That's debatable.And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people.
Pixel,
As I have said, our country has a Christian heritage, which reflects on our public holidays.
Whether you are black, white, we are all men and women, and it takes a man and a woman to have a child.
Children do best with their parents.
We grew up respecting all people, no matter who they were, and that comes from our heritage.
Marriage is what it is for a reason, and that is for raising a family.
Mother and Father and their children.
Men and women are different, and children need both, imv.
As we have seen, it is natural for children/people to want to know their heritage, and will go looking for their family, so I don't agree with changing the meaning of marriage.
This is my view.
Bingo!My view is because homosexuality was illegal for a long time but since becoming legal larger sections of the community have increasingly accepted it to the point of entertaining SSM despite bipartisan resistance from the parliament a decade ago.
Where is this land of Zog that you and others bang on about? Seems to me that the arguments are nearly always predicated on some backwater pre industrial state in the USA, or USA in general and the pox riddled old world countries ....... the ones that are now imposing their social diseases, stigmatism and poison on our country and with it their own brand of antidote in the form of social obedience and tunnel vision.
The shame is the all too willing 60% population who are happy give away all our rights and our children's rights to freedom of disassociation to accommodate the demands of a persistent peculiar few who are actually being granted the right to special class status that none of the natural people will enjoy.
As I have said -
Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage
Kids need good parent/s. They don't care whether the parent is a man or a woman.
A reactionary?Bingo!
We had the misfortune to find that a slender majority had elected a reactionary.
Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.
Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.
We didn't do the same Down Under? Up to the 1970s?
I saw Hidden Figures, "separate but equal", colored toilet... at NASA? Racism didn't stop at them southern borders or the backwaters of imperial rome.
Yes, it's always the minority. Always wanting to join in with the cool kids.
And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.
And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons.
Who are most likely gay themselves.
Yeah because they are drunk or abusive which is a characteristic of the human race not sexuality.
Look it's true of many things that gender and ethnicity are drivers for social structures, And yes in places like Kalgoorlie Hotels they had men's bars. women's lounges and black fella bars.
And for sure if the aborigines made a nuisance of themselves they were spurned and given a hiding or a gobfull; (bear in mind most of those troublesome "aboriginals" were shamrock aborigines who had the misfortune of carrying celtic genes), but so were the euro gene pool.... and those "white people" had there names published in the paper for even petty theft.
The rule wasn't 'snuck in', it didn't need to be. It simply reflected the centuries-old beliefs and values of human society. I don't recall any outcry at the time.Tink,
I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.
We're all free to do what we want. Just not free to discriminate against other people. Sounds like a fair approach to things.
.
That's debatable.
I would argue that it's religion itself that assumes full control of the people. It's called faith
To not be able to do, say or even think about anything that offends a religion is about as communist as you can get.
I prefer freedom myself. It's better to learn than to be led.
I don't know whether you are aware or just not acknowledging it , but a large number of people don't see it as discrimination. They see homosexuality as not being normal (just like pedophilia attractions,incest). So the holy book telling them it is forbidden makes sense to them. Plus history for many centuries, and recent history. You're expecting them to suddenly change their deeply held views. U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems. Surely it would make better sense for there to be no laws controlling them. I think many gay people would want that too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?