications.pdf

5. What are the consequences of redefining marriage on marriage itself ?

Once marriage is redefined, the law would decree that traditional marriage and samesex marriage are equivalent, each enjoying equal status and rights. The values and uniqueness of traditional marriage would be watered down and amended to make way to for new rules and regulations introduced by the Government in accommodating gay values and practices. This change would be a most confronting to supporters of traditional marriage.

6. How does the legalisation of same-sex marriage affect our human rights?

When more rights are granted to the homosexual community, the rest of the general community would logically be accorded less freedom.. Experience overseas has shown how the legalisation of same-sex marriage has resulted in curtailing certain human rights, in particular, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Citizens holding opposing views on same-sex marriage have been sued, prosecuted, fined, jailed and even sent to a mental institution.

Dear Josephus,

Thank You for the link from "Marriage and Family for
Christ".

Initially I got quite surprised when I saw the MFFC
initials in the link. I thought you were referring to
the "Michigan Fly Fishing Club". But obviously you
weren't.

There seems to be a battle going on over gay marriage
in Australia. It reveals a great deal. The people
quoting the Bible tell us all sorts of things -
That they are against same sex marriage "Because
the Bible tells them".

That's not quite accurate.
The Bible tells them a great deal of things that
they ignore.

Foxy have a listen,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ_mphb7HU

//When more rights are granted to the homosexual community, the rest of the general community would logically be accorded less freedom.//

No, that's not how it works. And that would have to be one of the daftest non-sequiturs I have ever seen. People who misuse the term 'logically' like that should be taken out back and shot.

Rights are not a finite resource: they can be created with the stroke of a pen. What rights did men lose when women were granted suffrage? What rights did white people lose because of the civil rights movement?

You don't have to steal freedoms from people in order to give them to other people.

You might prefer this one Foxy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKYE4xtJ09A

Josephus,

Ben Shapiro’s argument in that video you linked to was dumb. He relies on the standard libertarian line (at least the standard line for those libertarians who want to oppose same-sex marriage and still feel like libertarians) about the only reason for the government being “in the marriage business” is because they have an interest in the next generation.

However, marriage also provides equitable access to rights, and the certainty of those rights, for couples who may not be able to afford expensive court cases or legal fees. Yes, de facto couples have some of those rights too, but they can be subject to the whim of a judge's discretion where they would not be if the couple were married.

The "marriage equality" claim is not borne out by the decisions of the highest human rights authorities in the international order. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage. In so ruling, these bodies have actually affirmed the inherent equality of all persons.

A Homosexual person can still marry a person of the opposite gender; they are not denied marriage. Sex with a person of the same gender is not marriage. Many whose preference is for relationship with the same gender marry persons of the opposite gender and have children. There is no discrimination against them they are socially equal. The relationship of marriage is primarily about children, as many who fall pregnant decide to marry to be in the interest of the child.

There is inequality in the rights of the child if the child is denied access to their biological parents. Surrogacy and IVF on a single parent demonstrates inequality for the child. It denies the right of the child, for the selfish parent.

Currently those that uphold traditional heterosexual relationships as marriage are being suppressed by less than 2% of the population to accept that homosexual marriage is equal. When the SSM law is established this point of view is denied as a criminal offense. Freedom of expression is denied, their freedom to express ideas is curtailed. That is why court cases in every country where SSM is legalised is destroying businesses, criminalising good families and removing gender identity.

The irrationality that somehow same sex relationships
are not equal to heterosexual relationships and are
disgusting - suggests
this is unreliable as a source of moral insight.

There may be good arguments against gay marriage but the
fact that some people find such acts to be disgusting
should carry no weight.

Straw man, Foxy - nobody much is saying that. How one has sex, and the nature of marriage, are two separate issues.

If anything, surely we must be asking ourselves these days, what is the purpose or need for marriage ? Back in the days when sex may have meant, to young woman, a likely pregnancy, the midnight flit of the bloke, no single mother's benefits, no effective birth control, shame and destitution - sex was a very, very big deal for the woman, potentially life-changing, and marriage sort of 'captured' the bloke and - in front of the world - required him to undertake that he wouldn't shoot through, that he would work and look after any kids that came along, at least until his wife was able to go back to work.

Not much of that is as relevant any more. So - being perhaps more Marxist (or Engelsian) than Gramscian - why have marriage at all ? People now can happily and securely live together with being married, with no particular social stigma.

Yes, yes, the notion of homosexual marriage certainly pokes a stick up the arses of many conservatives (yuck, yuck ! bastards !) but apart from that, why marriage ?

Joe

'However, marriage also provides equitable access to rights..'

What about the right of singles NOT to be obliged to subsidise the 'love' choices of others?

In public employment and this would include politicians, the broad 'married'/'partnered' status attracts very generous conditions that are not available to singles. Those entitlements have to be paid for.

Where it matters, for example in the cost of shelter, singles are very disadvantaged. For instance, the couple can share a rent of $440 for a two b/r unit, but the single alone must pay close to that for a 1 b/r.

SSM is just thousands more getting 'married'/'partner' benefits that single workers have to indirectly subsidise through taxes and remuneration agreements.

Many years ago when women were in effect excluded from the workforce on marriage (which was nigh inescapable) there may have been some excuse, but not now.

Paul 1405, two things. Firstly aboriginal people have the same type of kinship system where your first cousin is also your brother or sister and great aunts and uncles are known as grandparents. But the system of sharing around children is not confined to browned skinned people. European families have always done this as well. Babies born out of wedlock were frequently given to childless aunts or cousins, as were unwanted children born into marriages where too many children already existed.
As for same sex couples providing a secure home for children, well, that would have to be taken on a case by case circumstance because same sex couples are even less stable than opposite sex ones. The incidence of domestic violence, addiction and mental health issues are all higher in same as couples than in opposite sex.
So just because one couple can provide a stable home doesn't mean all can, just as with opposite sex couples.

Loudmouth,

"the Nazis also tried to interpose the fascist State between the family and their children".

Yes when I wrote "For the leftists and really any group that wants to see the elevation of the state" the "any group" I was thinking of were the various fascists. Really they should be understood as part of the left but many don't get that so I thought I head off Godwin responses.

I see Gramsci is rather thoughtful but terrifying. Lenin et al sought to replace the power structures of the state with their own creations and then point that power toward Utopia. Gramsci, I think, understood that when you just replace Tsars those replacements ultimately become Tsar-like....how is Putin different to Peter the Great? So his view was that everything needed to be parred back to first principles and then reconstituted to create a socialist Utopia. Never stood a chance of success.

___________________________________________________________

Toni Lavis,

Not an arts degree...just extensive reading over many decades to understand why totalitarianism was so successful among the so-called intellectual classes through the 20th century.

Sorry if we left you behind. I understand that many think Enid Blyton's Noddy had homosexual undertones. Maybe next time I'll discuss that so that you'll feel more involved.

______________________________________________________________

AJP

"porky pies"... do you really want to go there after being so badly burned last time?

Polygamy isn't just about one man multiple women. The reverse is possible. Very sexist of you to think that women would allow themselves to be 'hoarded'. Be careful or you'll be excommunicated from the I'm-so-woke fraternity. Islam allows for the 'hoarding' of women. Are you saying Islam is wrong and Christianity right? Wow, wonders never cease.

"Could you cite your references please?"
Research Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood. The Negro Project and eugenics.

AJ, Foxy, Toni, Mhaze et al,

I notice that much of the pro-SSM argument centres around the few remaining rights attached to marriage that de-facto relationships don't carry. So here's a theoretical question:

If an arrangement called a civil union was created that had all the rights of marriage without the name, would this satisfy both the pro-SSM advocates and the anti-SSM advocates?

That's cute, mhaze.

<<... do you really want to go there after being so badly burned last time?>>

You were the one who got burned. So bad, in fact, that you had slink off. But not before to digging yourself in a little deeper to announce your very conveniently timed departure. You lied about reading a book I referenced, to make it look like I was the one lying, and didn't that backfire spectacularly!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243969

You have a short memory.

<<Polygamy isn't just about one man multiple women.>>

Irrelevant. High-status people of any sex hoarding partners for themselves is not conducive to a healthy society. I had a feeling you'd pick on that inconsequential detail. That's why I left it there. You can quit the feigned outrage regarding, too, by the way. I don't think anyone's buying it.

My point still stands.

I take it you don't have any other examples of same-sex marriage supporters claiming that the idea of same-sex marriage is to destroy marriage, despite claiming that a search would reveal them?

Hi Mhaze,

What I was touching on was the break by Gramsci with earlier and outdated Marxist principles, given that the proletariat clearly wasn't going to be the vehicle of self-sacrificing revolution, on behalf of the disaffected intellectual class (i.e. Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, etc.).

Yes, in a way, Gramsci went deeper than Marx in analysing the sins of bourgeois society, but it meant jettisoning much of the entire Marxist rationale. So he had to work on ways to destroy bourgeois society without using the proletariat. Of course, those class relations are far less salient than even in his day, let alone Marx's.

The key seems to be: how can the disaffected, out-of-power intellectual class take power ? It worked for the Leninists, and Maoists and for Pol Pot. But the proletariat won't do it for them now, not since the 1920s really, not that there is much of one these days. So how to tear down all bourgeois institutions, traditions and mores without a sucker class ? Who can you play on ? Yes, there are always useful idiots ready to be dragged out for demos, students especially, so why not use them ? So first, that intellectual class has to capture academia, and work its magic on kids before they grow up, get jobs, start families and unlearn.

Seems to be working so far :)

Joe

" If an arrangement called a civil union was created that had all the rights of marriage without the name, would this satisfy both the pro-SSM advocates and the anti-SSM advocates?"

The SSM activists wouldn't be satisfied because they will continue to want more and more. Besides, there is already an "arrangement" called a 'defacto' relationship, with 'common law' wives and husbands. That this arrangement is not taken up by activists already - unlike many homosexual couples who have benefitted from this for years - clearly shows that they would never accept anything less than 'equality' which, of course is impossible and something they only pretend to want. Their real aim is to wreck yet another institution which has been around for millenia. Fake marriage is just a blind. Wreck families and communities and you wreck the nation and society.

Loudmouth,

I understand what you're saying. Essentially once you've completed the march through the institutions, what then? Is capturing the credentialed classes sufficient to usher in the revolution? While it may be in the third world, clearly its not in the first world since the masses haven't to date bought in. As Orwell observed "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."

To some extent the Trump phenomena is the reaction of the 'deplorables' to the credentialed classes monopolisation of power over the past three decades. (I say credentialed as opposed to educated..they have the degrees but aren't educated).

The deplorables were simply waiting on someone to provide them with the wherewithal to take back their lives from those who sought to control them. The Bushes disappointed as did many of the 'Tea Party' leaders. If Trump likewise disappoints then they'll look elsewhere, but they won't stop looking.

If, on the other hand, Trump tries but fails due to the deep tentacles of the credentialed classes, then look for all hell to break loose. The one after Trump will make him look like a teddy bear if Trump is defeated. I am reminded of the last century of the Roman Republic as each side escalated the attacks on the other.

It may well be that the institutions which have been conquered by the left will remain so. But they will be marginalised by those who don't buy the Utopian fantasies. Think in recent months of the travails of the MSM, the NFL and Hollywood.

__________________________________________________________________

As to the notion of the ultra-left manipulating the agenda of the left, I found this items rather amusing:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/31/thousands-protested-trump-last-november-rally-organized-russia/

________________________________________________________________

AJ I stopped discussing your error earlier because I was done with it and it was going nowhere. I see that you made an error, sought to walk it back by erroneously referencing a text that no one could check, which I then checked! You see something different.

"You can quit the feigned outrage"

It wasn't feigned outrage, it was mockery of all the way the various left-leaning pieties end up contradicting themselves.

Oh and is it your position that all poly-amorous relationships involve a high-status one 'hoarding' low status others? (I'm just gathering your views now so that we can compare them to those that will apply when in the (near?) future it becomes obligatory for the woke to support polygamy) So many of the left opposed SSM a decade ago but changed their minds when it became convenient, political necessary or trendy to do so...it'll happen again.

Thanks, Mhaze, good points. I love that Orwell quote - so true !

Cheers,

Joe

Shadow Minister,

For myself (and many others), the argument for same-sex marriage is fundamentally one of equality, not legal rights. Legal rights are a practical concern, but then there is also the symbolic significance of referring to such arrangements as “marriage”.

How about we tell black and brown people that, while they have all the same rights as white people, they can’t be called or considered “people”? I don’t see how this would be any different, despite the level of offence such a comparison causes.

Marriage is an internationally recognised arrangement. How would your proposed compromise work in countries with mutual recognition of same-sex marriages?

If the compromise you propose would be still be recognised as a marriage in countries with mutual recognition of same-sex marriages, then it would seem a little silly to not call it marriage in our country only, just to appease a few who harbour an irrational concern. I suspect we’d become a bit of a laughing stock.

If, on the other hand, same-sex couples would have to actually get married in a country that recognises same-sex marriage for other countries with mutual recognition to accept their relationship as a marriage, then no, that’s not equality and I don’t see how it would be acceptable.

I have never heard a rational reason as to why same-sex couples need a different word. When I hear one, I will be happy to take it into consideration. Until they, they can be dismissed as freely as they are demanded.

mhaze,

Only it wasn’t an error, and I demonstrated that with a scan of my source which you tried to claim never said what I had said it did.

<<I stopped discussing your error earlier because I was done with it and it was going nowhere.>>

You stopped discussing it because you lied and that lie was revealed. You then blunderingly rejected what my source claimed - citing only some mysterious “multiple problems” with the information contained therein - and then slinked off. That link again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243969

What’s worse is that you claimed that I didn’t have the wherewithal to “fess up” to my alleged lie, then, when it was shown that you were the only one lying, you didn’t (and still don’t) have the wherewithal to fess up to that.

<<I see that you made an error, sought to walk it back by erroneously referencing a text that no one could check, which I then checked! You see something different.>>

And you’re still claiming that you check the booked! That scan again:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg

You have no credibility.

<<It wasn't feigned outrage, it was mockery of all the way the various left-leaning pieties end up contradicting themselves.>>

Well, instead of putting me in a convenient little box, how about you show me where I have contradicted myself?

<<Oh and is it your position that all poly-amorous relationships involve a high-status one 'hoarding' low status others?>>

That’s how polygamy has worked most of the time throughout history. Are you suggesting that people will flock to, and shack up with, low-status people? Yeah, right, I could see that happening.

<<So many of the left opposed SSM a decade ago but changed their minds when it became convenient, political necessary or trendy to do so...it'll happen again.>>

Considering they had no reason to object to same-sex marriage before, that’s a perfectly reasonable change of heart. Your resorting to ad hominem and conspiracy suggests a lack of basis for your own position.

AJ,

Even the British recognised Aboriginal people, not just as people, but as British subjects, right from the outset. They recognised their rights to use the land as they always had done, only taking away the right to exclude others. Those rights were written into every pastoral lease, and still prevails in SA's Environment Act.

Try to keep up with the nineteenth century, AJ.

In what way, incidentally, is the recognition of a simple right, equivalent to recognising people as people ? You really do go over the top sometimes.

Joe

The institution of marriage currently has a high and respected status in the community because it illustrates commitment, reliability and it fosters the raising of children, on which our species is dependent for continuance.

However if the current act is changed and SSM is allowed the situation will change and probably quite quickly. Marriage will lose its respected status because it will be associated with those homosexuals that practice 'dirty' sex. Normal people will begin to shy away from marriage.

I never thought that Aussies would agree with such practices as anal penetration and anal licking.

Joe,

I don't give a frog's fat arse whether the British considered the aborigines to be people. What does that have to do with anything?

We have been through this three times already. Do you really need us to go through it a fourth?

Analogies don't have to have ever happened before (although, they have in this instance), let alone specifically in Australia (what's with that assumption, by the way?), because the issue is not what HAS happened before, but what SHOULD NOT happen.

<<In what way, incidentally, is the recognition of a simple right, equivalent to recognising people as people ?>>

What's the “simple right”? You mean access to marriage? That's an easy one: that fact that the denial of both are prejudicial and irrational.

And that's all my analogy needs to work.

Look, I get that the cognitive dissonance of holding two conflicting standards is an uncomfortable feeling, but that doesn't mean that my analogies are wrong.

Dear Banjo,

Please not another anally fixated member of the 'No' camp! Haven't you got better a argument to state your case? Damn mate I do worry about you lot.

The proportion of hetero-sexual couples who engage in anal sex for whatever reason is around a quarter.

I'm not sure how many practice 'rimming' but I wouldn't imagine they are inconsequential.

On the other hand there are a sizable proportion of homosexual men who never engage in anal intercourse. They include people like Stephen Fry.

So the obvious question based on your stated criteria my old dear is whether you consider the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex to be invalid? Further would you support the marriage between two homosexual man who did not practice anal sex?

If the answer to either of these is no then you need to go find a different argument to support your prejudice.

Dear Joe,

Perhaps you need to actually read some of the posts
appearing in this discussion before you accuse me
of "strawman" arguments. Banjo's is the most recent
one on what he finds "disgusting" about same-sex marriage.

Therefore my earlier post stands.

Foxey,
The fact that most normal people find anal sex and anal licking disgusting practices should carry a lot of weight in any debate about SSM. No doubt this fact will affect marriage detrimentally as an institution. Those that support homosexual unions should find another word/s. Marriage already has a distinct meaning.

mhaze,

Since you have such a poor memory, and are apparently incapable of clicking links to past discussions, I’ll post it here again for your benefit:

mhaze: "… people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243942)

AJ: “I have now quadruple-checked my source, and before the 1940s, extended families were a small majority.”

mhaze: “So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed.”

AJ: “The information to which I refer starts at page 168 of the book. Here, I’ve uploaded a scan for you:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg”

Now that was a classic moment in OLO history! It must have been mortifying for you. You then gave a blundering excuse by raising an incorrect point, which would have been insignificant anyway:

mhaze: “No, no. Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions.”

AJ: “Firstly, no I didn't. That was with regards to something else: … Secondly, since when did, ‘only one page’, mean the same as, “... nothing of the sort of what you claimed”?”

Then off you went into the night, not to be seen again until many weeks later; only to come back now and brazenly suggest that none of it even happened.

You're incredible.

//Those that support homosexual unions should find another word/s. Marriage already has a distinct meaning.//

Yeah, because that's how language works. Words may only ever have fixed meaning, and can not acquire new ones.

When electrical engineers invented the two-dimensional motion sensing pointing device for computers, one of them wanted to call it a 'mouse', because it's shape and attached wire made it look a bit like an actual mouse. Can you imagine?!

Of course they weren't allowed to do that, because mouse already meant a particular type of small rodent, and words can't acquire new meanings. The Dictionary Police got wind of the idea and gave them a stern warning, and they dropped the idea. And that's why we call them two-dimensional motion sensing pointing devices rather than mice.

The argument that SSM is about equality is merely a Marxist agenda, as the Human rights does not deny a homosexual preference person from marrying a person of the opposite gender and having children and thousands of them do. No one is denying them marriage in the traditional and historical order of society.

No one is denying them the right to live with a person of the same gender, though children taken into these arrangements suffer the same emotional divorce trauma. It is that they want IVF and surrogacy to form family, thus denying children their right to both biological parents.

steel, I'm guessing my interpretation of the word 'queer' is wrong, as to me, anyone who lives a ss lifestyle is queer. My apologies.

That being said, I don't see myself as a bigot, as I am simply voicing my opinion and, my position just happens to favour what's considered 'normal' in society as we have it today. However, unlike yourself and some others, I have no problem with your position on this although I will make a small point. My suggested compromise is to either choose another word, or amend the marriage act to cater for ss couples in addition to normal couples. Your position however is to change a law that effects 100% of the people, to please a very tiny minority, but like I said, you do what you wish.

At the end of the day this is about equality in marriage and just because a law may be passed, does not make everyone accept the outcome, and this is where the problem lies as 'non acceptance' will haunt these people for the rest of their lives.

The religious fundo's are very fair on gays. This is what their text book has to say:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)," 1 Cor 6:9, KJV

Where are the above all going, accord to the happy group of fundo's? Straight to hell. Which is not too bad if you don't mind the following;

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Beats listening to some pedophile priest pontificating on the evils of homosexuality on a Sunday morning.

The LGBTQQ community are running the agenda when SSM is legal as Teachers who refuse to teach the LGBTQQ material are criminalised, as are Doctors who refuse to perform genital operations or prescribe hormones to change distinguishing features of gender change. Christian schools are discriminated against who refuse to teach SSM and the normality of anal sex and gender fluidity.

These enforced changes on society will not improve society just create more injustice, ill health and social friction.

Paul,
We well know your distain for the Christian Bible. The image is of Gehannah rubbish dump outside Jerusalem where waste was discarded and burned. It envisaged the unclean and waste from society is unacceptable in a healthy society.

' Where are the above all going, accord to the happy group of fundo's? Straight to hell.'

again extremly selective Paul. That is where all mankind who have rejected Christ's great sacrifice is going. Why pick on those practicing homosexuality for this one? You have to be totally ignorant not to acknowledge the corrupt nature of man (including conservatives).

Dear butch,

You wrote;

“steel, I'm guessing my interpretation of the word 'queer' is wrong, as to me, anyone who lives a ss lifestyle is queer. My apologies.”

Well here lies the quandary my friend. You exhibited scant respect for an important identifying word for the LGBTIQ community and used it as a broad label for anyone you deem should be included within it.

You have apologised which is great, but to be then railing against the word marriage to be allowed to include loving committed couples of the same sex kinda rings a bit hollow I'm afraid.

But let's put that aside for the moment.

Look I get that there is a journey that many of us of a certain generation (and older) have to go through to come to the conclusion that extending marriage rights to same sex couples is a fair and just thing to do. I went on that same journey albeit many years ago. Further I accept that some, given the societal norms of their formative years will never complete this path which is okay. What I really ark up about is those in their twenties, thirties and even forties who are so adamantly voting 'No'. We hopefully live in more enlightened times and the fact that they seem to be able to construct an argument for themselves which allows them to do so is infuriating.

So mate I understand your reticence and respect your right to make the decision you have. I would ask that you don't feel you never have to revisit this again because of how you voted this time. Perhaps just being open to rethinking this issue in the future is enough.

SteeleRedux, "The proportion of hetero-sexual(sic) couples who engage in anal sex for whatever reason is around a quarter"

Sounds like a boosted number, but notwithstanding that, what proportion of the affected women would choose it if it were up to them though?

How many girls and young women should be receiving counselling and support because they are being tricked and forced to submit to the demands of males who are being misled by pornography and activists who are trying to normalise anal sex?

To cater for males who want to humiliate and dominate women, internet pornography sites would have numerous examples of sex that abuses women. Where women are being denied reliable contraception and control of their body that is also abuse.

leoj,
Anal sex is taught to 12 year olds in Victorian and 24 and increasing NSW Schools as normal sexual behaviour. Just wait till the Government has to fork out for the increase in bowel rupture, HIV and vaginal infections and for increased number of children having promiscuous sex and pregnancy.

Too imagine it is only old people voting NO is a fallacy as many mothers are equally concerned for the next generation following the advice of Roz Ward.

WE need to expose this discrimination imposed on anyone opposing these views because when SSM is legal subjects like this will become criminal offenses.

I read last night about a group of law students in Canada who are facing calls for a ban on their right to practise law because their Christian college has not conformed to LGBT confirmation. Now, Canada under Trudeau is a very stick country, but its the sort of sickness that spreads, and it is bound to infest Australia sooner or later.

In America, there is a organisation called 'Human Rights Campaign Foundation – an LGBT pressure group, which publishes an annual report called the 'Corporate Equality Index'. In 2016, over half of the top 20 U.S companies had a perfect score. Failing to score high is considered a serious problem in corporations. A company that is looking for approval needs to prove that it is ADVANCING LGBT in the workplace!

There is what they call the “ally” phenomenon: which has straight people declaring themselves to be supporters of the LGBT agenda. They also IDENTIFY DISSENTERS.

The author of this book believes that soon, all workers “will be frog-marched through 'diversity and inclusion' training.

He also refers to a Evangelical ethicist, David Gushee, who bellows: “Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you”.

Is this what we have to look forward to from our fellow Australians of the Left?

' Is this what we have to look forward to from our fellow Australians of the Left?'

remember killing the unborn is about that poor 14 year old who was raped. The left are totally dishonest or wilfully ignorant. No slippery slope!

SR,
No I did not forget you, my reply did not post for some reason. This site would not accept my password for over a week either so something weird is going on here.

But yes, another post by a normal person who finds the sexual practices of homosexuals disgusting.

The fact is that you do not have any idea how many, if any at all, normal couples engage in anal sex and/or rimming. Your figure is conjecture, nothing else. In all my years I have never heard a bloke, or a woman, admit to anal sex. Except for those queers that parade in Oxford St, even homos do not talk much about their anal exploits. Couples that engage in anal sex would be few and far between and not considered normal. Anal sex is homosexual whether with a male or female.

The big issue here is that SSM, if allowed, will have a damaging effect on the status of marriage and normal people will avoid marriage because it will gain a dirty reputation. I hold marriage in high esteem and do not want to see it tarnished by association with homosexuals.

Homosexuals should choose another word to describe same sex unions.

What's the big deal about the various types of
sex that people indulge in - as long as it is
between consenting adults and doesn't hurt anyone?

If you don't like it - don't do it. Be it anal sex,
blow-up dolls, vibrators. or anything else that
takes your fancy.

Because
of what kind of sex people practice are some of you
seriously suggesting that we should ban a small
percentage of our population from forming stable
relationships and deny them civil ceremonies and
contractual partnerships?

That's illogical and unfair.

Dear Banjo,

I indeed used a figure from memory but it appears it might have been out of date;

“The report, titled “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States,” which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

As to the stats on rimming you can look those up yourself as my search history is probably already sketchy enough.

Now there certainly are issues/risks with practicing anal sex especially if it is repetitive or done without reasonable preparation. Those risks should be explained as part of any sex education so that informed choices can be made by those contemplating it. While not my cup of tea I see no reason why people who wish to engage in it shouldn't be armed with the knowledge on how to do so as safely as possible.

Why would you want to deny them that?

But to the questions I gave earlier which you did not furnish a reply;

“So the obvious question based on your stated criteria my old dear is whether you consider the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex to be invalid? Further would you support the marriage between two homosexual men who did not practice anal sex? If the answer to either of these is no then you need to go find a different argument to support your prejudice.”

How about an answer?

//what proportion of the affected women would choose it if it were up to them though?//

It is up to them. Having any kind of sex with somebody who isn't up for it is RAPE. Rape is a crime, and very, very, very immoral.

Your argument seems to be based on them premise that women are some kind of Stepford sex-bots with no agency, bound to endure what any sexual deprivations wicked men force upon them.

//How many girls and young women should be receiving counselling and support because they are being tricked and forced to submit to the demands of males//

Yeah of course. Men are all evil predators out to inflict misery on women - and women are all so gullible and servile that they'll just immediately submit to whatever men say.

You seem to take a rather dim view of your fellow man. I'm not sure I can fully share your pessimism.

//being misled by pornography and activists who are trying to normalise anal sex?//

I don't think you've quite understood the point of porn... it's not about trying to push some social agenda, it's all about money. It's a good business model because the demand side of the equation will never diminish: sex sells. But you need diversity, because people have varied tastes. If they formed some sort of cartel and tried to exclusively push a single sort of sexual fantasy, the market would collapse.

And as for political activists that are actually out there promoting anal sex as their chosen cause...

Evidence or it never happened.

//To cater for males who want to humiliate and dominate women, internet pornography sites would have numerous examples of sex that abuses women.//

Oh, they do. They also have numerous examples of sex that abuses men. And all sorts of other weird kinks that I just don't get... fat people sex, geriatric sex... the list goes on. People are really, really weird. Everybody draws their own line in the sand between 'erotic' and 'kinky' (erotic is using a feather; kinky is using the whole bird)

Dear Toni,

Your post actually made me spill my coffee.

I'm still laughing.

"Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole bird."

Great line.

People who are so concerned about anal sex should Google
the misconceptions and myths associated with the
subject. There's enough information available on the web.

It may surprise some to learn that many women find anal sex
incredibly pleasurable. There's a natural curiousity about
our bodies and if there's pleasure to be had, a person
should feel that they can explore that in a safe and
healthy way. Also because of the taboo of anal sex it might
actually help some people feel closer and more emotionally
bonded to their partner.

In any case, it is such a personal choice and has nothing
to do with the current same-sex marriage postal survey.
Nobody is being asked how they practice sex. Since when did
this become a criteria for deciding who should be allowed
to have their relationship recognised by the law of the land?

Meanwhile our entire car manufacturing industries have gone, yet this once in a hundred year 'game changing event' hardly gets a mention as ssm is the most important issue on the agenda. Go figure! Then there is the citizenship issues with our pollies that seems to be getting quite a bit of 'air time' as well.

So here we have it, the two biggest issues on the agenda are ssm and citizenships of our pollies, both very costly issues and neither is going to improve our current economical debacle. Meanwhile, the loss of our car industries could have a massive impact on our economy, but it's not important enough to be discussed.

AJ,

I have no intention on wasting any more time or bandwidth on this silly attempt by you to assuage your embarrassment over your original error. We've both read the book that you used to support your altered assertions (your original assertions having been shown to be absurd) about the family and it contains no data to speak of but just assertion.

I appreciate your desperation to remove those errors from the record but I just can't be bothered playing along any longer.

Of course you don’t, mhaze.

<<I have no intention on wasting any more time or bandwidth on this silly attempt by you to assuage your embarrassment over your original error.>>

Wouldn’t want to dig ourselves in any deeper now, would we? That's alright, I have all the bandwidth in the world to keep reminding you of how dishonest you are. Especially after you had spent 12 months taunting me over a memory slip, as if I should have been embarrassed about it.

And my original error? Forgetting that the book spoke only of Australia. Gee, how embarrassing.

<<We've both read the book that you used to support your altered assertions … about the family and it contains no data to speak of but just assertion.>>

And you’re still claiming to have read the book. Unbelievable. The book lists its references.

<<I appreciate your desperation to remove those errors from the record …>>

Yeah, how mortifying for me. I’m so embarrassed.

Seriously, though, you never demonstrated my original claim to be absurd, you simply cited some mysterious historians regarding family structures in North-East Europe. That you are STILL flogging this dead horse is a demonstration of just how baseless your position must be.

I understand that the idea of the nuclear family being the bedrock of Western civilisation is important to your politics and worldview, but that doesn’t make it so.

Foxy and SR,
As much as you try to divert opposing opinions to strawmen you will not succeed as the issue is about the adverse impact same sex unions will have on the current institution of marriage if it is allowed to be called marriage.

The word gay used to mean a happy person but since it was hijacked, supposedly to improve the image of homosexuals, the word has now become a word of offence. The same thing will happen to marriage. Marriage will become something to be avoided because of association with homosexuals and their dirty sex practices. Like it or not, anal sex is dirty and the risk of injury and infection of all kinds is greatly increased, this includes HIV and sexual transmitted diseases as well urinary tract and kidney infections. One should be aware that Tetenus is another disease that lives in feces, both animal and human. and that Tetenus kills some 60,000 people per anumn.

Can you imagine the transfer of bacteria by penis or hand from anus to mouth or virgina. People generally do not practice hygiene matters very well. It is common to see parents allowing a dog to lick their kids faces, yet dogs often lick anuses. How many actually wash their hands before eating hand held food in a food court.

I do not care what people do in their bedrooms to each other, but I do care when their reputed actions adversely impact on a respected institution like marriage.

Banjo,

Yep. The Left, including those on OLO, are getting more desperate and hysterical by the hour.

//Marriage will become something to be avoided because of association with homosexuals//

Maybe, but only by homophobes, and who cares about those dicks?

//Like it or not, anal sex is dirty//

How is this in any way relevant to a lesbian's right to marry her partner?

What you have presented there is an argument against anal sex, not an argument against SSM.

Not that it matters, because everyone has already voted anyway.

//Tetenus is another disease that lives in feces//

Possibly... I can't say I've ever heard of 'Tetenus'.

Tetanus, on the other hand, is non-contagious: you can't contract it from other people.

In the sixties, I read all I could find written by James Baldwin, a Black American (the term used then) writer, including his "Another Country" about a couple of gays (from memory). I was surprised to realise that male homosexuals practised face-to-face sex, much like (I presume) lesbians might. Nothing particularly dirty about that. But this is all a side-issue.

Marriage has mainly ben a form of insurance for women, who otherwise might have been left, in shame and destitution, to bring up some bloke's kid (or put it up for adoption) and try to get on with life. I suppose my own grandmother would have been treated that way, being raised in the work-house at Hull. No fun. Marriage was the widely-publicised commitment by the bloke to stick by the woman he was shagging, or about to, over the years when she was in a desperately dependent position, without effective birth control, or any other social or financial support.

From that point of view, I can understand the need in peasant societies for families to keep a close eye on the girls, keeping them busy inside, until they could be safely and very publicly handed over to another man - politically, handed over to another family. But that was then.

These days, woman's safety and security has been improved while birth control methods have also improved, and abortion legalised. So much of the very need for any marriage has been whittled away. A man and a woman can live together, have all the kids they want, all quite happily, without even thinking of getting married. More than half of my siblings have done that.

Marxists used to be dismissive of marriage. Gramscians, it seems, want to destroy the institution instead, and perhaps its practical purposes, and insist - 'Hey, here's a great stick to poke up their arses !' - that any two people can get married, not just a woman to a man. So what about polyamory ? Will they draw the line between homosexual 'marriage' and polyamory ? What are the odds ?

Joe

I don't want to buy into the 'dirty sex' issue. As far as I'm concerned members of the qwerty community can put their dicks and tongues wherever they like , just so long as I'm not in the vicinity.

But in regards to it being unsafe and unnatural I did find this interesting and something to monitor...
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/09/28/anal-cancer-new-gay-epidemic-media-wont-talk/

It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose. Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.

________________________________________________________________

AJ wrote of me ..."You're incredible."

I used to have a girlfriend who'd say that to me as well...although in a very different context.. :)

Her name was Anna. I wonder what the 'A' in 'AJ" stands for?

_________________________________________________________________

Re your error, bang on as much as you like. We both know what happened ie that you refuted my point based on faulty data, sought to salvage some pride by back-tracking and making new unsupported assertions, were exposed and have now spent who knows how long trying to hide it. No one cares and if they did they'd go back and check the various exchanges and see your errors all over again.

Mhaze,

I'm sure Anna said that to you many times, in that and other contexts, but especially in the heat of the moment :) And you relied with equal enthusiasm. Love is a wonderful thing, sometimes I think it's all there is, apart from life itself.

Cheers,

Joe

Found the time and bandwidth to dig yourself in even deeper I see, mhaze. I guess you can't fall much further, eh? If you're going down, I'm coming with you. Is that it?

<<... you refuted my point based on faulty data, sought to salvage some pride …>>

“Salvage some pride”? Yeah, right, because your evidence was so-o-o-o convincing, wasn't it?

Again you attempt to make it all sound so clumsy and embarrassing, yet I have nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, I should be quite proud of myself, double-checking my source with minimal prompting from you like that. But we’ve already been through all this before, haven't we mhaze?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238220

Or do I need to copy and paste quotes again?

Is it any wonder you never seem to able to link back to previous discussions like that, let alone provide line by line quotes?

<<... making new unsupported assertions …>>

So now you're just going to assert that what I had said was unsupported? Do you have some evidence that my source was wrong, do you?

<<... and have now spent who knows how long trying to hide it.>>

Hide it? I've admitted to my minor slip up multiple times now. You just want to make it look like I'm floundering. That's always been the goal, hasn't it?

You're not a very honest person, are you mhaze?

TL,
Tetanus is a disease caused by a bacteria that is commonly found in feces of animals, including humans.

The more contact one has with feces the more likely the bacteria is able to enter a wound. Despite vacination, tetanus still kills some 60,000 annually. The relationship between Tetanus and fecal matter is well known.

In the circles I mix in Homosexuals are present and are not disrespected as persons. This is not the case where racism occurs as with racism the person is disrespected as a person.

This SSM issue is trying to create an issue of discrimination to meet the Marxist agenda for social change. However once SSM becomes legal then advocates of SSM will haul anyone who does not accept SSM as equal to heterosexual marriage before the Courts.

It is then their agenda is then equal to racism on religious intolerance grounds, because they act with vengeance. Those that hold a different view on marriage will be discriminated against because of their biological opinion or religious conscience. THAT IS WHERE SSM IS THEN EQUAL TO RACEISM.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/workplace-intimidation-silences-lawyers-critical-of-samesex-marriage/news-story/6306836903cda613f571a175bc14b024

//The relationship between Tetanus and fecal matter is well known.//

What part of 'you can't contract it from other people' do you not undestand, Banjo? There has never been a single reported case in medical literature of such a thing occuring.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/tetanus.html#secular

Tony do not be ignorant! It is bacteria found in faeces. If the skin is broken or scratched bacteria can enter the system, i.e. that through bowel rupture, or vaginal wall scratches.

Tetanus is an acute, sometimes fatal disease caused by toxins produced by the bacterium Clostridium tetani. These toxins attack the central nervous system, causing severe spasms in the neck and jaw muscles – often making it difficult for patients to open their mouths.

As a dairyman in the 1960 - 70s I contracted brucellis bacteria from handling an aborted calf for burning from a cow with brucellosis through small scratches on my hands. I was in the Adventist hospital for two weeks with extreme conditions.

Bacteria can be passed from one person to another, the same as HIV

Just for your benefit, mhaze, here's that initial, allegedly-o-so embarrassing discussion of ours (since you are so incapable of clicking links, or assume others are).

AJ: “The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226763)

mhaze: “Well that is utter rubbish. I refer you to the work of people like Peter Laslett (among many others) that shows the nuclear family of a father, mother and kids living in a discreet separate house goes back to at least the 13th century, at least as regards North-East Europe.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226765)

AJ: “The nuclear family may have been around for hundreds of years, but it was only the most common form of family between the '40s and '70s.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226768)

mhaze: “Well, again, that's rubbish. There is more than enough evidence to show that it has been the dominant form of social structure in N-E Europe since at least the 13h century. Again I refer you to the historians I mentioned earlier.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226789)

AJ: “I checked one of my sociology textbooks (the source for my ‘’40s to ‘70s’ claim (http://www.booktopia.com.au/sociology-australia-john-bessant/prod9781741750164.html?source=pla&gclid=CNL207S3080CFYSVvQodz50Jiw)) and it only mentions those dates with regards to Australia. It doesn’t mention other Western counties as I thought I had remembered it doing.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793)

Hardly embarrassing stuff there. At no point did you provide any evidence for your claim, let alone enough to have me doing what I could to “salvage some pride”, "demur", or scramble around desperately like some bumbling fool the way you continuously and dishonestly portray it.

Keep digging, mhaze.

Loudmouth,

" Love is a wonderful thing, sometimes I think it's all there is, apart from life itself."

Being in love is not to be missed. But I don't buy the 'all you need is love' meme.

From the movie "All That Jazz"....

Angelique (aka The Angel of Death): Do you believe in love?

Joe Gideon (star of the show): I believe in saying, "I love you." It helps you concentrate.

TL,
No doubt you are a fool who cannot read. I never said Tetanus was contagious, you have made that up. Tetanus is contacted by bacteria infecting an open wound. That bacteria is commonly found in animal, and human, feces. Those that engage in anal sex (homosexuals) are most likely to have feces on their penis, tongue, hands and other body parts, so there is a high risk of infection if there is contact with an open wound or broken skin. This is just another risk associated with anal sex, as are many other risks with anal sex.

Thus the public view anal sex as dirty and why homosexuals are not respected. Currently marriage is seen as respectful and should be kept solely as a union between a male and female.

Gosh, it must be nice to know more about medicine than doctors without having to do all that study. How fortunate for us that we have a retired milkman and an old drunk to tell us where the bacteriologists at the CDC are getting it wrong.

//the public view anal sex as dirty//

You still haven't answered the question about what this has to do with lesbians.

Hi Banjo, Toni,

Insults can be such fun, especially clever, subtle ones. My favourite is the exchange between (I think) Gladstone and Disraeli in the British Parliament. I think it was Gladstone who declared across the Chamber, something like, "You, sir, will die either at the end of a rope or of the pox." To which Disraeli replied (you wonder if they teed this up beforehand, it's so good): "That depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Devastating but decorous. Insulting can be a real art, and we should all take more time to make ours as entertaining. Of course, there have been some beauties on OLO: keep it up, I say !

Dear Banjo,

There are run of the mill anally fixated people then there is you. You are exhibiting an affliction and I am concerned for you.

This type of proclivity is regularly exhibited by those who are closeted. Time and time again rabidly anti-gay politicians and religious leaders are exposed as engaging in the very thing they are so fervently condemning.

Ted Haggard is an obvious example, a rabidly anti-gay mega-church preacher he ended up confessing to using the services of a male-prostitutes on numerous occasions.

George Alan Rekers, an American psychologist and ordained Southern Baptist minister is another. He is emeritus professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. Rekers has a Ph.Dfrom University of California, Los Angeles and has been a research fellow at Harvard University, a professor and psychologist for UCLA and the University of Florida, and department head at Kansas State University. (Wikipedia)

Yet he was caught in 2010 traveling Europe with a rent boy.

It seems those that doth protest too much are prime examples of people battling internal demons and lashing out as a direct result of that conflict.

You sir perfectly fit the profile. Perhaps if you had allowed yourself to resolve some of these feelings earlier in your life we would not now be subjected to constant referrals to anal activities which you seem determined to throw around with such gay abandon.

Hi Paul,

"Anally fixated". Ooooooo ! That sounds painful. Isn't that what the vaseline is supposed to before ? Occupational hazard, I suppose. But thanks for being courteous and measured. 'Sir' indeed :)

Joe

Joe,

I may have mis-remembered this a bit but Disraeli had black, black hair, despite his age, and he said to someone opposite that they would be (something) "as long as you live" and the retort was ".... and you, Sir, will be black as long as you dye".

It's an art form.

TL,
The link you provided regarding Tetanus has all the correct info, it is just you cannot read or ignore what is written. Urinary tract and kidney infections can also be caused by fecal matter (even microscopic) coming in contact with the female Urethra.

SR
It is reassuring that you are so concerned about my well being, but you need not be. I do not have a fixation on anything anal, I post some of the risks relating to homosexual activities because people such as yourself are reluctant to admit to any risks, but the risks are real. This is why homos have such a poor reputation, It is their sexual practices that lead to the poor reputation.

I am simply concerned that the good reputation of marriage is maintained in the future, by not allowing homos to use the word marriage.

No one yet had debunked my post of Saturday claiming real discrimination equal to racism occurs once SSM becomes legal; whereas homosexuals living together now are not discriminated against in real terms.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/workplace-intimidation-silences-lawyers-critical-of-samesex-marriage/news-story/6306836903cda613f571a175bc14b024

Dear Josephus,

Here's some discrimination in real terms for you:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-entitlements-executive-summary

cont'd ...

Dear Josephus,

My apologies for leaving out the relevant bits of the link.
I was in a hurry. Here it is again:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements-executive-summary

Dear Josephus,

Here is a more recent link on same-sex couple
entitlements that was passed by parliament in
November 2008:

http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/recognition-of-same-sex-relationships

//The link you provided regarding Tetanus has all the correct info//

Yes, it does.

Still waiting on that answer about lesbians...

TL,
Are you trying to tell everyone that lesbians do not engage in anal sex, either with tongue, fingers, strap on or dildo.

Perhaps you should look a little further.

//Are you trying to tell everyone that lesbians do not engage in anal sex//

Some of them might, but it's more common amongst heterosexuals than lesbians.

So remind me why they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Sorry, Banjo, I just can't believe that lesbians engage in anal sex any more than heterosexual women. Why should they, really ? They have even more reason for face-to-face sex then homosexual men, and surely less need, and fewer natural means, i.e. none, than homosexual or heterosexual men.

You may be on soft ground here: if your argument turns on sexual practices rather than (or as well as) on tradition or, say, marriage as a form of security for women in a heterosexual relationship, then you may be opening the door to lesbian marriage but maybe not homosexual male marriage. Do you really want to keep going down that path ?

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

So the Human Rights Commission says that same sex couples are being 'discriminated' against because they may not get getting their claws into financial and work-related entitlements that attach to marrieds? And there is a heap of other benefits out there that attaining married status can given them a leg into as well?

However the REAL truth is that SOMEONE has to pay. And it is SINGLES, many of them on low incomes and young or aged, who are being required to indirectly subsidise those married benefits and Gay couples just add to the burden.

Why should singles, who are also penalised through dearer rent, dearer holidays and other imposts be forced to carry the extra load and subsidise Gay love choices, or anyone's love choices for that matter?

Hewre are some of the extra benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gays should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but have to pay.

-Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

-Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

-Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

-The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.
(and the AHRC list goes on...)

I too find Banjo’s claim, that lesbians engage in anal play more than heterosexual women, rather strange. It suggests an assumption, on Banjo’s behalf, that gay people are generally just filthy people.

Speaking of unsupported assertions, I can’t believe I missed this doozy from mhaze:

<<It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose.>>

Yeah, right, “choose”: because if we can convince ourselves that it’s merely a choice, we don’t have to feel bad about our prejudices.

Or perhaps those who claim that sexuality is a choice are bisexual, because I certainly don’t have a choice in the matter. It would make sense, after all, and on more than one level too:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lester_Wright_Jr/publication/14430824_Is_Homophobia_Associated_with_Homosexual_Arousal/links/54d4e9840cf25013d02a25fa.pdf

Foxy,
Thanks for the Post which states:
"The Government's same-sex law reform package passed through Parliament in November 2008.
The reform removed  discrimination against same-sex de facto couples and their families in areas such as taxation, superannuation, social security and family assistance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and the Medicare Safety Net, aged care, veterans' entitlements, immigration, citizenship and child support and family law."

The Government has sought to remove discrimination of SS relationships, but the SS lobbyists influenced by Marxist doctrine are not satisfied. Their endeavour is to destroy religious belief and discriminate against biological scientific reality, social norms and the rights of parents to children. Persons like Roz Ward knows better than parents what education children need.

Those not satisfied with natural biological science are now experimenting in placing a woman's ovaries, womb and genitals into a healthy person born male. This with the intent claim that men can fall pregnant. However the child would be the woman's who contributed the ovaries. Science gone mad!


However This does not remove discrimination for religious and conscience grounds under SSM legislation, for upholding Marriage in its traditional form of between a man and a woman. A Fail!

Dear Josephus,

This postal survey has nothing to do with your religious
beliefs or how you live your life. It is simply asking
if same-sex couples should be given the legal right to marry -
which the rest of us have. It is not about anything else.
Obviously you feel strongly on the subject - so therefore
vote NO. How people have sex, whether they have children
(and whether they can or not) is none of our business. Same sex
couples work, pay taxes, and contribute to society, like most
of us. They therefore are entitled in a secular country like
ours to the same legal rights as the rest of the society in
which they live, and to which they contribute financially with
their taxes (like most of us do).

Joe,
C'mon your better than that. Where did I suggest that lesbians engage in MORE anal sex than others? I took it, from TL's question that she was saying that lesbians have high morals and could not possibly engage in anything anal.

AJ,
You do like lying and putting your own spin on what other posters write don't you.

The fact remains that dirty sexual practices is the reason for homos having such a poor public image. They should be made to call their union anything but marriage, to protect the status of marriage. Why not simply UNION? That word is not associated with anything wholesome.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote;

“I do not have a fixation on anything anal”

Well that most certainly is in the eye of the beholder and from where I am sitting you definitely do.

And then this from you;

“Are you trying to tell everyone that lesbians do not engage in anal sex, either with tongue, fingers, strap on or dildo.”

Look mate, I'm not sure what kind of porn you are into but you do realise that most of it is highly exaggerated. Once again I will admit I'm a little loathed to put words like “lesbian anal and dildo' into my favourite search engine but I shouldn't have to, you have made the assertion so how about backing it up.

Finally I would remind you that you still appear not to have answered my question to you;

“So the obvious question based on your stated criteria my old dear is whether you consider the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex to be invalid? Further would you support the marriage between two homosexual man who did not practice anal sex?”

Banjo.

So, when Joe interprets what you had said as implying that lesbians engage in anal play more often than heterosexual couples, he should know better; but when I interpret your words in the same way, I'm lying and putting my own spin on what you're saying?

<<You do like lying and putting your own spin on what other posters write don't you.>>

You cited anal intercourse as a reason for opposing same-sex marriage; Toni pointed out that this does not explain your opposition to lesbians getting married; you then responded by pointing out that lesbians, too, can engage in such activities.

Therefore, either you think lesbians engage in anal play more often than heterosexual women, or you're also against the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse. Since you don't speak out against the marriages of heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse, I can only presume it's the former.

You don't get to call me a liar just because because I exposed one of your fellow SSM opponent's lies recently. It's an accusation which needs to be reserved for times when you can actually demonstrate the truth of your claim, not something you accuse people of willy-nilly just because you don't like what they've said.

Hi AJ,

Being from Western Sydney, I've lead a relatively sheltered life, unaware of all that kinky and perverted stuff (are we still allowed to use that word ?) that we knew was going on over on the North Shore. But I frankly don't believe that either heterosexual couples OR lesbians ever did anal sex much. For all I know, maybe only a minority of homosexual men (can I this naive ?) do it either - most of us, heterosexual and homo, simply find face-to-face sex vastly more fulfilling and sociable.

For all that, I still voted NO. Wind marriage down if anything, I say, for those heterosexuals (a man and a woman) who feel it is vital to cement their lifelong relationship. God, I wish the Gramscians would get onto real issues.

Joe

In the thread, "HIV Why isn't the message getting through on anal sex?" From a declared lesbian poster, who would know one would suppose,

"Also I got something shocking to tell you buddy. I know plenty of gay women whom enjoy anal sex and they aren’t coerced into it by anyone, man, woman or otherwise. They enjoy it and if you don’t then you can not do it, that’s your choice but again if we’re going to use sexuality and risk of sexually transmitted diseases as a compass for moral superiority Lesbians still win"
Posted by Zeil, Monday, 10 April 2017 3:50:36 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7720&page=0#237580

Some of the posters in the present thread were also involved in that thread and should be aware.

"Speaking of unsupported assertions, I can’t believe I missed this doozy from mhaze"

Translation: I can't believe I failed to see how I could distort what mhaze said.

Read the next sentence from my post...." Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible."

The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of multiple anonymous partners, the bath house culture, the mardi gras culture...these are choices. Equally the decision to partake in penetrative homosexual activities is a choice.

Without the help of modern western medicine these lifestyles would be deadly, or more deadly.

Its interesting to ponder how many times over the millennia societies have allowed this type of activity to expand only to find, sans modern medicine, that those participating in it fall victim to nature's abhorrence of the activity. In the same way that societies develop taboos around other dangerous practices (eg the Semitic taboo against pork) perhaps this proclivity for homosexual disease explains why pretty much every culture has a taboo against sticking your dick up someone else's anus.

And it doesn't take long for these problems to arise. Gays were barely out of the closet before they found themselves in the HIV ward. And now we find the growing (but silenced) problem of of anal cancer arising. How long will it be before the gay community demands that funds be diverted to address that problem?

SR,
How remiss of me not to answer a question that is irrelevent anyway.

A marriage between a male and female is valid, if both of age. There is no such thing as a marriage of two males, call it a union or a mateship. Whether either couple have sex or not is irrelevent.

Again the word marriage should not be used to denote a same sex union, I am quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union but it is not a marriage. Marriage is reserved for a male and female and has a high public status.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Re anal sex, I agree that it is likely uncommon and while lesbians like the awful Zeil might like to dominate their partners with an over-large penis (black as well?) strap-on, it is hard to imagine that many women, lesbian or not, would be seeking and appreciating anal sex. Recxtal tears

Rule breakers and deviancy aside, no woman wants to be a 'bum girl' and run the health risks and leaky rear end requiring granny pants and pads. Women would find proposed anal as a rejection of their femininity and humiliating.

There are very good reasons why parents, the general public too, are so offended and concerned by efforts by Gay activists, the media and entertainment industry (which has obvious problems) and by Victoria's avowed Marxist 'Safe Sex'(sic) program to normalise anal sex and a host of other nasties, such as involvement in faeces, lowering/abolishing the minimum age for consent and for throwing all responsibility for safe sex onto others (as was evident in Zeil's posts).

The problem for the medical profession is that by having to provide advice to lessen the risks of ill-advised sex practices, that might be construed as supporting the practices, which they do not.

The very best advice for parents and mothers should as usual be the proactive ones, is to tell their daughters NOT to be duped or coerced into anal sex and 'slips' is absolute BS. If the religion prevents effective contraception, drop it like that risky partner, say NO!.

Joe,

Yes, the only gay couple that I know anything about the sexual practices of don’t practice anal sex. They see it as degrading to the receiver. But I think it’s safe to say that the practice is on the rise. I do enjoy watching the wowsers portray this trend as somehow a symptom of the decline of modern society, though.

--

leoj,

Plenty of heterosexual women engage in anal intercourse, too. So what? No-one has claimed that lesbians don’t engage in anal intercourse.

--

mhaze,

Yeah, because that happens so often, doesn’t it?*

<<Translation: I can't believe I failed to see how I could distort what mhaze said.>>

But, go on. Tell us how I distorted what you said.

<<Read the next sentence from my post...." Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.">>

Okay, but before that you said:

“HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247597)

If “that lifestyle” comes before any mention of promiscuity (which also featured in a difference sentence), but after your mentioning of homosexuality, then it is fair to interpret the choice of which you spoke as one of sexuality.

<<The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of multiple anonymous partners, the bath house culture, the mardi gras culture...these are choices.>>

More ambiguous wording.

"The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle...", or, "The lifestyle of homosexuals who are promiscuous..."? You'll forgive me if I'm very cautious now, won't you? We know how easily (and for how long) you'll run with the slightest error on someone else's behalf. But only if they disagree with you, naturally.

<<… those participating in it fall victim to nature's abhorrence of the activity.>>

Nature doesn’t feel abhorrence. You are implying or reading intent into what is pure chance. There is no connection between the riskiness of anal intercourse and the moral rightness or wrongness of it. The former is objective, the latter is subjective.

*Denotes sarcasm

Anal sex inevitably reminds one of the motorcycle pillion-rider tragedies that were happening years ago when bikes were made popular by the film and entertainment industry. Almost invariably the serious harm and deaths of pillion passengers affected young women and there were many such tragedies.

Authorities worked desperately to discourage young women against the practice, while knowing that their partners, always men, were supremely selfish, thought of themselves and had no regard for the dangers they exposed their partners to. The risk was that discouraging pillion riders might actually encourage more risk-taking as a reaction against authority. Law requiring helmets helped. Because the selfish SOB men wouldn't lay out the extra $$ for their girl (for the night!). Eventually the pillion-riding trend wore off as women realised that just one ride could in a instant mean life-changing disfigurement, brain injury and a wheelchair, or death.

Girls and young women need support to protect themselves against the partners who coerce, blackmail and in some cases just go ahead to penetrate their anus, claiming 'slips' for instance. The last mentioned is very unlikely and at minimum shows callous disregard for for the woman.

There should be a formal requirement for anyone, male or female, who has experience of anal sex to advise their partner as a part of obtaining consent (consent must be informed or it isn't really consent). And a requirement that anal sex will be with a properly applied and used condom (unless the partner specifically agrees otherwise) or else it is rape.

Hi Leoj,

This is all probably getting away from the purpose of this thread, but I was just thinking about the similarities between anal intercourse and rape. Anal intercourse (unless both parties are extraordinarily gifted) requires a passive 'partner' and an active one. I'm told in some cultures where it's common among young blokes (that or chickens and sheep) that the bloke on the bottom is considered be to be a homosexual, but the bloke on top isn't. Go figure. It would probably follow that, in some societies, the bloke on the bottom is regarded socially as 'the woman' while of course the bloke on top is the Man.

So is that form of sexual activity really a matter of dominance and submission, i.e. power, or just lust ? Or is it form of luuurve, as so many advocates might assert ?

So how is that in any way similar to rape ? Well, the back-to-front requirement suggests somewhat less willingness and/or fulfilment on the part of one 'partner' than the other. Maybe I'm wrong there. If it's a form of power play, then it verges on Weinsteinlichheit. Wow, that has some miles to run.

Joe

Foxy, you are behind the times we are not talking about the plebiscite, we are talking about discrimination on the basis of race.

To which I am posing that once SSM is legalised; those that do not accept SSM on religious grounds, conscience or scientific biological grounds will be discriminated against.

There is a difference, and the criminalising of honourable citizens will be even greater. In fact discussions like this will be deemed offensive and illegal. Freedom of ideas like this will be controlled by the thought police and penalised. Parents will no longer have the say over their children's lives. We will resemble a Marxist State similar to North Korea, where dissent of ideas will be punishable.

Hear what Penny Wong says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/05/17/religion-still-standing-in-the-way-of-marriage-equality-senator_a_22094895/

Arguments about the respect that the Institution of
Marriage has is understandable - however, it should
also be noted that there are folk who have been
"happily married 3 (or more) times. The divorce statistics
are awesome. There are dull marriages that eventually
become corrosive, grinding and destructive. Though marriage
has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do
with it. What marriage had in common was that it really
was not about the relationship between a man and a
woman - it was a way of getting in-laws, making alliances
and expanding the family labour force.

As family plots of land gave way to market economies and
kings ceded power to democracies the notion of marriage
transformed. Now most of us see marriage as a bond between
equals that is all about love and companionship.

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex
marriage.

One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals
have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not
about being between a man and a woman.

It is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality, and a
flexible division of labour.

Dear Josephus,

What evidence do you have that people
will be discriminated against
and by whom

Still outstanding, why should singles be required to subsidise Gay or anyone else's love choices?

"Foxy,

So the Human Rights Commission says that same sex couples are being 'discriminated' against because they may not get getting their claws into financial and work-related entitlements that attach to marrieds? And there is a heap of other benefits out there that attaining married status can given them a leg into as well?

However the REAL truth is that SOMEONE has to pay. And it is SINGLES, many of them on low incomes and young or aged, who are being required to indirectly subsidise those married benefits and Gay couples just add to the burden.

Why should singles, who are also penalised through dearer rent, dearer holidays and other imposts be forced to carry the extra load and subsidise Gay love choices, or anyone's love choices for that matter?

Here are some of the extra benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gays should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but have to pay.

-Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

-Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

-Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

-The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.
(and the AHRC list goes on...)"
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 5 November 2017 9:02:55 PM

Foxy, What absolute nonsense you post.
"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between a man and a woman - it was a way of getting in-laws, making alliances and expanding the family labour force.....One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not about being between a man and a woman."

I whose research did you get this from? It has always been between a man and a woman. Please give evidence to support your claim.

Evidence SSM impinges upon Religious faith.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/ssms-likely-impact-religious-freedom/

Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge and (in a different way) Nazi Germany were all determined to tightly control religious practice in an effort to stop it from dividing society or eroding the power of the state. The result however, was not more peace and harmony, but more oppression.

Foxy read the whole article carefully, and see who is discriminated against.

Dearest sweet innocent Foxy,

It's amazing how your mind works. Are there bad marriages, even divorce and infidelities? Yes. Therefore .... ? Gosh, why isn't the world perfect ?

An interesting principle. Should we have exams ? After all, some people fail them, and anyway they're so stressful. So none of those. Cars ? Look at all the accidents ! So, no. Should someone try to start up a business ? What if he or she goes bust ? So, no.

So much goes wrong with everything, it's terrible really. Why can't everything be perfectly good ?

And then the non sequitur: " .... marriage as a bond between equals that is all about love and companionship. That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage."

Or alternatively, no real need for marriage at all. People can actually live happily without it. Perhaps we can talk about "the stunningly rapid development of happy de facto relationships" ? Sorry, that's the remnants of old-fashioned Marxism still in my bones.

Love always notwithstanding,

Joe

The fact is one does not have to object to Homosexual marriage, one only has to promote heterosexual marriage as the case of Hobart's Arch Bishop Julian Porteous.

http://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348

Jo, I have to agree.
In Foxy's eyes only Homosexuals marriages are based in love and roses forever.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/

The average of homosexual relationships is 1 - 1 1/2 years obviously love runs out after that.

Quote, "A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.

Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

AJ,

I'm writing a 350 word blog post, not something that I expect to be parsed to within a inch of its life in an attempt to discover some erstwhile error.

I was talking about the lifestyle choices of the homosexual community, not the choices between hetro/homo. The paragraph makes it clear. Only those, and by those I mean you, who are determined to find some fault in their never ending desire for vindication, would have failed to notice that.

Equally.."Nature doesn’t feel abhorrence." yadda, yadda.

I was being prosaic. When physicists say 'nature abhors a vacuum' they aren't talking literally. Nor was I. As I wrote that post I figured that some dill might decide to take me literally but decided to leave it in to see who would. Gold star to AJP!

Although you've decide to concentrate on the peripheries my main points remain:

* Penetrative homosexual sex is inherently dangerous.
* Were it not for modern western medicine homosexuals practising that activity would be a declining breed. (if you'll forgive the expression)
* Given that this lifestyle choice is only possible in modern times its interesting to postulate if such mass diseases like AIDS in the past might explain the general world-wide taboo against anal 'love'.

Dear Josephus,

What the hell mate? You have just made a sterling argument for equal marriage rights. Well done.

First this;

"A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

Then this;

“Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

The first talks about relationships and the second about marriages. So the question becomes how much of the differences can be attributed to the fact that the commitment involved in a marriage has an impact on the length of a relationship?

A clue came from the same article you quoted;

“The HRC analysis found that relationships were shortest for unmarried heterosexual partners living together, only 18 percent of whom had been together in the household for at least five years.”

Note though your article is from 2003.

Here is a more recent one from Stanford University which found;

“...that while same-sex couples in the US are more likely to break up than heterosexual couples ..., the difference in couple longevity is explained by the lower rate of marriage among same-sex couples. Once marriage (and marriage-like unions) are controlled for, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have statistically indistinguishable rates of break-up.”
http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Couple_Longevity_Forthcoming_JMF.pdf

So as logic would tell us committing to a marriage had a direct bearing on the length of a relationship, independent it would now seem of its makeup.

Thanks mate. Another one for the armory. You certainly are a gift that keeps on giving. Any more?

Foxy wrote "One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals
have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not
about being between a man and a woman.

"It is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality, and a
flexible division of labour."

Far from being "absolute nonsense" as one of the ad hominem posters derides this, in fact it elegantly sums up humanity's modern, evolved conception of what marriage is.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote;

“A marriage between a male and female is valid, if both of age. There is no such thing as a marriage of two males, call it a union or a mateship. Whether either couple have sex or not is irrelevent.”

“Again the word marriage should not be used to denote a same sex union, I am quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union but it is not a marriage. Marriage is reserved for a male and female and has a high public status.”

If you “are quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union” why the hell are you traipsing down the anal sex path with such gay abandon?

Ultimately mate a marriage will be reserved for whatever society deems it to be. If we choose to include the same-sex unions in our community then we will do so.

The European Enlightenment decisively knocked religion off its ancient social, moral and epistemological pedestal and it will never get back there. Freedom from religion is central to the foundation of secular democracies around the world.

Foxy wrote "One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals
have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not
about being between a man and a woman", Emperor Julia notes.

I agree with whoever said that this is 'nonsense'. Nobody would disagree that Australian morals have slithered so far down that more people do accept the silly idea of fake marriage for people of the same sex. But, a "stunningly rapid increase"! Last report I read a few days ago indicated that the YES vote would suffer a 'narrow loss'. Now, I don't know that I believe that, given the general plunge of morals and decency in Australia, but anyone who has been watching the debate at all, then claims a stunningly increase in support for SSM is living in la la land, and taking the stupid belief that 'positive thinking' works to the realms of insanity.

Emperor Julian,

No,religion did not start the downward run after The Enlightenment - Christianity did. Islam was not affected, and that particular evil is growing stronger everyvday; a matter that perverts and their helpers will regret, when Christianity dribbles to a halt altogether, and there is no alternative to Islam. It has been predicted that people alive today will see the end of Christianity altogether. If you are one of those people, good luck to you and the SSM crowd with that event.

SR,
Am forced to bring up anal sex because so many SSM advocates such as yourself, foxy, AJ and TL refuse to believe it is a dirty sex practice and is what gives homos such a bad reputation. You can see from the number of posts that TL took some convincing about anal housed bacteria being the cause of Tetanus infections.

So it is not anal sex that concerns me, it is the poor reputation that will transfer to marriage and ruining its status if the word marriage is allowed to be used for same sex unions. That has been made plain by me for yonks

You said "Ultimately mate a marriage will be reserved for whatever society deems it to be. If we choose to include the same-sex unions in our community then we will do so". That is true, but I do not see the need to ruin the reputation of one institution to accommodate another

//I took it, from TL's question that she//

Wrong pronoun, dude. Toni is a male name too:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/how-did-toni-two-guns-operate-a-security-empire-for-25-years-20171031-gzcdqs.html

Bet you wouldn't so be brave about calling a vicious thug like that a girl. Maybe I should take up crime... the endless gender confusion displayed by others does get tiresome sometimes.

Or maybe not... knowing my luck I'd get busted straight out of the gate, and spend the term of my natural life bunged up at Her Majesty's convenience with sod all to read save the meagre offerings of the prison library - which I can't imagine are great.

Looks like I'm resigned to a life of pointing out that Toni is a male name too... sigh.

//was saying that lesbians have high morals and could not possibly engage in anything anal.//

Really? That's what you took from my last post?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247649

O... kay.

//The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of multiple anonymous partners//

And you think that no straight people sleep around?

Aww.... that's so cute.

//I'm told in some cultures where it's common among young blokes (that or chickens and sheep) that the bloke on the bottom is considered be to be a homosexual, but the bloke on top isn't. Go figure. It would probably follow that, in some societies, the bloke on the bottom is regarded socially as 'the woman' while of course the bloke on top is the Man.//

The Norse, who were known for their odd ideas at the time (e.g. bathing once a week, allowing women to own property) basically subscribed to this view: the taboo was more on being 'argr', which primarily denotes effeminacy, than it was on anal sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergi
http://jameserich.com/2012/07/18/what-was-it-like-to-be-a-gay-viking/

//So is that form of sexual activity really a matter of dominance and submission, i.e. power, or just lust ? Or is it form of luuurve, as so many advocates might assert ?//

Could it not be both, with the distinction depending on context? I smell a false dilemma.

//Well, the back-to-front requirement suggests somewhat less willingness and/or fulfilment on the part of one 'partner' than the other.//

But the Congress of the Hound is performed back-to-front, and a lot of women seem to like it. I certainly haven't heard any arguing that it's inherently rapey, at any rate. Except for the weird ones who think all sex is rape, but nobody cares about them.

I'm not a huge fan: my preferred position is Taking Tea with the Parson, which is traditionally performed face-to-face (although of course, there are the less conventional Reverse TTWTP, Sideways TTWTP, Upside-Down TTWTP, and for the particularly adventurous/kinky/disgusting freaks, there is the notorious Fully Asymmetrical Taking Tea with the Parson).

I do have to agree, though, that doggy does suggest a certain degree of unwillingness, but on both parties rather than just one: if you're not willing to look at each other while you're doing it, you'd probably rather be doing it with somebody else. And it is unfulfilling. That's I why prefer to Take Tea with the Parson in the conventional manner.

I shudder to think what people who state that anal sex is not filthy get up to in their own sex lives, bent or straight.

//Why not simply UNION? That word is not associated with anything wholesome.//

Sorry, I missed that little gem before.

There's a whole bunch of Rugby UNION players who would like to correct you on that misunderstanding. We think it's an entirely wholesome pursuit, and ask that you cease and desist from further denigration of our chosen football code.

//Am forced to bring up anal sex because so many SSM advocates such as yourself, foxy, AJ and TL refuse to believe it is a dirty sex practice and is what gives homos such a bad reputation.//

I still don't understand why it gives lesbians a bad reputation. I expect I never will.

//You can see from the number of posts that TL took some convincing about anal housed bacteria being the cause of Tetanus infections.//

Really? You think you managed to convince me that tetanus is an STD, in the absence of any medical literature to support your case? I abandoned the argument because I could see that I was arguing with the intellectual equivalent of a homeopath: one who thinks he know more about medicine than doctors.

Sometimes life is just too short to try and bother educating homeopaths. Let 'em believe in magic water and contagious tetanus if they want.

//So it is not anal sex that concerns me, it is the poor reputation that will transfer to marriage and ruining its status//

You're very concerned about status, aren't you?

Where I'm from, we have a term for people overly obsessed with status: 'pretentious wanke... snobs'.

I think what you fail to understand about status is that it's all about what other people think, not what you think. And if you really think that anybody will have less respect for the loving commitment betwixt you and your wife because the 'yes' vote wins... well, I think you're barking, mate.

I'll still have respect for every married couple, straight or gay. It's not like I'm going boycott my parent's sapphire anniversary just because gays can start folding nice origami for each other: that's patently ridiculous, and slightly offensive to boot.

Dear Josephus,

The following links may help clarify things.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844

And -

http://theconversation.com/talk-of-same-sex-marriage-impinging-on-religious-freedom-is-misconceived-heres-why-82435

Ah, Foxy, I love when you post extremely definitive articles, even books, like "Homosexual Marriage for Idiots", "Indigenous History for Slow Learners", "Our Constitution for Beginners", "A Child's Guide to ....", that sort of thing. It gives me the appropriate amount of confidence in everything ever written in books, by authorities, which means it must be true.

Thank you, Foxy :)

That’s perfectly fine, mhaze.

<<I'm writing a 350 word blog post, not something that I expect to be parsed to within a inch of its life in an attempt to discover some erstwhile error.>>

But don’t go pretending that others are are distorting your meaning when there are clear ambiguities in what you have written.

<<I was talking about the lifestyle choices of the homosexual community, not the choices between hetro/homo. The paragraph makes it clear.>>

No, it doesn’t make that clear. Let’s look at it again:

“It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose. Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247597)

What it looks like you are saying is that, had it not been for modern medicine, HIV/AIDS would have wiped out most of the gay community; that the gay community would have therefore ceased being gay, or not chosen to be gay in the first place; and that the promiscuous behaviour of gay people is only made possible by Western medicine.

That’s how your paragraph literally reads.

Especially when one considers how frequently same-sex marriage opponents attempt to portray sexuality as a choice. They love inserting the words “choice” and “choose” in wherever they can (just read some of runner’s posts on the topic). For example, you could have simply said “lifestyle”, but you chose to refer to homosexuality - sorry, promiscuity (even though you hadn’t even mentioned it yet) - as a “lifestyle choice”.

So, don’t go pretending that your alleged real meaning was obvious to everyone except me.

<<I was being prosaic.>>

I figured you probably were, but some would not have seen it that way (and still agreed with a literal interpretation).

<<Penetrative homosexual sex is inherently dangerous.>>

But not when heterosexuals do it?

Before you pretend, once again, that I’m deliberately distorting what you’re saying, consider the possibility that I’m making another point.

Just for some context, mhaze:

”BS most homosexual choose the lifestyle” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19387#344538)

“Homosexuality is a choice...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3098#3604)

“I am glad to see that you admit that people committing sodomy as well as sleeping with women is a choice.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6073#174851)

“All actions are a choice … there has never been a scientific study done that proves that homosexuality is genetic” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#58747)

“… the negative long term social implications of particular sexual choices, (yes.. thats what I said -'choices') …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23327)

“Just don't shove your lifestyle choice … down the throat of 98% of the general population…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13374#231397)

“… so a small percentage are able to destroy normality to suit their own personal unnatural lifestyle choices.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#24728)

Then along you come, talking about a “lifestyle choice” in the same breath as the “homosexual community”:

“… HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247597)

Yet, according to you, it was just me distorting what you had said, and everyone else would have known that you were actually talking about promiscuity.

Yeah, right.

Foxy, Do you believe politicians who wish to remove religious freedoms.
Penny Wong?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/05/17/religion-still-standing-in-the-way-of-marriage-equality-senator_a_22094895/

//Do you believe politicians who wish to remove religious freedoms.
Penny Wong?//

She doesn't want to remove religious freedoms. Did you even read the article, or did you take one look at the picture of a gay Labor politician and just assume what was written?

"At the centre of the opposition to equality of marriage rights for gay and lesbian members of the community is the conflation of religious concepts of marriage with secular concepts of marriage," she said.

"Religious attitudes to marriage continue to impact on much of the political debate that has delayed the recognition of the marriage equality rights of the gay and lesbian community.

"The problem in all of this, of course, is the application of religious belief to the framing of law in a secular society. And in societies where church and state are constitutionally separate."

"Religious freedom means being free to worship and to follow your faith without suffering persecution or discrimination for your beliefs. It does not mean imposing your beliefs on everyone else."

What is happening in UK to remove free speech and religious conviction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRG-_ifkxM8

//What is happening in UK to remove free speech and religious conviction.//

Letting the British PM make speeches at a gay awards night?

WTF? How does that have anything to do with removing religious freedoms?

Dear Josephus,

We shall all know the results of the postal survey
soon enough. It closes today.

And you just may find out that your fears and concerns
were really unwarranted.

Dwell on that instead and stay calm.

Whoa

AJP devotes three lengthy posts trying to rationalise the misinterpretation (for whatever reason or lack thereof) of a minor point in my post. Then spending who knows how long examining other's post histories to see who else committed the thought crime of saying homosexual behaviour was chosen.

Seriously bonkers.

When you see the crazy man in the street its prudent to cross to the other side. This is me figuratively crossing over (nb AJP,not literally crossing!)

Meanwhile in the sane adult world my original point remains:

* Penetrative anal sex is inherently dangerous.
* Were it not for modern western medicine, homosexuals practising that activity would be a declining breed. (if you'll forgive the expression)
* Given that this lifestyle choice is only possible in modern times its interesting to postulate if such mass diseases like AIDS in the past might explain the general world-wide taboo against anal 'love'.

Josephus is concerned that the SSM changes will erode religious freedoms.

Foxy is reassuring..."you just may find out that your fears and concerns were really unwarranted."

And if they were 'warranted'? IF the changes do indeed erode religious freedom, affect parental rights, adversely affect traditional marriage and the status of the traditional family in society?

No problem...we'll just reverse coarse. Unapprove SSM, dissolve those marriages etc. No biggy really.

Oh wait...

No, this is a permanent experiment where getting it wrong will have dire consequences. And its being decided based on a decade's worth of #hashtag trendiness

mhaze wrote: "this is a permanent experiment where getting it wrong will have dire consequences. And its being decided based on a decade's worth of #hashtag trendiness"

No. For same sex couples it is based on a long-suffered injustice, and for other people it is based on respect for the validity of others' wish to end exclusion from marriage.

This SSM is not just allowing same gender persons a legal contract; it is about a whole raft of changes to society, education, business, family and unintended consequences.

Note how Teresa May wants to change the religious culture in some strict Muslim cultures, members of the Empire. Not that I agree with how homosexuals are treated in Islam. But do they have a right to their opinion?

That’s one way of putting it, mhaze.

<<AJP devotes three lengthy posts trying to rationalise the misinterpretation (for whatever reason or lack thereof) of a minor point in my post.>>

Another way of putting it would be to note that I have simply been responding to your rebuttals, only I did it with two posts that last time. You did have a response there in between those last three posts of mine, after all.

But it doesn’t sound as unflattering when one describes the events more accurately now, does it? So, true to form, you re-tell the events of the last 24 hours in way that makes me sound “bonkers”, because you need something to distract from you BS excuse.

If you can’t make me look like some bumbling fool anymore, then just make me look crazy.

<<Then spending who knows how long examining other's post histories ...>>

About 15 minutes. Google is a real time-saver. But, no, let’s make it look like I could have been sitting there for hours, obsessing like a maniac. It’s more slanderous that way.

You still haven’t demonstrated your claim that I had misrepresented you either. You’ve merely asserted it. I, on the other, have explained just how implausible your clumsy excuse was, and now you’re trying to distract from that.

<<nb AJP,not literally crossing!>>

This is an unjustified swipe you’ve taken here. Some people think the way you spoke when you were being prosaic. That you believed what you had literally said would hardly be an unreasonable presumption of me, either, given that you think a god is analogous to dark matter.

<<Meanwhile in the sane adult world my original point remains:>>

Only you changed the first one after the point I had made earlier. So, they’re not all your original points, are they? I’m not sane when it suits you, yet you’re still willing to modify your arguments based on my criticism. Someone’s not being entirely truthful (again).

Either way, your points are irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. So, whether they remain is inconsequential.

//IF the changes do indeed...//

And if they don't?

Well, I guess you'll just have to pretend they do anyway.

//adversely affect traditional marriage and the status of the traditional family in society?//

Oh yes, and how do you imagine that's going to happen?

//Note how Teresa May wants to change the religious culture in some strict Muslim cultures, members of the Empire.//

Note how Teresa May's speech at no point mentioned Muslims; but rather spoke about Commonwealth nations who retain the anti-buggery laws that they inherited from the British before the Empire dissolved - just like Australia did, only we've repealed ours.

You just can't help making things up, can you mate?

//But do they have a right to their opinion?//

Yes. But other nations like Britain have a right to their opinion, and to speak out about human rights abuses.

Tony,
The countries in the Commonwealth who do not respect homosexuality. Why do they not respect homosexuality? Is there a religious component?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

The penalties for private, consensual sexual conduct between same sex adults remain harsh in a number of Commonwealth countries. They include 10 years imprisonment and hard labour in Jamaica, 14 years in Kenya, 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia, and 25 years in Trinidad and Tobago. Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, while in the 12 northern states of Nigeria the maximum penalty for male homosexuality is death. In some countries such as Cameroon, arrests and imprisonment for acts that indicate homosexuality are frequently reported. In Uganda and Nigeria recent legislative proposals would significantly increase the penalties for homosexuality.

At least in Australia they can be respected without being criminalised.

//The countries in the Commonwealth who do not respect homosexuality. Why do they not respect homosexuality? Is there a religious component?//

Probably. Mind you, all the ones I looked except for Bangladesh had a Christian majority.

What does this have to do with gay marriage in Australia?

Josephus excuses marriage discrimination by comparison with how consenting homosexuality is punished in a list of countries run by tribal savages.

A more relevant comparison is with relatively civilised countries. How does Australia compare with Britain, Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, the USA, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Italy?

It looks like some people here are having a party, vicariously enjoying the explicit, but irrelevant, discussion on homosexual activities.

Let me remind you that SSM does not require homosexuality.
Legal marriage does not require any sexual act or even a proof of sexual attraction.

So why would two people marry if they feel no sexual attraction to each other?
Well, they don't even need to actually marry if their goal can be achieved just by SAYING that they want to marry.

Scenario:

Two school-friends (same-sex) chat: "did you see this fat old disgusting religious baker? Let's book him!"

As they enter the bakery the owner asks: "How can I help you Sirs(/Madams)?"

- "We would like to order a 3-storey marzipan wedding cake."

Now they don't really want and can't really afford this cake: had the baker simply answered: "That would be $75", then they would break the world record by running out and being 100m away from the bakery in 9 seconds. But as planned, the baker falls into their trap and asks:

"And whose wedding would I have the honour to adorn?"

- "Us two!" (with great effort not to burst in laughter)

The baker raises his walking stick and shouts: "Piss off, you scoundrels - Out of my shop!".

This is all filmed, the baker is sued and taken to court:

"Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, this baker spoiled our wedding; Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, he traumatised us; Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, because of him we became hooked on drugs/alcohol".

Elsewhere, a wise judge would ask the witnessing complainants: "Will you demonstrate to the court how you lovingly kiss?", which would immediately cause the duo's faces to twitch in embarrassment and pain, disclosing their true scheme, but Australian magistrates are not allowed to act wisely, they must rather follow the laws.

Don't forget the extremely important word 'equality' which is what this is all about, marriage equality.

It would appear from what ive seen the vote is going to be close. Now if it is a 'yes', then rest assured a larger number of yes voters would have voted than the no's, quite simply because some no voters could not care a less. However, should the MP's vote yes, this does not ensure marriage equality, it would simply mean the marriages are equal in law. But this is not about law, it is about marriage equality and to be accepted as equal, one must gain the acceptance of the masses and many no voters will never accept that.

I just wonder if successful, those marrying under the new law (hypo) can. Personally, I doubt it otherwise they would have accepted that finding another word would have saved millions and no doubt some lives.

My wife and I and everyone we encounter accept without demur the validity of our marriage. If there were any turds who didn't I would certainly draw attention far and wide to their turdity. The same applies to any adult marriage entered into with unforced mutual consent of same or different genders.

Any organised movement to deny the validity of any unforced adult marriage certainly needs to be identified as a turds' brigade.

As an aficionado of the ABC soapie Dr Blake's Mysteries I was very pleased to see this week that the character Jean told the Roman Catholic priest who said if she went ahead with a marriage to a divorced man the church would excommunicate her she replied that it was no longer her church.

//Now if it is a 'yes', then rest assured a larger number of yes voters would have voted than the no's, quite simply because some no voters could not care a less.//

Nope, that doesn't necessarily follow. Latest figures for turnout are 78.5%, and the math ain't hard: on that figure if the yes vote is above 63.7%, then it follows that at least 50% of the voting population favour SSM.

//However, should the MP's vote yes, this does not ensure marriage equality, it would simply mean the marriages are equal in law.//

In the same way that n!ggers and Jews and gyppos aren't really equal to Aryans just because they're equal under Australian law?

//But this is not about law, it is about marriage equality and to be accepted as equal, one must gain the acceptance of the masses and many no voters will never accept that.//

I don't think anyone cares.

Homophobia is an anachronistic irrelevance and the tide of history is against you.

I hope all the nurses at your aged care facility turn out to be gay... and that you piss all of them off with your homophobia, thus ensuring a miserable stay for yourself as you shuffle toward the grave.

My apologies ahead of time, but I'm going to sound
like a broken record and repeat what I've written
in the past.

Here goes:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
in the past at least - usually as God-given as well.
Much of the current concern about the fate of the
institution of marriage and the modern family stems from
this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" marriage and
family form, then naturally any change will be interpreted
as heralding the doom of the whole institution. It is
important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range currently in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at least in
its own context, perfectly viable; and above all, that both
marriage and the family, like any other social institution,
most inevitably changes through time, in our own society
and in others.

cont'd ...

It shall be interesting to see how Australia has
voted on the issue of same-sex marriage and what
the government decides to do.

Foxy,
Give us examples of your wild claim in advanced successful societies.

Quote," It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range currently in marriage, family, and kinship patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own context, perfectly viable; and above all, that both marriage and the family, like any other social institution, most inevitably changes through time, in our own society and in others".

Dear Josephus,

As one society after another has industrialised over
the course of the past two centuries, there has been
a major, global change in family and marriage
patterns - a change
that involves a fundamental shift in people's loyalties.
Essentially, people have come to focus less on their
responsibilities toward their kin and their families,
and more on their desires for self-fulfillment as
individuals.

As one sociologist observes:

Adults will follow job opportunities even if it means
breaking ties with relatives. Married women will go out
to work even against opposition from their husbands.
They will leave unhappy marriages, sometimes without
their children, especially in the middle or upper
classes. Husbands will leave their economically
dependent wives...The presence of children no longer
preserves marriages. The oldest child will no longer
give up educational or other personal goals to support
needy brothers and sisters or aged parents and grandparents.
Young people will choose marital partners or live together
in heterosexual or homosexual relationships with or without
the approval of parents.

This shift in loyalties has had dramatic effects on family
life. And today you get single-parent families, cohabitation,
serial monogamy (people marrying more than once), reconstituted
families, (one that's put together from the fragments of
previous families), childless couples, "open" marriages,
gay couples and gay-parent families. Plus a growing number of
people are choosing to remain single.

The point that is being made is that what is happening is that
there is an increasing toleration of a
variety of alternative marriage and family styles.
This is due in part to economic
and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed
sense of individualism.

In this environment people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in
terms of what they, personally want rather than in terms of
traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the other
impersonal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly
accepted. Many people are modifying the family system to suit
their individual needs.

Dearest sweet Foxy,

Those situations have been around for a very long time. I was just chatting to my daughter about one of her ancestors, a bloke who lost his wife, in about 1882, and had a daughter to look after; how to do it ? He had to go back out to work, no UB in those days. As it happened, a local woman had just lost her husband, leaving her with a baby daughter. So, of course, they married, within weeks. People found ways around serious, life-threatening problems in those days, there was almost nothing that the State could or would, do for them, Black or White.

That's 'family'. All sorts of arrangements. Nothing all that innovative about contemporary arrangements, Yes, maybe to simplify things, people have said, "Look, let's get married.' And lives have been saved. And genealogies continued :)

Life is far more fascinating, surprising, than stories. :)

Love forever,

Joe

Josephus wrote direct to Foxy: "Give us examples of your wild claim in advanced successful societies."

Attempts like this to bully correspondents won't work and say a lot about the fool who tries to bully people with ad hominem drivel in abusive language.

We're pretty thick skinned here and not easily bullied.

But people are irritated by blather from bullies because it is an attack on the tone of OLO which thrives on INFORMATIVE discussion which presents - even vigorously - facts and reasoning.

Ad hominem is fine when it is a riposte to ad hominem drivel and its authors. Otherwise it's a mindless attack on OLO.

There is LOTS of information in Google about the evolution in most of the civilised world (with the shameful exception of Australia) of what marriage means to the vast majority of human beings - even those addled with religion.

Google <marriage laws europe north america> for the truth behind Foxy's supposed "wild claims". Extension to the semicivilised nations of Latin America shows how widespread this thinking is, even there. But not in Australia, thanks to the stranglehold of a theocratic religion that can't grow with the times.

Marriage in spite of fractured families has always been between a man and a woman in developed countries.

//Marriage in spite of fractured families has always been between a man and a woman in developed countries.//

Except for Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay.

And soon, Australia.

Still outstanding,

<Still outstanding, why should singles be required to subsidise Gay or anyone else's love choices?

"Foxy,

So the Human Rights Commission says that same sex couples are being 'discriminated' against because they may not get getting their claws into financial and work-related entitlements that attach to marrieds? And there is a heap of other benefits out there that attaining married status can given them a leg into as well?

However the REAL truth is that SOMEONE has to pay. And it is SINGLES, many of them on low incomes and young or aged, who are being required to indirectly subsidise those married benefits and Gay couples just add to the burden.

Why should singles, who are also penalised through dearer rent, dearer holidays and other imposts be forced to carry the extra load and subsidise Gay love choices, or anyone's love choices for that matter?

Here are some of the extra benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gays should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but have to pay.

-Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

-Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

-Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

-The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.
(and the AHRC list goes on...)"
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 5 November 2017 9:02:55 PM
Posted by leoj, Monday, 6 November 2017 12:11:15 PM>

Dear oh dear Toni, you really should get the raw nerve looked at old mate.

There is nothing homophobic about having an opinion about whether two of the same sex should be married equally.

Now if I hated gays, then by all means you could brand me as such, but I don't.

Enjoy your day mate and do try to protect those exposed nerves.

leoj,

I usually don't bother reading your posts for
obvious reasons - however as you persist in addressing
me - I shall try to make things clearer.

How exactly do "singles" support gay-life style choices?

Gays work, are high income earners, pay taxes, and all
they are asking is to have the same legal rights in this
country as the rest of us - which includes their legal
right to marry. And the Human Rights Commission
agrees.

As taxpayers - we all support each other to a certain extent
in one way or another. We support the unemployed, the aged,
the sick, and so on. Our taxes go towards providing the
necessary services, be it health, education, whatever. Our
taxes support welfare recepients, people with disabilities,
amongst others. I don't have a problem with what the government
does with my taxes.

However what is under discussion here is that there is a
small percentage of our population who although they
are high taxpayers are treated as - second-class citizens
as far as some of our laws are
concerned and particularly regarding the legal right to
marry - and this is what we are now being asked to correct/or
not - depending on how you voted.

Are you suggesting that some single is supporting Senatory
Penny Wong, or Dr K. Phelps - and their life-style choices?
Really?

Wow!

I can't make it any clearer for you or be responsible for your
comprehension skills.

Dear Joe,

Yes indeed - people's entire way of thinking about
marriage has changed: it is now viewed less as an
economic arrangement or a kinship alliance, and
more as a companionship based on the emotional
commitment of two individuals.

This transformation is , of course, a general trend,
not a hard and fast rule. Nevertheless, the overall
pattern is unmistakable" in industrialised societies,
traditional family forms have given way to others
that are better adapted to the changed conditions
of social and economic life.

Dear EJ,

Thank You so much for your kind words.

//but I don't.//

No, of course you don't. And your denial is so very convincing... I'm sold.

Foxy,

As was listed in detail in the AHRC site you linked to, anyone who can 'married' status has a very broad range of valuable entitlements they can claim, which can represent quite a pay rise.

On top of that, 'marrieds', a definition (de facto 'relationships') broadened substantially by the Gillard government (and Gillard and members of her Labor Caucus were beneficiaries of the changes) are also the beneficiaries of price discounting. My earlier posts refer.

Again, the money has to come from somewhere.

Now, you might be willing to subsidise others' 'love' and to add to that a horde of gay de facto 'relationships' (thanks to Gillard), because you and your partner are also a long term beneficiaries of 'married' lurks and perks. That is up to you. But you don't give singles any choice in the matter and they don't get any of the cream as you do and have been getting for years.

Most singles would be students, low income earners and aged and are on fixed incomes such as pensions. Of course it is discriminatory for singles to be forced to subsidise others' love choices and that includes the SSM mob. Singles should have lower taxes accordingly and 'married' conditions of wage agreements, including superannuation should attract a married contribution, or pay singles more in the hand.

should be "..anyone who can CLAIM 'married' status has a very broad range of valuable entitlements they can claim, which can represent quite a pay rise.."

leoj,

I don't know what you are talking about.

It makes no sense.

Laws have gradually recognised same-sex couples as
defactos in Australia but there's some areas where
they are still not equal to married couples.
The following link explains:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088

leoj,

Kindly explain your following statement to me:

"Because you and your partner are also
long term beneficiaries of "married" lurks and perks".

What lurks and perks are those that my husband and I
have been long term beneficiaries of?
Are they the same ones that you and your partner have
been getting? Perhaps we could compare to see who's
been the bigger long-term beneficiary as I imagine
that you and your partner are older.

Josephus, you claim that marriage as an institution in our western society is something that should remain totally unchallenged, a heterosexual union only, at the exclusion of all others. The belief is that heterosexual marriage has been the unquestioned accepted norm for centuries and should remain so. However, heterosexual marriage itself has undergone change, particularly the roll of women in marriage. the move away from a purely subservient placement for the good wife in many instances, to a position of equality. This relatively new standing for women in the modern marriage has come about despite the biblical dogma which places the wife in the position of a subservient chattel of the husband.
Do you go against biblical dogma, and accept women as equal in marriage, or are they merely an appendage pf man, as the bible would have us believe.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for producing the list of outstanding hiccups in equal treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Yes, those hiccups need to be fixed - and once the institute of state-based legal marriage is abolished, equal treatment will automatically follow.

Regarding some specific points that were mentioned in the article:

«Superannuation funds are problematic because a trustee determines who gets the money and they don’t have to follow wishes expressed in a will»

This is very wrong and should indeed be fixed. Your superannuation is your own money and only you should decide what is to be done with it after your death.

«“If you look at the case law, you could have a will that leaves everything to your partner, but you can have siblings or other families that refuse to accept it was a defacto-like relationship.”»

Nothing new about greedy family-members who fail to accept your autonomy in regard to your money. Yet a will is a will and should be followed as written.

«But unlike heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners don’t have the option to clarify their relationship status via marriage.»

This option should not be available to anyone as the state should not involve itself with personal relationships.

«“Everyone should have the same status»

Exactly, like "citizen" or "permanent resident" - the word "marriage" or even "de-facto" should not be included in anyone's legal status.

«Without recognition of same-sex marriage, partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another.»

This should be fixed, but not through more state involvement.

«“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room, ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!’”»

This will be solved and nobody will need yell any more once "wife" returns to be a natural description of affairs rather than a legal term.

Foxy,

Why should a single person be forced to contribute to, to subsidise, the love choices of others?

There is no denying that anyone who is able to claim 'married' status, which includes 'relationship' (de facto) is able to claim the array of entitlements that the AHRC has listed and you must agree, having posted the link in this thread.

Why should a single worker be subsidising through his/her taxes and through workplace agreements, to married entitlements that he/she is automatically excluded, barred from, because of his her/single status?

But singles are also being singled out to subsidise in other ways. For example, cheaper health fund for 'marrieds', a category vastly increased by Labor through expanded definitions of 'relationship' by Labor over the years.

Of course it goes without saying that the main beneficiaries have been the middle class. That is where your example of Ms Penny Wong and ors come in, of course. But there are many thousands the same in the public bureaucracies, university staff and of course politicians, to name some.

Now, that really IS discrimination. Why should individuals who just happen to be single, ie not in a State defined 'love relationship' they can take advantage of, be forced to subsidise the love squeezes of others? It is not fair, now is it and that AHRC list of entitlements that Gays should now be entitled to and getting (a beaut pay rise in effect and just for being 'married') makes it very obvious don't you think?

leoj, why are couples discriminated against when it comes to pensions. The single aged pension is $888.30 per f/nite. married couples are payed at the rate of $669.60 each per f/nite.

Paul,
In Christianity both male and female are equal, same with race all are equal. This is the dogma that identifies women. Proverbs 31: 10 - 31
A Wife of Noble Character
10 
Who can find a virtuous and capable wife?
    She is more precious than rubies.
11 
Her husband can trust her,
    and she will greatly enrich his life.
12 
She brings him good, not harm,
    all the days of her life.
13 
She finds wool and flax
    and busily spins it.
14 
She is like a merchant’s ship,
    bringing her food from afar.
15 
She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household
    and plan the day’s work for her servant girls.
16 
She goes to inspect a field and buys it;
    with her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 
She is energetic and strong,
    a hard worker.
18 
She makes sure her dealings are profitable;
    her lamp burns late into the night.
19 
Her hands are busy spinning thread,
    her fingers twisting fiber.
20 
She extends a helping hand to the poor
    and opens her arms to the needy.
21 
She has no fear of winter for her household,
    for everyone has warm[c] clothes.
22 
She makes her own bedspreads.
    She dresses in fine linen and purple gowns.
23 
Her husband is well known at the city gates,
    where he sits with the other civic leaders.
24 
She makes belted linen garments
    and sashes to sell to the merchants.
25 
She is clothed with strength and dignity,
    and she laughs without fear of the future.
26 
When she speaks, her words are wise,
    and she gives instructions with kindness.
27 
She carefully watches everything in her household
    and suffers nothing from laziness.
28 
Her children stand and bless her.
    Her husband praises her:
29 
“There are many virtuous and capable women in the world,
    but you surpass them all!”
30 
Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last;
    but a woman who fears the Lord will be greatly praised.
31 
Reward her for all she has done.
    Let her deeds publicly declare her praise.

Lots of pensioner couples living in the same household once married will loose part of their pension, which will save the Government coffers. If one was claiming rent assistance again it would be removed on marriage, because now they would equally share the same home.

Josephus, if your biblical quotes are to demonstrate the equality of women in marriage, they fail badly. In fact they reinforce my argument that the woman is subservient to the man.

While she is busy spinning thread, her fingers twisting fiber. what is the old bloke up to? Her husband is well known at the city gates,
where he sits with the other civic leaders. Who happen to be all blokes as well.

Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is more precious than rubies.She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household and plan the day’s work for her servant girls.

Implies women in general are low life gutter snips, who should be working her arse off for her hubby.

I can see that there still are people who are concerned
about various aspects of the same-sex marriage issue
and they probably
always will be.
The fact is that Australians were given the opportunity
to have their say on whether same-sex couples should
be granted the legal right to marry and we apparently
shall be told the results of the postal survey by
the ABS on Wednesday 15th November 2017 - according to
"The Insiders" program this morning.

What happens next - we will have to wait and see.

Paul1405, "why are couples discriminated against when it comes to pensions. The single aged pension is $888.30 per f/nite. married couples are payed at the rate of $669.60 each per f/nite"

I do not agree with the differing rates of age pensions. Further, I believe that there should be no income or assets test and all should qualify for the pension. Also, that the increasing age for the pension is not warranted.

However, you would already be aware that Greens, Labor and LNP all support a lower age pension for marrieds because where the essentials of life are concerned such as shelter and food, but other costs such as for transport and communication are relevant, it is demonstrably cheaper for two to live than one. Interesting how you are suddenly ignorant of that, though it is already alluded to in my posts.

Now, why should individuals who just happen to be single, ie not in a State defined 'love relationship' they can take advantage of, be forced to subsidise the love squeezes of others? It is not fair, now is it and that AHRC list of entitlements that Gays should now be entitled to and getting (a beaut pay rise in effect and just for being 'married') makes it very obvious don't you think?

Paul,
It is obvious that you treat women in this way by your degrading comments of women. "Implies women in general are low life gutter snips, who should be working her arse off for her hubby".

I know of no Christian man who treats his wife as you describe.Who prepares the meals in your home? Who buys your clothes? My wife and I each prepare meals and together buy clothes.

Your degrading comments describe you as a looser.

Foxy,
Yes we will soon see a further decline of Western society back into pagan sexual rituals as promoted by Hollywood, as it moves away from the moral values that have advanced Western society over the last 200 years.

A whole new industry of transgender operations on people not happy with their gender identity, and a growing industry in trying to reverse their operations.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gender-reversal-surgery-demand-rise-assignment-men-women-trans-a7980416.html

Dear Josephus,

There are many people who tend to be moralists,
seeing the world in terms of right and wrong and
constantly evaluating the moral behaviour of others.

Many types of behaviour, labelers
argue, become "deviant" because the behaviour offends
some people's moral codes. Certain "moral entrepreneurs"
such as religious groups or citizens' committees, try to
arouse public opinion against behaviours they disapprove
of, such as homosexuality for example. Ensuing arguments
become a "stigma contest", a clash of competing
moralities in which the winners declare themselves to be
normal and moral and the losers to be deviant and immoral.

In general, the decision to stigmatize or even criminalise
particular acts will depend on which of the contending
groups has the most wealth, power, prestige, and other
resources. For example, begging in the streets is considered
deviant, but living in idleness off inherited wealth is not.

I won't even go into the area of churches being against
homosexuality yet not dealing effectively with the sexual
abuse of children within their care.

I think you get the picture regarding morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMfzb1qX0ZA&feature=share&app=desktop

Dear Josephus,

I'm unable to access the link you gave.
Could you tell us what's in it.

Josephus, if as you claim "My wife and I each prepare meals and together buy clothes" then you are going against fundamental christian scripture.

When your text book said; A virtuous and capable wife is more precious than rubies. Then it is reasonable to conclude that such wives are rare. The majority are something less than virtuous and capable, based on that bit of biblical bs. Trying to turn it onto me when it clearly an interpretation of your own posted biblical clap trap, something Christianity is famous for. Like all mainstream religions, Christianity founded by men, for the benefit of men, an inescapable fact.

Foxy,
Copy and paste into your search as it is on U Tube.
It is the development of a Totalitarian State in Sweden and the removal of free speech. The removal of free thinker professors from the University because they failed to uphold the State view. The Western democratic States are being replaced by political correct ideology, and truth and fact is giving way to fiction.

Hi Paul,

Isn't it fun, whingeing about something written a couple of thousand years ago ? Now, let's get stuck into something Socrates said (the old perv) or how inadequate Pythagoras' or Archimedes' findings were. Athenian 'democracy' ? Feh !

Do you have anything else which might just be relevant ?

Joe

Dear Josephus,

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make
by referring to what's happening in the Scandinavian
countries. Most of us realise that the Scandinavian countries
are not Utopia - and have to be looked at in their own
histories and contexts.

However, what does that have to do with the issue
of same-sex marriage
in Australia? Surely you're not suggesting that what is
currently happening in - Denmark, Norway, and Sweden has
anything to do with same-sex marriage

Joe. what was written a couple of thousand years ago is still relevant to Christians today. There are those that oft quote the Bible, and the fundamentalist that take the literal interpretation as fact.
Many who oppose SSM do so based on what they have interpreted from their bible.

So, what is your point? Is the bible only for selective reading?

Hi Paul,

No, simply that not even all that many Christians would give much of the Bible, to those bits that you so bravely attack, the time of day.

And most of those probably voted 'YES', by the way. The ecumenicals. Your mob :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I've lost count of the number
of door-knockers that we've had prior to the
closure of the postal survey all quoting bits out
of the Bible against same-sex marriage.
And even when told that we've already voted - they
still persisted on telling us why according to the
Bible same-sex marriage was wrong and how granting
same-sex marriage was going
to bring down the entire institution of marriage.
They even told us not to forget that
"God created Adam and Eve!"

I didn't think of asking them who then created
Adam and Steve?

Hi Joe. Those Biblical bits I attacked were put up by Josephus, in response to my claim that the modern roll of women in heterosexual marriage, which we accept as an equal partnership, is not what the Bible instructs. I thank him for his quotes, they reinforce my argument. Many religious object to SSM based on their interpretation of scripture. To be consistent they should also object to the changed roll of women in many modern heterosexual marriages. To quote again the general position of the wife according to the Bible; "She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household and plan the day’s work for her servant girls."
The position of the husband is; Her husband is well known at the city gates, where he sits with the other civic leaders."
There is no way that nonsense can be seen as equality. Its not by accident that the position of the women is subservient to that of the man, religion is afterall a male dominated enterprise.

Hi Paul,

I strongly support and commend you for criticising the beliefs of thousands of years ago. Now be really brave and criticise ancient Athens for not having genuine democracy, only for a few and only for men.

Down with the fifth century B.C. !

Joe

Paul1405, "religion is afterall a male dominated enterprise"

Much like your preferred communism?

"Why Do Men Dominate Chinese Politics? Because They’re ‘Just Too Superb’"
http://tinyurl.com/yawpap9o

Hi Leon,

Perhaps that's a little unfair of you, to point out that no socialist country has ever yet appointed (and fewer have elected) a women to the top executive position - after all, they've only had 100 years to move towards it. There may have been one woman, the Rumanian Ana Pauker, in the forties, but I don't now if she ever became President before her ..... replacement.

There don't appear to be any women in the top echelons of either China or Russia, that's true, but maybe Cuba and Venezuela have female ministers ? Surely that's a step forwards ? Things take time, after all.

Joe

Feeling a little cocky are we leoj. considering your fearless leader, and aspiring fuhrer is a woman, but she is also an admitted air head. Its one thing to be female, its another thing to be intelligent.
I see your new Senator don't like the party, sitting on the cross benchers. .

Here is a list of the 25 most powerful female
political political leaders 2017:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2017/11/01/women-who-rule-the-world-the-25-most-powerful-female-political-leaders-2017/#3d082e895c1b

Hi Paul,

You should put that on a T-shirt and saunter out amongst an angry march of feminists:

"Its one thing to be female, its another thing to be intelligent."

Surely you didn't mean .....

Good luck and kia ora !

Joe

If SSM becomes law then freedom to express a contrary view will become criminal, and considered as hate speech which is currently bandied about by Yes campaigners.

It is the beginning of a totalitarian State, where thought police enforce the law. This then becomes an opening for State enforced views of reality.

One cannot comment on State funding of gender transformation and its growth as an industry, to make one person in the SSM the opposite gender, merely because, "love is love".

//If SSM becomes law then freedom to express a contrary view will become criminal//

No it won't.

//It is the beginning of a totalitarian State, where thought police enforce the law.//

No it isn't.

If people make too many ridiculous and unjustifiable predictions about comically absurd consequences arising from SSM, the horrible hairy hyperbole monster will come along and gobble them up. True story.

But here's a prediction you can take to the bank: when SSM is legalised and all the ridiculous prophecies Josephus has made fail to eventuate... he'll just sweep them under the rug and pretend he never said anything, in the way of all failed prophets.

Happily, we'll have them all on public record to remind him what a silly old goose he is.

Dear Foxy,

«I've lost count of the number of door-knockers that we've had prior to the closure of the postal survey all quoting bits out of the Bible against same-sex marriage.»

There was not even one in my place!

Perhaps this could be attributed to pheromones, the bible being just an excuse to seek your beautiful presence?

«they still persisted on telling us why according to the Bible same-sex marriage was wrong»

Apparently, displaying their ignorance of the bible wasn't a successful way to win your graces: the bible is utterly silent about same-sex marriages. Yes, according to Leviticus, Jews are forbidden to have male homosexual intercourse, but unless you are a Jewish male this does not affect you and even two Jewish males can marry each other provided they remain celibate.

You may find this of interest: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

«and how granting same-sex marriage was going to bring down the entire institution of marriage»

Marriage is a fact, a reality, rather than an institution. Should the viewing of marriage as an institution be brought down, this would only be for the better.

---

Dear Paul,

«religion is afterall a male dominated enterprise.»

You are confusing social procedures for religion.

Large parts of the old-testament are not religious, but national.
The old-testament prescribes how Jews should behave in order for the Jewish nation to strive. You cannot deny that those prescriptions worked well and for millennia, inasmuch as Jews followed the directions of the bible, their nation was successful.

Homosexuality is clearly against the interests of a nation. This is not a problem for me because I oppose nationalism. I definitely hate it when people blame religion for the folly of nationalism.

Unequal? Unfair? Strange? Crazy even? Perhaps, but the Jews/Israelites of the time were not after equality and fairness: what they wanted above all was the success of their nation - and those who didn't, left.

The reciting of Proverbs 31:10-31 on Friday evenings by Jewish husbands to their wives, is a proven tool for strengthening and bringing harmony and happiness to the family. Many women prefer this over equality.

Yuyutsu,

No, The old Mosaic laws of the Old Testament were not just national laws (although they were no doubt treated as such at the time). Matthew 5:18 discredits this frequently cited apologetic (Yes, right-wing, atheist apologists for Christianity, Matthew 5:18 is in the New Testament).

You may know a lot about Hinduism, but I can tell you now, you have a lot to learn when it comes to Christian theology. Heck, even many Christians do.

Was Jesus gay? Did Jesus marry his partner? The evidence for Jesus being homosexual and in a same sex marriage comes from the scriptures itself;

The disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. at Jesus's crucifixion all the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man john, clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family."

"Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Its assumed, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay and part of a same sex relationship is very strong.

Jesus performed his first "miracle" at the wedding in Cana, where he turned water into wine. As it was custom for the bridegroom to provide the wine at a wedding. it is fair to say Jesus was in fact the groom. Since there is no mention of whom the bride was, it is safe to say the wedding was between Jesus and his longtime partner and special friend John. This may have been the first official same sex marriage in history. This may well have been what got Jesus crucified. Like today, the Pharisees were not big on SSM, and like today, they crucified anyone involved in such immoral behavour.

Tony,
Have a read of this:
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/your-say-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-righ/3190923/

The Canadian experience demonstrates that "same-sex marriage" erodes fundamental rights.
A book was written Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting which no doubt the LGBTQ would try to suppress. In Canada, freedoms of speech, press and religion have suffered greatly. If one says or writes anything considered "homophobic", anything questioning same sex marriage, one could face discipline, termination of employment, and/or prosecution by the government.
Over and over we are told that permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights. That is an outright lie.

MARRIAGE ALLIANCE
Labor and their fellow travellers, however, show every sign they will continue on their current path and ignore a “No” vote.
In the case of a “Yes” vote, the immediate future will be quite uncertain.
Until this week, one might have expected an immediate rush to back WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s same-sex marriage bill from a number of quarters, including Labor.
But that scenario now competes with a newly unveiled bill from VIC Liberal Senator James Paterson — a bill which seems to have upset all of the usual suspects in a mere matter of hours.
Both senators were on the inquiry into a draft same-sex marriage bill in January — an inquiry I appeared before in Canberra.
It has wrongly been suggested that Senator Smith’s bill was the subject of that inquiry. In fact, it was the Government’s draft bill to be voted on at a full compulsory plebiscite.
Don’t get me wrong, though — both bills were abject failures at even remotely considering the freedoms that would be trashed if marriage were redefined. No wonder certain people are queuing up to support the Smith bill...
Senator Paterson’s bill, on the other hand, warrants careful consideration. I don’t want to see any attempt to redefine marriage — and I doubt you do either — but the Paterson bill is the only bill I’ve seen over the years that makes any serious attempt to preserve the freedoms we cherish.
While I differ with Senator Paterson on the substantive yes/no question, he has always struck me as a considered person — and I’m very pleased to see the depth and breadth of some issues he’s raising.

Dear Josephus,

We will know soon enough what the results of the
postal survey are. I believe that the ABS will
tell us on Wednesday 15th Nov. 2017. We shall
then have to wait and see what the government
decides to do. In any case - you can rest assured
that should the outcome be in favour of a Yes
vote - there are enough MPs who have expressed
their concerns regarding putting in place the
appropriate and necessary protections. I'm sure
that with time your concerns will turn out to be
unwarranted. Just be patient.

//The Canadian experience//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

Good thing we don't have to worry aboot being Canadian, eh buddy?

An overwhelming yes vote 61.6% / 38.4% with 79.5% participation. Now the politicians should get on with same sex marriage legislation ASAP. END OF STORY.

Tony Abbott's electorate of Warringah - 75% voted Yes.

Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of Wentworth - 80.8% voted Yes.

Melbourne and Sydney 83.7% voted Yes.

Most No voting seats were Labor held and located in Western
Sydney.

Also Tony Abbott's Yes voting electorate of Warringah was the
10th highest overall.

There's a clear message there.

It's very interesting to see the results state by state and
electorate by electorate.

Today people are celebrating, tomorrow the Parliament will
legislate - presenting the necessary Bill as a start this
afternoon. The Prime Minister trusts that this will all
be done before Christmas.

Yes,

Now that the plebiscite has been a resounding success, let's see whether labor and the greens can find any further reasons to delay the changing of the law.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It is certain that there will be quite a few politicians
who campaigned for the "No" vote in the survey who will
use delaying tactics in Parliament - especially regarding
the Dean Smith Bill being passed.
This Bill has already been thoroughly scrutinised and
approved by most politicians of the major parties. But of
course the "No" campaigners will work hard to delay its
passing. Hopefully they will not succeed in their efforts.
They did not succeed in the postal survey.

Dear Foxy,

«Today people are celebrating, tomorrow the Parliament will legislate»

And the day after tomorrow, bakers will be found hanging.

Yuyutsu,
You will not be able to use the words homosexual / heterosexual as they identify discrimination on sexual preference. Even to discuss the difference will be considered hate speech similar to racism.

Dear Josephus,

I do not oppose homosexual marriage as such - I only oppose any "marriage" (between any number of people/animals/things) that is conducted/registered by the state.

«You will not be able to use the words homosexual / heterosexual»

You know what, I was never interested in that topic anyway and have much better things to talk about!

Nevertheless, had I been interested, then I would still be able to do so, for the following reasons:

1) You should distinguish between the words 'able' and 'allowed', they are quite different.

2) No current law prevents me from using the words 'man', 'woman', 'negro', 'asian', 'aboriginal', 'Jew', 'Gypsy', etc. So why would 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' be any different just because government happens to register their "marriage"?

3) Nobody would know!

Governments encourage "progress" and digital technology such as the NBN, so that people will have electronic devices in their own homes that will spy on them. I reject those devices, I don't allow them in my home, hence nobody will hear what I say to my family and friends.

Dear Josephus,

More fear mongering.

Shame on you.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You say -

Bakers will be found hanging?

I don't think that their churches would give
them their last rites if they did that.
And then look where
they'd end up - in hell.

Perhaps it would be more advisable for them to
move to Western Sydney where they'd find
kindred spirits.

Noticeably the majority of electorates that voted No have Labor MPs. Will they support the will of their electorates?
* Banks
* Barton
* Bennelong
* Blaxland
* Chifley
* Fowler
* Greenway
* McMahon
* Mitchell
* Parramatta
* Watson
* Werriwa
* Bruce
* Kennedy
* Groom
* Maranoa

It will be interesting, because previous surveys have shown that No voters are more likely to change their votes, which is why Labor were against SSM for so long.

Dear Foxy,

The bakers will not consult with their churches because they will hang themselves on a weekday immediately after consulting with their bankers and lawyers.

Meanwhile, Max and Moritz would have had their final revenge on the baker after entering his shop pretending to be homosexuals who want to wed. If you are short of time to watch the lot, skip to minute 19 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngd3zohpvFM

Every state and territory voted Yes by
more than 60% except for NSW where the
Yes vote was 57.8%. The No vote was 42.2%

Most Labor MPs won't have a problem - for example,
Tanya Plibersek's electorate - voted Yes by 83.7%.
Penny Wong's was equally high, as were many others.

However, who will have a problem will be Liberal MPs.
Who were part of the No campaign.
People like Tony Abbott and Mathias Cormann whose
electorates voted highly with a Yes vote. Mr
Abbott's was 75% Yes votes.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As far as bakers hanging themselves go?

Their bankers and lawyers will advise the
bakers how to succeed in their businesses.
After all there's money to be made which
is of interest to both bankers and lawyers.
And owners of small businesses have to be
taught to be more flexible.
Therefore as far as bankers and lawyers are
concerned - it will be in their interests to
keep the bakers alive and prospering.
So your comments on bakers are really out
of step with the times.

Nice try though.

"Most No voting seats were Labor held and located in Western
Sydney."

Moslems. Who hate our guts and should never have been imported.

http://freethoughtnation.com/what-does-th-koran-say-about-nonbelievers/

http://truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm

The only feasible purpose in importing them can be as a pretext for setting up a surveillance state disguised as war on terrorism.

Foxy,

If the maths was that simple, then only those in Labor No seats would vote against SSM, however, the other side of the equation was that those that voted Yes were generally ambivalent or already committed to labor or the greens, and TA has a sizeable majority.

Now this may have changed in 4 yrs, but if not Labor could be in trouble.

Dear Shadow Minister,

This postal survey has been a major win for
the Prime Minister. There is no question
about that. And for the first time in many
months we saw the old Malcolm Turnbull make
a come-back. The man was impressive today.
He behaved like a leader when he stated:

"And now it is up to us here in the Parliament of
Australia to get on with it - to get on with the
job the Australian people have tasked us to do and
get this done this year, before Christmas. That
must be our commitment."

If this continues - who knows what can happen at
the next election. One thing is clear though -
Mr Abbott is totally out of touch (aka Mark Latham).
As the 75% Yes vote in Mr Abbott's electorate of
Warringah - clearly shows.

Dear Foxy,

When the bankers and lawyers enter the picture, it's already too late.

Let's get the order of events right:

1. Max and Moritz were fed to the miller's ducks and died.

2. Max and Moritz are reborn and seek revenge, including on the baker for placing them (when caught stealing) in his hot oven rather than freely share his pretzels.

3. Max and Moritz enter the baker's shop on a Monday, arm in arm, pretending to be homosexual, singing:
"Baker, Baker, large-nosed shaker;
bake us a cake so we can we wed;
and dance over your shiny balding head"

4. Baker raises his walking stick: "Out you duck-feed scoundrels: me fear, for no gayness shall you find in here!"

5. Max and Moritz recorded it all and give the video to the anti-religious brotherhood.

6. Tuesday, the wealthy anti-religious brotherhood hires the best QC's to sue the baker.

7. Wednesday, baker finds in his letter-box 30 court summons and compensation claims in the millions.

8. Thursday, baker consults with his bankers and lawyers, which tell him it's too late, all lost, so he is fated to spend the rest of his miserable life bankrupt and behind bars (in the company of mighty and horny fellow inmates).

9. Friday, baker hangs himself.

10. Baker is stopped at the pearly gates and asked why he committed suicide. Baker explains that he didn't know that it was a sin because it all happened so quickly with no Sunday in between to consult the church.

11. Ignorance is no excuse, so baker is condemned to be reborn as homosexual in Saudi Arabia, but Saint. Peter whispers in his ears: "If you rather fondle me, then I'll open the gate for thee".

Got it wrong again Shadow, with your prediction of a close result, and a possible 'no' victory. After the Coalition wasted $100 million of taxpayers money to placate the grumpy old men of the extreme right of the Coalition, The Mad Monk, Booted Barnyard (should be made pay for the new England by-election, because he is a fool). Waco Andrews etc, the hard nosed no brigade leadership, with a survey which all thinking people such as myself knew what the exact result would be in advance, simple surveys told us that, without the need to blow millions of taxpayer dollars. Now you create ridiculous spin that it was Labor and the Greens, who were obstructing SSM law. You are amazing!

Gee. the people of Warringah really take notice of their local member, don't they Shadow. Did you see Silly Old Howard, yesterday, he popped out of the old folks home to babble on about the need to protect the bigoted rights of the religious fundo's. Another Liberal loser.

Lying again Paul,

I never predicted a close result. Given that people were making statements that up to 80% of people supported SSM, I did suggest that the results would probably be closer than some SSM campaigners were claiming, and the results were pretty much what I expected. So please stop these pathological falsehoods.

Given the resounding success of the plebiscite with an 80% return, there is now no doubt as to exactly how the public stands on the issue, and that the new legislation can pass after being blocked for a year by the hypocritical labor and greens.

The response to the survey showed the best of Australia.
In a generous and optimistic exercise of democratic will,
millions of ordinary Australians stared down the forces
of superstition and repression to extend the right of
marriage to all their fellow citizens.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The marriage equality campaign has been the best and the
worst of Australian politics. The worst was the survey
itself, a desperate, cynical act by conservatives.

The conservatives in the Liberal Party designed a process
that was engineered to skew in favour of a negative vote.
It was as cynical as it was ultimately ineffective.

The campaign was marked by unforgiveable criticism of the
LGBIQ community. Bigotry and homophobia were openly
paraded.
The sexual preferences, the families, and ultimately the
very legitimacy of gay and lesbian Australians were debated
as though their own views hardly mattered. It was a dismal
glimpse at the narrow confines of conservative minds.

The LGBTIQ community did not welcome this process, and
indeed many have suffered as a result of it. The hatred
and mendacity of the No campaign will live on in the
memory of those it targeted, as a reminder that the fight
for equality must continue.

But as stated earlier the response to the survey showed
the best of Australia. In a generous and optimistic exercise
of democratic will, millions of ordinary Australians
stared down the forces of superstition and repression to
extend the right of marriage to all their fellow citizens.

Hi Foxy,

So, no slippery slope then ?

Love,

Joe

Foxy,

Sometimes you spout unfiltered Labor/greens propaganda.

1 Labor opposed SSM whilst in power and did nothing to bring it in in their 6 yrs. Juliar and Wong also promised no SSM.

2 Considering that a plebiscite was advocated by the left right up to the point where the libs adopted it, and then suddenly the left opposed it, the hypocritical cynical act was that of Labor.

3 Given that the original position of the libs was no to SSM, and that the Libs reached an internal compromise with a plebiscite and promised exactly that, they would have broken an election promise to do anything else. That the plebiscite achieved 80% returns when even compulsory voting only get about 90-95%, makes it a resounding success.

4 Given that the plebiscite was a simple yes/no quiz, your claim that it was engineered to give a no response is pure unsupported bollocks.

5 Given that the overwhelming majority of bile and vitriol came from the YES campaign, and that they achieved SSM, The LGBT community should be able to suck it up.

Shadow,

Always you spout unfiltered Liberal/National propaganda,

Your Rabid right heroes Abbott, Joyce, Andrews to name but three, did everything in their power to sabotage SSM.

Claiming Turnball's had a victory is laughable. If Abbott's not booting him up the arse, Shortens kicking him in the nuts.

Hope to see Kristina Keneally roll the Liberal wombo in Bennelong. Care to make another one of your infamous predictions on the result.

Paul,

Why would I need to predict anything when you are prepared to do it for me? Am I the only one you lie about or is pathological?

This survey was a great success and enabled Turnbull to legislate SSM after 10 years of Labor and the greens blocking it. A real kick in the nuts for Electricity Bill and Dinner Tally. (if they even had balls to start with)

Dear Shadow Minister,

Marriage is a very old custom, but in many ways a
modern construction. As many have pointed out, the
current law dates back only to 2004, when a
cynical John Howard amended the Marriage Act to
mandate heterosexuality, and to outlaw same sex
marriage overseas. It was an act of political
opportunism that has set the tone for the way both
major parties have treated the issue ever since.

People remember a different Australia, one when open
displays of same sex affection were greeted with
violence rather than celebration.

The marriage survey result shows that Australia is
better than our politicians give us credit for.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Users of slippery slope arguments should take
skiing lessons. They really can choose to stop.

Shadow, glad to hear your hero Money Bags Malcolm has had success with his $100 million waste of taxpayer money, survey. Like his predecessor, The Mad Monk. he's not having much success with the political surveys, is he! What is it now, 23 losses in a row. How much has that pair of Coalition boobies, Barnyard and Bonzo cost the taxpayer for by-elections, millions! They should be made pay it all back. Can you believe one of the wombats was actually the former Deputy Prime Minister, heaven help us. Unbelievable.