The Turnbull Government

[SirRumpole]

And it's all Shorten's fault of course.

Maybe this time it is, if Labor want to persist with their policy of shutting down debate on what they like to think is an important subject on the off chance that the debate might hurt someone's feelings.

We could have had a plebiscite and had some sort of result by now, but no, we struggle on with this farce while other important issues get pushed aside. We also could have had a plebiscite at the last election and saved $100 million.

Anyway, there is no need for a "formal" debate on gay marriage, whatever needs to be said about it has already been said, and feelings have already been hurt. If the gay marriage proponents want some action , then a plebiscite is their best chance of getting it.

 

[Logique]

I'll attempt to paste a YT video, John Anderson offers a mature analysis.
Cheers SirR, yes I was being a little partisan, as you observed

 

[SirRumpole]

I'll attempt to paste a YT video, John Anderson offers a mature analysis.
Cheers SirR, yes I was being a little partisan, as you observed

Very wise of John Anderson, I agree.

 

[PZ.]

And it's all Shorten's fault of course.

Maybe this time it is, if Labor want to persist with their policy of shutting down debate on what they like to think is an important subject on the off chance that the debate might hurt someone's feelings.

Labor don't want the Coalition to pass SSM laws, they would rather block it and gain political mileage by doing it themselves if they get into Govt. I think someone made that point earlier and it makes sense to me.

 

[SirRumpole]

Labor don't want the Coalition to pass SSM laws, they would rather block it and gain political mileage by doing it themselves if they get into Govt. I think someone made that point earlier and it makes sense to me.

Yes, I think that is Labor's agenda, but the LNP aren't going to pass SSM laws anyway. Their plebiscite thing is a stalling tactic too, because they know they can't get it through the Senate.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

To be fair to the Nationals and Labor, this is a mess entirely of the Liberal Party's making.

They are a conflicted mob of muppets more inclined to hate and destroy each other much as the ALP did during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd fiasco.

Marriage Equality is an excuse to battle, rather than a cause to be fought ideologically.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

The conservative position on these things always seems ridiculous in hindsight once the progressive view wins out.

Would anyone today suggest that women shouldn't be able to vote? Or that we shouldn't count Aboriginals as part of the Australian population? Or that homosexual acts between consenting adults ought to be illegal?

At some time in the future the debate about same sex marriage will be viewed in much the same terms with the only question being why it took so long?

I see it as a distraction really given there's so many real problems related to economics, the natural environment, infrastructure and so on. Just get the marriage thing sorted and worry about other issues in my view.

 

[Logique]

You're no lawyer Smurf!
A little matter of 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought. "Just get the marriage thing sorted and worry about other issues"..Smurf

Which issues would those be? I mean besides the central bullwark of western society, and social mores for the last 3,000 years?

And yet the Australian public will still support and respect this minority group...unless they feel bullied!

 

[Smurf1976]

A quick Google search for some statistics finds that about 80% of couples live together prior to marriage, 75% of marriages are conducted by civil celebrants and 40% of marriages end in divorce. A third of mothers are unmarried.

Society has already rejected the traditional view of marriage it would seem, to the point that the concept that it can only be between a man and a woman is really the only part of that tradition still fully intact. The rest is either rejected by most (not living together until marriage and the religious aspect) or common enough to be largely matter of fact rather than the social stigma it once was (unmarried parents).

Same sex marriage is one of those "when not if" changes in society in my view hence why I see the debate as largely pointless. It will happen before too much longer so may as well just get on with it.

 

[Tink]

Just ask Archbishop Julian Porteous in Tasmania.
For writing a pamphlet on marriage.

The law is still one man and one woman.

Remembering Bill Leak..

From lefty to conservative.
http://zanettisview.com/story/bill-leak-from-outrageous-lefty-to-outrageous-conservative/4194

----------------------------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4

 

[overhang]

Well said Smurf, the sanctity of marriage died a long time ago, only those with their perverse world view think otherwise.

 

[PZ.]

I Remember Bill Leak... he looked younger and more healthy when he was a lefty

 

[SirRumpole]

Well said Smurf, the sanctity of marriage died a long time ago, only those with their perverse world view think otherwise.

So why is the Rainbow Brigade so keen to have it ?

One would think it's just another opportunity to say "up you" to the other 95% of the population.

 

[Tisme]

I guess you also believe that people fake eczema and just scratch their body for no reason, do you also believe that autism is all acted too and just due to environment? Anyone with any common sense is aware that sexuality isn't a conscious process, do you really think that so many gays would have killed themselves for being gay if they could simply hit a switch and change?



I think marriage is a right, it's not just a cultural norm but a legal contract and same sex couples should have the same right to enter that contract. Should have society had the right to decide if women should vote? If the indigenous can marry whites? You are stawmanning by suggesting this is about children, this isn't some hidden agenda to secretly grant same sex couples rights to steal your children.

Look I'm not arguing the toss on something that is unproven. There is no scientific evidence based findings to say homosexuality is a congential or genetic condition. That's it no correspondence entered into, not facsimile therefore. The whole argument is a nonsense that is trying to justify a lifestyle choice (a grossly unhygienic one at that), given the absence of physical fact.

 

[Tisme]

So why is the Rainbow Brigade so keen to have it ?

One would think it's just another opportunity to say "up you" to the other 95% of the population.

Of course it is. Its dragging the majority norm into the abstract to blur and shrink the division, which of course takes the pressure off. In the absence of anything else to champion, the youth and an uncouth activists are rolling this this one for now and will move onto something else after like finding equal rights to martians.

 

[overhang]

Because marriage is still considered the socially normal way to recognise relationships. No one asks if you're in a civil union but people will ask if you're married. The question is how does this actually negatively impact anyone if same sex couples can marry?

 

[overhang]

Look I'm not arguing the toss on something that is unproven. There is no scientific evidence based findings to say homosexuality is a congential or genetic condition. That's it no correspondence entered into, not facsimile therefore. The whole argument is a nonsense that is trying to justify a lifestyle choice (a grossly unhygienic one at that), given the absence of physical fact.

Again perhaps go tell all those autistic individuals to stop faking it because science can't prove the cause.

 

[Tisme]

Because marriage is still considered the socially normal way to recognise relationships. No one asks if you're in a civil union but people will ask if you're married. The question is how does this actually negatively impact anyone if same sex couples can marry?

It debases the sanctity of the traditional marriage concept. We can all wax lyrical about it's meaning, but the fact is, in this country marriage is founded on Genesis and Matthew. And yes if you look back in your UK family tree you will see couples outback England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland who live as married couples, with children before the annual visit of the parson to ratify it, document it and sanctify it.

 

[Tisme]

Again perhaps go tell all those autistic individuals to stop faking it because science can't prove the cause.

Autism has nothing to do with it. Choice is a complex thing, it can have multiple ambiguous, latent and intangible drivers, but at the end of the day people trying to make excuses for recursive abnormal physical behaviours using unfounded "facts" are just making up ****.

 

[overhang]

It debases the sanctity of the traditional marriage concept. We can all wax lyrical about it's meaning, but the fact is, in this country marriage is founded on Genesis and Matthew. And yes if you look back in your UK family tree you will see couples outback England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland who live as married couples, with children before the annual visit of the parson to ratify it, document it and sanctify it.

As the post by Smurf indicates for most marriage no longer has those theological meanings. Slavery to was a tradition at some point that people thought they had a right to.

Autism has nothing to do with it. Choice is a complex thing, it can have multiple ambiguous, latent and intangible drivers, but at the end of the day people trying to make excuses for recursive abnormal physical behaviours using unfounded "facts" are just making up ****.

And this dribble is part of the reason so many gays kill themselves. There is no scientific evidence that being gay is a choice as you suggest. https://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html