[xbeejx]

What does it take to shut this guy up?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fi...1126-juo3.html

So many Christian people will stand behind this dimwit as well, simply because he is christian as well.
I tried to be open minded about people who believe in in their fire and brimstone monkey god but I have found them to be on the whole, snide, insular and decidedly selective in the application of their so called morals

[P337]

One of my favourite life quotes:

"When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- An atheist quote




This senator sounds like a bag of tools.

[Laluna C]

He can whinge all he likes, its here and I hope it stays.

Likening it to incest is just the lowest you can go, why do people always bring the sexaul side to the forefront? Its about marriage/partnership and love. Not what you may or may not do in the bedroom ( with your brother or sister ).

[miss-ashley]

i like that they make him look like a moron

perhaps they should make the rudd govt look like morons too. personally i think anyone who opposes same sex marriage is a moron.

there are rallies in all capital cities tomorrow for equal rights in marriage if people are interested in showing their support

[smorchika]

Seriously this still boggles my mind that its even an issue.
GET OVER IT already.
we have more important things to worry about than if your next door neighbour is having a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. That whole issue really is passe.
How many times are we going to flog the same dead horse.
I think as long as they arent hurting one another or anyone else for that matter i dont see what the issue is.. at all.

Further more i dont see how marrying someone of the same gender is tantamount to marrying your sibling.. this guy makes me furious.
Also, im so pleased to see that the guy touting this idealist view is so articulate. what a f***ing wanker.
and lastly, why not put time and effort into something worthwhile instead of waxing lyrical about how wrong homosexuality is.
/edit because i am getting offtopic.

[Edstacee]

He really is as dumb as dog shit..Hiding behind the good family Christian thing has covered it up to some. That said, the same sex marriage crusade is a bit overblown..I know some gay guys who don't want it because it ties them in with breeders and the "normal" pathways of society, a fair point.

We need civil unions to merely equal marriage as far as legal, financial and immigration rights are concerned and that will do. That's all that is really needed to gain equality while keeping some diversity.

[miss-ashley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edstacee

I know some gay guys who don't want it because it ties them in with breeders and the "normal" pathways of society, a fair point.

can't they just choose not to get married though, like heterosexual couples that do the same? and those that do want to get married have the choice ?

[spiKe]

I'm happy to support gay marriage as long as polygamy and bestiality are also legal. The way I see it is that marriage between two people of the same sex is based on religious grounds so that if we're to remove that there shouldn't be any discrimination against polygamists.

[Bracko]

why Christians think believe they invented marriage is beyond me... but anyway....

if it was branded civil union/legal partnership/whatever the hell you want to call it but not marriage, and given same rights as heterosexual couples....

would the gay community and/or christain fanatics be upset? is that what the gay community are fighting for?

personally i am in agreement that if a gay couple want to marry it is up to the church as to whether they are allowed to marry in a church, but they should be able to be legally recognised as a "committed couple"...

[smorchika]

i honestly dont understand how its any different to hetrosexual couples?
maybe im missing something here, but isnt it two people who are in love and committed and want to make that committment in front of others?

[spiKe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

why Christians think believe they invented marriage is beyond me... but anyway....

if it was branded civil union/legal partnership/whatever the hell you want to call it but not marriage, and given same rights as heterosexual couples....

would the gay community and/or christain fanatics be upset? is that what the gay community are fighting for?

personally i am in agreement that if a gay couple want to marry it is up to the church as to whether they are allowed to marry in a church, but they should be able to be legally recognised as a "committed couple"...

I'd agree with this. Give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage.

[base615]

They've been dead against civil partnerships too by the way. Look at the amount of opposition to the bill in the ACT. It was struck down by Howard and intefered with by Rudd too. A couple of weeks ago it passed again and the Federal government is already talking about trying to repeal it. Idiots.

[sydney3000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiKe

Give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage.

What about equal rights for single people?

Allowing more people to use "marriage" or "civil unions" to avoid paying tax and getting on a higher level of welfare payments causes more inequality since it forces up the share of contribution singles have to make to keep public services funded.

[toilet trained]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiKe

I'd agree with this. Give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage.

why not call it marriage?

this just really gets my goat, why is it that everyone thinks marriage is only a religious ceremony?

i am an atheist, i am married, got married in a workers club, with a civil servant, why shouldnt gay couples not be able to be married the same way?

why pander to the church, to protect this supposed holiest of holy acts, we should be years and years beyond the church having this power. i would reckon maybe 60-70% of all marriages are civil ceremony's, and church nor religion play any part in them

I agree it should not be a big deal what you call it, and generally the idea is a) to show your long term love and commitment to someone and 2) make sure you have the same legal rights as other couples,

but why should the church try to own the term 'marriage', fuk that

[Carte Blanche]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

Seriously this still boggles my mind that its even an issue.
GET OVER IT already.
we have more important things to worry about than if your next door neighbour is having a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. That whole issue really is passe.
How many times are we going to flog the same dead horse.
I think as long as they arent hurting one another or anyone else for that matter i dont see what the issue is.. at all.

Fuck I'm glad I'm not the only one. Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiKe

I'm happy to support gay marriage as long as polygamy and bestiality are also legal.

So you're comparing a relationship between two consenting adults, to someone abusing an animal, and you place people being allowed to abuse animals as a condition of people being given equal status before the law. Right.

You've not done your best with that one, have you?

[Lambretta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiKe

I'm happy to support gay marriage as long as polygamy and bestiality are also legal. The way I see it is that marriage between two people of the same sex is based on religious grounds so that if we're to remove that there shouldn't be any discrimination against polygamists.

Those horse cocks are appealling arent they?

But my favourite is the way hamsters scream when you enlarge the hole to fuck them.

That's as close to man on man love as it gets. Obviously.

[Laluna C]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiKe

I'm happy to support gay marriage as long as polygamy and bestiality are also legal. The way I see it is that marriage between two people of the same sex is based on religious grounds so that if we're to remove that there shouldn't be any discrimination against polygamists.

And this, dear people, is how fear perpetuates. How is beastiality or polygamy any relation to gay marriage? I fail to see the correlation. Infact, there isnt one.

Marriage of the same sex is based on love, and acceptance of each other. Something which most religious people fail to accept or see. For some strange reason you feel compelled to bring smut or sex ( or in your case animals) into it so that people feel repulsed and therfore look at the union of two loving people as something wrong. its not. The fear and hate message that people spread is far more damaging than any loving commited couple would ever do.


Religion. It really has become the biggest practical joke in our society.

[dbb618]

newsweek article worthy of reading :

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

[Dubz]

I can Senator Fielding right now, that same-sex marriage is nothing like sex with my sister.

Trust me.

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

why Christians think believe they invented marriage is beyond me... but anyway....

if it was branded civil union/legal partnership/whatever the hell you want to call it but not marriage, and given same rights as heterosexual couples....

would the gay community and/or christain fanatics be upset? is that what the gay community are fighting for?

personally i am in agreement that if a gay couple want to marry it is up to the church as to whether they are allowed to marry in a church, but they should be able to be legally recognised as a "committed couple"...

I agree with this. The church should be allowed to decide who they do and don't marry, and they shouldnt be forced into allowed homosexuals to marry in a christian ceremony.

But I think gay couples should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the law i.e in a civil ceremony.

[base615]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sydney3000

What about equal rights for single people?

Allowing more people to use "marriage" or "civil unions" to avoid paying tax and getting on a higher level of welfare payments causes more inequality since it forces up the share of contribution singles have to make to keep public services funded.

This is so far out of whack it's not funny.

I'm married yet pay the same amount of tax as anyone else. In actual fact, when I lost my job I was not allowed to claim any welfare BECAUSE I was married despite the fact that we'd lost a salary yet still had the same outgoings. When a married couple are both on welfare they actually recieve a lower amount per person unless they have kids. Being married with no kids is no tax break at all.

As a single person (assuming you're heterosexual) you have the same right as anyone else to get married should you wish. We're talking about people who have been denied a right just because the person they fell in love with is the same sex as they are. They aren't trying to get some sort of tax break.

[Bracko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sydney3000

What about equal rights for single people?

Allowing more people to use "marriage" or "civil unions" to avoid paying tax and getting on a higher level of welfare payments causes more inequality since it forces up the share of contribution singles have to make to keep public services funded.

I have next to no knowledge of the tax breaks, but wouldn't most of them be related to families?

if a gay couple want to raise kids, firstly they should be, and secondly they should be given the same welfare as heterosexual couples.

[Geezah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

I agree with this. The church should be allowed to decide who they do and don't marry, and they shouldnt be forced into allowed homosexuals to marry in a christian ceremony.

But I think gay couples should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the law i.e in a civil ceremony.

What if there is a more liberal Church willing to marry homosexuals? Though I do agree if a more conservative Church doesn`t want to the law shouldn`t make them.

Who the hell cares? I mean if objectum-sexuals can marry roller-coasters in the US, why can`t gay people get married too?

But Gays & Lesbians I don`t think should keep pushing at the mo, in the sense that in 10 years it is more likely society will have organically incorporated a marriage to mean two people of consenting age entering into a love-pact or something.

---

Fielding is such a retard: Look at me look at me look at me.

Rudd & Turnbull make national apology to the Forgotten Generation and Fielding can`t handle them getting all the attention so he needs to reveal he was abused as a kid the exact same day. The Liberals splinter, Fielding can`t handle them getting all the attention, so decides to equate homosexuality to beastiality and incest. Biggest and hollowest media-tart ever.

[dance strategy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laluna C

How is beastiality or polygamy any relation to gay marriage? I fail to see the correlation. Infact, there isnt one.

Bestiality? No
But polygamy is worthy of discussion I believe. Just as society should not be able to dictate if we want to legally confirm our love/ commitment for a same or opposite sex person - I feel society also should not be able to dictate if we wish to legally confirm our love for more than one person (of same or opposite sexes).
Do you see polygamy as unnatural or immoral? Your post seems to indicate this, sorry if Im wrong. Whilst its not my thing personally, Im all for legal polygamy. Like gay unions - its happening anyway and the law (and the christians) just needs to catch up with this century.

[big eddie]

I wonder if he also thinks it's like being touched by his scout master?

[Edstacee]

Just thinking back to some Centrelink ads that were on this website a few months back. They were advising same sex couples to register as couples if they were living together, and this pointed toward an equal treatment of same sex relationships as far as welfare went. This negative (yet equalising) move should be used in the struggle for same sex couple to have equal rights in relationships.

I personally didn't go to the march today. Flame away, but IMO, due to there being alot of other social issues ahead of this I am not really into the argument for gay marriage.
I am not for or against gay marriage as in wedding, cake, ring etc, but there needs to be 100% equality/parity with a hetero relationship. For a secular nation we have alot of churchy old pricks in charge!

That said, I am sure that the gay community itself has greater minds than mine on this!! Remember the Tasty raids in the mid 90s? The cops strip searched 462 people, including a number of lawyers, 11 or so of which were QC's. Oops.

[Lambretta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

I wonder if he also thinks it's like being touched by his scout master?

That all depends

If your scout master is your brother, then it's a double whammy

[locky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sydney3000

What about equal rights for single people?

Allowing more people to use "marriage" or "civil unions" to avoid paying tax and getting on a higher level of welfare payments causes more inequality since it forces up the share of contribution singles have to make to keep public services funded.

100% true !

[mungo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

if it was branded civil union/legal partnership/whatever the hell you want to call it but not marriage, and given same rights as heterosexual couples....

would the gay community and/or christain fanatics be upset? is that what the gay community are fighting for?

personally i am in agreement that if a gay couple want to marry it is up to the church as to whether they are allowed to marry in a church, but they should be able to be legally recognised as a "committed couple"...

Not being "local" to the root of this debate you've all missed a lot of it.

Easy Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#Australia
So there has been recognition for quite a while. And the movement to recognise de-facto relationships on a similar level to marriage in many legal situations has always extended to homosexual relationships.

The things going on here in the ACT that have brought all this up again is the local Governments push to have a ceremony around the recognition of a homosexual relationship, rather than only a boring administrative route (which is available for marrige if you recall).

Here is the beginning:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...px?storypage=0
Chief Ministers Press Release:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/...hp?v=8924&m=51
And finally a credible source for the key ingredient:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...003402,00.html

So the sore point for the homosexual community is that it still REQUIRES the administrative step of going to an office to register your intent to have a civil partnership, and while the service does make it formal and complete the process its not the same as marrige where it is completely in the hands of the celebrant and can be done whenever you like.

So its a rather sublte point to the larger issue.

[macc4]

This has to stop somewhere, next thing you know they will be wanting paid maternity leave

[smorchika]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edstacee

Just thinking back to some Centrelink ads that were on this website a few months back. They were advising same sex couples to register as couples if they were living together, and this pointed toward an equal treatment of same sex relationships as far as welfare went. This negative (yet equalising) move should be used in the struggle for same sex couple to have equal rights in relationships.

I personally didn't go to the march today. Flame away, but IMO, due to there being alot of other social issues ahead of this I am not really into the argument for gay marriage.
I am not for or against gay marriage as in wedding, cake, ring etc, but there needs to be 100% equality/parity with a hetero relationship. For a secular nation we have alot of churchy old pricks in charge!

this.
How is it that we can treat homosexuals "equally" when it comes to monetary/centrelink issues, yet when it comes to marriage its worlds apart?
I think for the sake of consistency, you need (the australian government) to pick a side and stick with it, people can't be treated one way in one circumstance and then totally and completely marginalised in another. it doesnt make sense, it isnt fair and it certainly isnt equality.

Also as someone else iterated, i dont see how a concensual same gendered partnership is tantamount to beastiality? please explain the correlation, because i fail to see it. I dont like the idea of fearmongering, fine, if you dont like it, dont approve of it, thats great, you are entitled to your opinion. But i personally dont understand what all the fuss is about.
As i said before as long as its consensual, and loving and caring etc etc doesnt hurt anyone else.. what does it matter if its hetrosexual or homosexual.

[macc4]

Marriage is traditionally tied in with religion, hence the whole church thing.
A church is a club of sorts, and management reserves the right to refuse entry

I thought they were treated equally, when in fact they seem to get preferential treatment from certain services/clubs

Not to mention the taxation scams they have been getting away with!

[Dubz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

this.
How is it that we can treat homosexuals "equally" when it comes to monetary/centrelink issues, yet when it comes to marriage its worlds apart?
I think for the sake of consistency, you need (the australian government) to pick a side and stick with it, people can't be treated one way in one circumstance and then totally and completely marginalised in another. it doesnt make sense, it isnt fair and it certainly isnt equality.
l.

Centrelink is a government organisation

The church is a religious organisation.

We don't need the government to pick a side, because they have no right to tell the church what to do. The whole point of separating church and state was that they wouldn't need to step on each others toes.

Keep marriage in the hands of the church, allow civil partnerships for all those couples (homosexual or otherwise) who want their relationship recognised in the eyes of the law.

[base615]

Why the fuck do you people keep saying marriage is a religous thing?It is not! You can choose a religous wedding or a civil one but the actual marriage contract/certificate has nothing to do with any church.

I'm an atheist, as is my wife and our marriage has nothing to do with religion. The ceremony was not carried out in a church, mosque, synogogue or temple and was not carried out by a religous minister. You can keep your evil religion off my marriage thank you very much.

[macc4]

I am not quite sure what you are saying there base615, is your wife homosexual?

If not, why are you offended?

[base615]

Because you keep saying marriage is a religous thing

[macc4]

Traditionally was the key word I think you missed.

There were many actual marriages processed by religion before Australia was even given a name by white people, so what right do we have to argue the rules?

I also think the offside rule is detrimental to soccer, but I would never consider changing the rules because it is so entrenched in the games culture

[smorchika]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Centrelink is a government organisation

The church is a religious organisation.

We don't need the government to pick a side, because they have no right to tell the church what to do. The whole point of separating church and state was that they wouldn't need to step on each others toes.

Keep marriage in the hands of the church, allow civil partnerships for all those couples (homosexual or otherwise) who want their relationship recognised in the eyes of the law.

ok, so then im confused,why is the government having a say in all of this then?
also, i dont have any religious denomination but intend to get married one day.. where does this leave me? im not being facetious either, im genuinely interested.

[Geezah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Centrelink is a government organisation

The church is a religious organisation.

We don't need the government to pick a side, because they have no right to tell the church what to do. The whole point of separating church and state was that they wouldn't need to step on each others toes.

Keep marriage in the hands of the church, allow civil partnerships for all those couples (homosexual or otherwise) who want their relationship recognised in the eyes of the law.

Did you see what you just did there? You disproved your point in two sentences.

The State over-rides *The Church* because the State is meant to work for the entirety of its citizens - the Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple, Corporate Building - well I don`t even begin to know what they mean, seeings as there are now so many branches of all the deconstructed availabilities of faith, so what the hell does an umbrella term even mean when you say Church?

As toilet trained pointed out, he is an atheist, married in a non-descript club, with a civil servant, and he is legally declared married, are you suggesting he and his Mrs should be declared civically unioned?

The State is meant to try and encompass all of its civilians who uphold the law and allow them their freedom, otherwise if you have one set of law abiding citizens granted more rights than another set of law abiding citizens the State is performing identified discrimination, which is open to ridicule for espousing one thing yet flailing their collective arms when you point out its tendentiousness.

Evangelicism is a diaspora of christianity. Some, prolly most, of these Churches tend towards conservative biblically literal interpretations, but some don`t. Who defines the individual churches other than those actual individual churches in that instance? It is the Churches themselves that preach certainties or uncertainties.

The argument that homosexuals can`t get equality in marriage is akin to an aborigine unable to marry an anglo because the State defines it as such: it is the same thing.

The State is judged on the quality of its laws to supply its citizenry equality of health, security, education, social inclusion, and financially beneficial economics; when it accedes to specific interests to ensure the political support of the governing party of the state, it has failed its duty to all of its people.

[base615]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macc4

Traditionally was the key word I think you missed.

There were many actual marriages processed by religion before Australia was even given a name by white people, so what right do we have to argue the rules?

There were marriages in Druid culture before religion existed in it's current form. Marriage is something practiced in all cultures throughout history. For some reason, religions now seek to claim it as their own when there's no historical basis for it

[macc4]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

ok, so then im confused,why is the government having a say in all of this then?
also, i dont have any religious denomination but intend to get married one day.. where does this leave me? im not being facetious either, im genuinely interested.

It depends on your point of view, which can be changed either way.

I have nothing against anyone, there isn't anything wrong with what they do.
My view on marriage is tied in with what we are here for, and I think that is to breed.

Apart from birthing children, marriage is probably the last bastion of man and women.
If I meet the right girl, I would hope to marry her. If anyone can do it, it sort of changes how I feel about marriage.

It needs a new word, because changing the definition of such an entrenched word is a crime against the English language, which I believe creates more new words than any of the other languages

[smorchika]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macc4

It depends on your point of view, which can be changed either way.

I have nothing against anyone, there isn't anything wrong with what they do.
My view on marriage is tied in with what we are here for, and I think that is to breed.

Apart from birthing children, marriage is probably the last bastion of man and women.
If I meet the right girl, I would hope to marry her. If anyone can do it, it sort of changes how I feel about marriage.
It needs a new word, because changing the definition of such an entrenched word is a crime against the English language, which I believe creates more new words than any of the other languages

what do you mean if anyone can do it? the entire hetrosexual population can do it, how does it differ if homosexuals can?

yea something insane like 1000 new words a year or something from what i can remember its apparently meant to be the fastest changing/growing language. Do not have facts to back that up, but we were discussing it at uni with a tutor one day... whatever the number of new words it amazed me.

[macc4]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

The argument that homosexuals can`t get equality in marriage is akin to an aborigine unable to marry an anglo because the State defines it as such: it is the same thing.

Not all aborigines are homosexuals geezah

[macc4]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

what do you mean if anyone can do it? the entire hetrosexual population can do it, how does it differ if homosexuals can?

I suppose I correlate heterosexual and marriage, it is what I was taught when I was a child, and was all I really saw in married couples as I was growing up.
The first memory I have of seeing same sex marriage was in a movie starring Paul Hogan.

There is a specific term for their sexuality, so it stands to reason that there is a specific term for the union of such.

[smorchika]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macc4

I suppose I correlate heterosexual and marriage, it is what I was taught when I was a child, and was all I really saw in married couples as I was growing up.

There is a specific term for the sexuality, so it stands to reason that there is a specific term for the union of such.

I guess i understand where you are coming from,my mum and i had a similar conversation and her response was similar to yours...

But i dont see it the same way, and thats fine, i was just wondering what your reasoning was, curiosity got the better of me really.

[Geezah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macc4

Not all aborigines are homosexuals geezah

Fuck! Shit! I been doing my token Aborigine friends wrong; you reckon that displeases these women that I told them that the State said they will only get marriage if they do some hardcore German lesbian shit with me? Does that make em German-Aborigine lesbians? Or are they only Germanic-Aborigine lesbians because I told them they could do me on the premise they could get all extro-combinations because I misused my sub-knowledge of the information, and they had sub-sub-terra-nautical disferrence?

I is farking confused. Taxi!

[macc4]

I met some of them in Darwin, my theory is that those two girls coupled with one, such as yourself, could win an award

Better make it a five seater

[sydney3000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macc4

My view on marriage is tied in with what we are here for, and I think that is to breed.

You don't need marriage to breed and you never did. Marriage is simply a tool of segregation to advance certain public service benefits to select members of society.

[base615]

Please list these public service benefits so that I can apply since I have recieved none of these public service benefits of which you speak

[sydney3000]

There are too many to list. Read the Australian tax code. Focus on anything in relation to "family" and "benefit", "offset", "assistance", "deduction", "distribution", "trust", "avoidance", "dependent", "grouping", "exemption", "concession", "grant", "consolidation", "transfer", "reduction", "credit", "bonus", etc.