Same sex marriage debate...

[Spud_Murphy]

Happy Monday people.

I took the weekend off discussing "Gay Marriage", and was going to respond to the various comments and questions directed at me this morning, but figured after 20 + pages I am just repeating myself now.

Some people have entered into genuine debate and have shown a willingness to look at different points of view, which is the purpose of a thread like this, while others seem more intent on simply winning a debate … but that's human nature.

I don't want anybody who has asked me a question to think i am ignoring them, just that it's getting a little repetitive. However if someone has a genuine question or thinks there is something that i have written that they don't understand, i am happy to still discuss. Either in this thread or via PM.

**People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when the truth is that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely. To understand what changes it will institute, look at what has happened to every country that has legalised SSM as perfect examples of what i am talking about, and look at what knowledgeable people predict will happen to Australia over time. Some people might be happy with these changes, but the bottom line is to be informed (and in this 'google age' there is no excuse for ignorance)**.

Any person is entitled to vote however they want after weighing up the facts ... just don't vote blindly.

I hope these ripple effects do take place so there truly is no discrimination. At private parties the refusniks can gather around their own campfire and reminisce and snigger but in public they must at least pretend because one's persons freedom finishes where another person's rights begin - that is the right not to feel a second class citizen or unaccepted. If this is what it takes to eliminate the violence and denigration that are subjected to homosexual persons then so be it.

It was only 30 years ago when homosexual men were pushed over cliffs in Sydney yet we forget this when we criticise Islamic societies who do exactly the same thing now - off tall buildings.

If the ripple effects of something supposedly good ends up in discrimination against another group of people then what is the point of it all? Human rights is a sticky issue - what is deemed as one person's human right might actually violate another person's in the process.

I'm all for human rights and equality, hell I have a postgrad in it, but when a right realised means that the pendulum swings the other way and people aren't allowed to disagree, or are forced to comply or pay the consequences, then the discrimination just keeps going around in circles. Isn't it like what us men have been complaining about for decades, since the Feminist Movement?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

If they want equality then they should stop the gay games.. I know a bit off topic but anyway… (I will not post here anymore... I will stick to the "West Tigers" forums).

Might as well can the Paralympics too then.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Happy Monday people.

I took the weekend off discussing "Gay Marriage", and was going to respond to the various comments and questions directed at me this morning, but figured after 20 + pages I am just repeating myself now.

Some people have entered into genuine debate and have shown a willingness to look at different points of view, which is the purpose of a thread like this, while others seem more intent on simply winning a debate … but that's human nature.

I don't want anybody who has asked me a question to think i am ignoring them, just that it's getting a little repetitive. However if someone has a genuine question or thinks there is something that i have written that they don't understand, i am happy to still discuss. Either in this thread or via PM.

**People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when the truth is that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely. To understand what changes it will institute, look at what has happened to every country that has legalised SSM as perfect examples of what i am talking about, and look at what knowledgeable people predict will happen to Australia over time. Some people might be happy with these changes, but the bottom line is to be informed (and in this 'google age' there is no excuse for ignorance)**.

Any person is entitled to vote however they want after weighing up the facts ... just don't vote blindly.

I hope these ripple effects do take place so there truly is no discrimination. At private parties the refusniks can gather around their own campfire and reminisce and snigger but in public they must at least pretend because one's persons freedom finishes where another person's rights begin - that is the right not to feel a second class citizen or unaccepted. If this is what it takes to eliminate the violence and denigration that are subjected to homosexual persons then so be it.

It was only 30 years ago when homosexual men were pushed over cliffs in Sydney yet we forget this when we criticise Islamic societies who do exactly the same thing now - off tall buildings.

If the ripple effects of something supposedly good ends up in discrimination against another group of people then what is the point of it all? Human rights is a sticky issue - what is deemed as one person's human right might actually violate another person's in the process.

I'm all for human rights and equality, hell I have a postgrad in it, but when a right realised means that the pendulum swings the other way and people aren't allowed to disagree, or are forced to comply or pay the consequences, then the discrimination just keeps going around in circles. Isn't it like what us men have been complaining about for decades, since the Feminist Movement?

There is only one side being discriminated against in this debate. There is no pendulum affect.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

Happy Monday people.

I took the weekend off discussing "Gay Marriage", and was going to respond to the various comments and questions directed at me this morning, but figured after 20 + pages I am just repeating myself now.

Some people have entered into genuine debate and have shown a willingness to look at different points of view, which is the purpose of a thread like this, while others seem more intent on simply winning a debate … but that's human nature.

I don't want anybody who has asked me a question to think i am ignoring them, just that it's getting a little repetitive. However if someone has a genuine question or thinks there is something that i have written that they don't understand, i am happy to still discuss. Either in this thread or via PM.

**People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when the truth is that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely. To understand what changes it will institute, look at what has happened to every country that has legalised SSM as perfect examples of what i am talking about, and look at what knowledgeable people predict will happen to Australia over time. Some people might be happy with these changes, but the bottom line is to be informed (and in this 'google age' there is no excuse for ignorance)**.

Any person is entitled to vote however they want after weighing up the facts ... just don't vote blindly.

I hope these ripple effects do take place so there truly is no discrimination. At private parties the refusniks can gather around their own campfire and reminisce and snigger but in public they must at least pretend because one's persons freedom finishes where another person's rights begin - that is the right not to feel a second class citizen or unaccepted. If this is what it takes to eliminate the violence and denigration that are subjected to homosexual persons then so be it.

It was only 30 years ago when homosexual men were pushed over cliffs in Sydney yet we forget this when we criticise Islamic societies who do exactly the same thing now - off tall buildings.

If the ripple effects of something supposedly good ends up in discrimination against another group of people then what is the point of it all? Human rights is a sticky issue - what is deemed as one person's human right might actually violate another person's in the process.

I'm all for human rights and equality, hell I have a postgrad in it, but when a right realised means that the pendulum swings the other way and people aren't allowed to disagree, or are forced to comply or pay the consequences, then the discrimination just keeps going around in circles. Isn't it like what us men have been complaining about for decades, since the Feminist Movement?

There is only one side being discriminated against in this debate. There is no pendulum affect.

Yet…. have you not read Abraham's posts? Everyone is refuting his argument, but no one seems to be taking his advice and looking up for themselves what has been taking place in the countries where SSM has already been introduced.

 

[old_man_tiger]

If they want equality then they should stop the gay games.. I know a bit off topic but anyway… (I will not post here anymore... I will stick to the "West Tigers" forums).

Might as well can the Paralympics too then.

How are these comparable?
I'll vote yes or not at all, FTR, so I'm only calling out this specific post not your broader point of view, but the point of the Paralympic Games is to celebrate athletic achievement for people with different disabilities. That is, there is a physical limitation on your ability to compete against and beat athletes who don't have the same physical limitations. You can't reallly equate that with sexuality, unless you are saying certain sexualities are physically limited in their ability. I can think of lots of reasons why someone would have an interest in the Paralympic Games and not the gay Olympics (which I'd never heard of tbh).

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

If they want equality then they should stop the gay games.. I know a bit off topic but anyway… (I will not post here anymore... I will stick to the "West Tigers" forums).

One of the ripple effects that Abraham is referring without actually specifying was transgender people using the public toilets etc. of the gender they have transferred to. That is debatable but what I consider unfair is when a male has transferred to a female and then competes in female sports but with the superior body (as mostly is). Is this fair or desirable?

 

[Nelson]

People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when **the truth is** that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely.

Passing opinion off as fact always cheapens an argument. What are the many other laws that **will** change? Effectively telling people to "go and read the internet" is a pretty lazy way of trying to make a point.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I hope these ripple effects do take place so there truly is no discrimination. At private parties the refusniks can gather around their own campfire and reminisce and snigger but in public they must at least pretend because one's persons freedom finishes where another person's rights begin - that is the right not to feel a second class citizen or unaccepted. If this is what it takes to eliminate the violence and denigration that are subjected to homosexual persons then so be it.

It was only 30 years ago when homosexual men were pushed over cliffs in Sydney yet we forget this when we criticise Islamic societies who do exactly the same thing now - off tall buildings.

If the ripple effects of something supposedly good ends up in discrimination against another group of people then what is the point of it all? Human rights is a sticky issue - what is deemed as one person's human right might actually violate another person's in the process.

I'm all for human rights and equality, hell I have a postgrad in it, but when a right realised means that the pendulum swings the other way and people aren't allowed to disagree, or are forced to comply or pay the consequences, then the discrimination just keeps going around in circles. Isn't it like what us men have been complaining about for decades, since the Feminist Movement?

There is only one side being discriminated against in this debate. There is no pendulum affect.

Yet…. have you not read Abraham's posts? Everyone is refuting his argument, but no one seems to be taking his advice and looking up for themselves what has been taking place in the countries where SSM has already been introduced.

Is it turning fine, upstanding Church going men into deviates ? …....what? Did someone say "What's New".
If the yes vote wins, I promise the sun will still come up in the morning, and set in the Evening., much to Tony Abbott's surprise.

 

[Tigerdave]

Yet…. have you not read Abraham's posts? Everyone is refuting his argument, but no one seems to be taking his advice and looking up for themselves what has been taking place in the countries where SSM has already been introduced.

As Nelson pointed out, it's lazy to not present the links yourself, but in any event, what I found was not only small in number given the number of years many countries have had SSM, with the Netherlands the first in 2001, surely if there were big problems, there would be a lot more links than what I've found.

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

So, the above site has links to a variety of different papers and problems.

People can make of them what they will, but ultimately, if you choose to discriminate then, you could find yourself with a potential problem. There's just no logical reason to discriminate. It's not acceptable to discriminate based on gender or ethnicity, not too sure why people feel it's ok to discriminate based on sexuality.

In saying that, I'm very aware that the Far Left (Regressive Left) is becoming more fascist in it's approach and threatening opposition with death threats and such in not the way the left should be behaving.

 

[Go_You_Good_Things]

Guess what mate, there are folks that simply don't agree with it, for whatever reason they choose. They might have had a bad encounter with a gay man. They might simply be disgusted at the thought of what gay men do to each other. The concept of [This word has been automatically removed] might make them wanna throw up. They might see potential problems with same sex's raising kids. It might be against their values.
Not because of religion, necessarily . . . . some see it as defying nature.
Right or wrong ( in your mind), these people have the same right as you to think in whatever fashion they see fit, and to do so without being branded a ( insert latest term used by the left to denigrate one who has independent thought )
Why all of a sudden . . . after SO many years of wanting to be different

Let the tirade of abuse begin. How dare I have an alternate point of view.

Well when you write dribble you should expect a reply. And I make that statement personally not as an official representative of the left/Marxist world cabal.

You reference a series of ridiculous reasons to vote no and present them as valid. Someone who votes no because they had a bad encounter with a gay man is a moron and deserves to be called out.

Gay and Lesbian people didn't become homosexual because they wanted to be different. This isn't a choice, this is who they are. If you really think that gay men thought being gay was some planned point of difference then that's flat out stupid.

And don't behind some sob story about alternative views. You can form whatever view you want but limiting someone else's basic hum rights takes it a step further.

Now why precisely do you object to amending the Marriage Act?

Yossarian, The "ridiculous " set of reasons as you called them were prefaced by "people have the right to think in whatever fashion they see fit" Believe me, there ARE people that are disgusted at the things I mentioned. And as it is contrary to nature, there are people who see that.
So what if the person who had the bad encounter with a gay man was a 16/18yr old boy that was indecently assaulted ? I don't think that calling him out as a moron will help, but if it does help you deal with a differing view point, then moron it is.
As far as being gay was planned, you missed the point. For many years, the gays lead their protests and marches and parades with the mantra of "respecting them as being different, and respecting their differences." The major difference of gays is that the men pair up with men, and women with women. Which is totally opposite to marriage, being man/woman. Now all of a sudden they are pushing the agenda of being able to marry just like a man and woman. THAT was my point.
So in summary, your comments are: dribble, flat out stupid, moron and some sob story.
Like I said " let the abuse begin, how dare I hold alternate views"
If the NO vote gets in, exactly what will change for the gays ? Absolutely nothing. They still live happily together, just as before. I know gay couples who have always viewed marriage as being a hetero thing.
If the real reason is to recognise their union and commitment, have a ceremony and give their union an official title. There is no need to change the act. Marriage is typically defined as man/woman. Why not call it a union for the gays, and leave the historical meaning of marriage alone ?
Anyway, I've politely put my point of view across again, and yet again await the uproar from the Oh so tolerant left.
Go the WT !

 

[Yossarian]

Guess what mate, there are folks that simply don't agree with it, for whatever reason they choose. They might have had a bad encounter with a gay man. They might simply be disgusted at the thought of what gay men do to each other. The concept of [This word has been automatically removed] might make them wanna throw up. They might see potential problems with same sex's raising kids. It might be against their values.
Not because of religion, necessarily . . . . some see it as defying nature.
Right or wrong ( in your mind), these people have the same right as you to think in whatever fashion they see fit, and to do so without being branded a ( insert latest term used by the left to denigrate one who has independent thought )
Why all of a sudden . . . after SO many years of wanting to be different

Let the tirade of abuse begin. How dare I have an alternate point of view.

Well when you write dribble you should expect a reply. And I make that statement personally not as an official representative of the left/Marxist world cabal.

You reference a series of ridiculous reasons to vote no and present them as valid. Someone who votes no because they had a bad encounter with a gay man is a moron and deserves to be called out.

Gay and Lesbian people didn't become homosexual because they wanted to be different. This isn't a choice, this is who they are. If you really think that gay men thought being gay was some planned point of difference then that's flat out stupid.

And don't behind some sob story about alternative views. You can form whatever view you want but limiting someone else's basic hum rights takes it a step further.

Now why precisely do you object to amending the Marriage Act?

And as it is contrary to nature, there are people who see that.
….
So what if the person who had the bad encounter with a gay man was a 16/18yr old boy that was indecently assaulted ? I don't think that calling him out as a moron will help, but if it does help you deal with a differing view point, then moron it is.
...
Like I said " let the abuse begin, how dare I hold alternate views"
....
Anyway, I've politely put my point of view across again, and yet again await the uproar from the Oh so tolerant left.

You call gay people un-natural but the left aren't tolerant? You're a homophobe, that sums it up. Thankfully people like you are increasingly in the minority.

If you can't see how hating an entire class of people based on a single person is moronic them I can't help you.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Byron bay fan, the biggest problem I have with the "yes/left" is how they preach their desire for understanding and empathy . . . . but only when it suits their agenda. They want to be seen as pushing for fairness and equality without discrimination, but God help you when you have a differing opinion to theirs. Any attempt to put that opinion out there will be shot down in a heartbeat. Whoever proposed that opinion will be publicly branded a homophobe, bigot, etc, etc.
People are actually entitled to their opinions, you know ?
You have been the most voiceful in your tirade against anything but a "yes" voter.
Guess what mate, there are folks that simply don't agree with it, for whatever reason they choose. They might have had a bad encounter with a gay man. They might simply be disgusted at the thought of what gay men do to each other. The concept of [This word has been automatically removed] might make them wanna throw up. They might see potential problems with same sex's raising kids. It might be against their values.
Not because of religion, necessarily . . . . some see it as defying nature.
Right or wrong ( in your mind), these people have the same right as you to think in whatever fashion they see fit, and to do so without being branded a ( insert latest term used by the left to denigrate one who has independent thought )
Why all of a sudden . . . after SO many years of wanting to be different, so many years of defying the norms of marriage, so many years of rejecting the whole man/woman component of marriage . . . have the homosexuals become SO infatuated with being able to marry ?
Let them have some sort of "union" recognised . . . . but why insist on being included in the most typical union of man and woman, when they insist on living totally as man/man and woman/woman ?
Let the tirade of abuse begin. How dare I have an alternate point of view.

I have not followed the debate at all or viewed any programs on it so am unaware of name calling etc. by the pro lobby. Recently I was at a party and the host begins a joke with "I hope none of you guys are politically correct" (or something similar) then went on to make a racist joke about Aborigines accusing them of being robbers. Well where did the Aborigines learn to steal from - the whites stealing their land. They had to steal sheep to survive as their kangaroos were gone.

The recent history of Aborigines at Byron is that they succeeded in getting land rights over hundreds of hectares of beach front land then in public spirit gave the land back to be a beautiful national park - they are proud that they left the place surrounded by forest as they are more environmentally conscious than many other people here who want to drain and concrete everything. The agreement was that they would get jobs as national park rangers. Well the rednecks whinge about Aborigines getting the jobs even though they gave land back worth a billion of dollars as a guess.

This is the sniggering that the anti-gays can continue to participate in privately. Previously in Oz the Aborigines did not have to be served or weren't allowed to go to school in some circumstances just as the non hetrosexuals cannot participate in certain avenues now. Well years down the track non hetrosexuals will also have full rights that every human being is entitled to.

People can stay non-inclusive or reform, it does not make much difference as long as they keep it among themselves. But we know what psychological effect this sniggering has on the non-hetrosexual children of the refusniks - they either become depressed or rebel outrageously. They are only reflecting and re-acting to the society that has nurtured them. I would hate to have a child who did not have full and equal rights as everyone else. It is not up to the majority to deny rights to minorities.

 

[stryker]

Yossarian your repeated abusive posts to GYGT proves that you are not even reading what he is writing.
The yes crowd share a couple of reasons for voting that way such as inclusiveness, acceptance of love and anti discrimination.These structures encompass most yes voters and are born out of moral standards of fairness.
The no crowd share a lot more concerns and range from completely hateful to ignorant to religious beliefs to moral justifications. They span a large section of the community and as i said in an earlier post, you can also add protest voters to the list of nuetral people sick to death of the gay agenda being forced upon them constantly.

Unless you are telling people how you voted and why, NO ONE IS WRONG FOR VOTING THE WAY THEY FREELY CHOOSE TO.

 

[stryker]

Byron bay fan, the biggest problem I have with the "yes/left" is how they preach their desire for understanding and empathy . . . . but only when it suits their agenda. They want to be seen as pushing for fairness and equality without discrimination, but God help you when you have a differing opinion to theirs. Any attempt to put that opinion out there will be shot down in a heartbeat. Whoever proposed that opinion will be publicly branded a homophobe, bigot, etc, etc.
People are actually entitled to their opinions, you know ?
You have been the most voiceful in your tirade against anything but a "yes" voter.
Guess what mate, there are folks that simply don't agree with it, for whatever reason they choose. They might have had a bad encounter with a gay man. They might simply be disgusted at the thought of what gay men do to each other. The concept of [This word has been automatically removed] might make them wanna throw up. They might see potential problems with same sex's raising kids. It might be against their values.
Not because of religion, necessarily . . . . some see it as defying nature.
Right or wrong ( in your mind), these people have the same right as you to think in whatever fashion they see fit, and to do so without being branded a ( insert latest term used by the left to denigrate one who has independent thought )
Why all of a sudden . . . after SO many years of wanting to be different, so many years of defying the norms of marriage, so many years of rejecting the whole man/woman component of marriage . . . have the homosexuals become SO infatuated with being able to marry ?
Let them have some sort of "union" recognised . . . . but why insist on being included in the most typical union of man and woman, when they insist on living totally as man/man and woman/woman ?
Let the tirade of abuse begin. How dare I have an alternate point of view.

I have not followed the debate at all or viewed any programs on it so am unaware of name calling etc. by the pro lobby. Recently I was at a party and the host begins a joke with "I hope none of you guys are politically correct" (or something similar) then went on to make a racist joke about Aborigines accusing them of being robbers. Well where did the Aborigines learn to steal from - the whites stealing their land. They had to steal sheep to survive as their kangaroos were gone.

The recent history of Aborigines at Byron is that they succeeded in getting land rights over hundreds of hectares of beach front land then in public spirit gave the land back to be a beautiful national park - they are proud that they left the place surrounded by forest as they are more environmentally conscious than many other people here who want to drain and concrete everything. The agreement was that they would get jobs as national park rangers. Well the rednecks whinge about Aborigines getting the jobs even though they gave land back worth a billion of dollars as a guess.

This is the sniggering that the anti-gays can continue to participate in privately. Previously in Oz the Aborigines did not have to be served or weren't allowed to go to school in some circumstances just as the non hetrosexuals cannot participate in certain avenues now. Well years down the track non hetrosexuals will also have full rights that every human being is entitled to.

People can stay non-inclusive or reform, it does not make much difference as long as they keep it among themselves. But we know what psychological effect this sniggering has on the non-hetrosexual children of the refusniks - they either become depressed or rebel outrageously. They are only reflecting and re-acting to the society that has nurtured them. I would hate to have a child who did not have full and equal rights as everyone else. It is not up to the majority to deny rights to minorities.

Byron get out of here with your agendas. They are boring and you are just trying to derail another thread. Mods cant you see what this clown is doing? As soon as discussion goes against his will he forces you lot to close the thread by causing arguments off topic. It is an absolute tactic to stifle debate.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

stryker, you are seeing ghosts - I actually despise it when a thread is locked. I was drawing an analogy between two different groups of minorities that are co-inciding in their quest for justice. I actually appreciate some of the anti-yes posts here. I have intended to post on what I considered caused the initial dislike of homsexuality but have been pre-occupied the last few days. Some of the pro-mob would not consider it PC but that is life.

 

[Tigerdave]

Marriage is typically defined as man/woman.

So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway

Why not call it a union for the gays, and leave the historical meaning of marriage alone ?

because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Marriage is typically defined as man/woman.

So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway

Why not call it a union for the gays, and leave the historical meaning of marriage alone ?

because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.

Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.

 

[Yossarian]

Yossarian your repeated abusive posts to GYGT proves that you are not even reading what he is writing.
The yes crowd share a couple of reasons for voting that way such as inclusiveness, acceptance of love and anti discrimination.These structures encompass most yes voters and are born out of moral standards of fairness.
The no crowd share a lot more concerns and range from completely hateful to ignorant to religious beliefs to moral justifications. They span a large section of the community and as i said in an earlier post, you can also add protest voters to the list of nuetral people sick to death of the gay agenda being forced upon them constantly.

Unless you are telling people how you voted and why, NO ONE IS WRONG FOR VOTING THE WAY THEY FREELY CHOOSE TO.

You've already said you're happy for there to be no safeguards against minorities being openly abused. I read what he said - did you?

 

[earl]

Guess what mate, there are folks that simply don't agree with it, for whatever reason they choose. They might have had a bad encounter with a gay man. They might simply be disgusted at the thought of what gay men do to each other. The concept of [This word has been automatically removed] might make them wanna throw up. They might see potential problems with same sex's raising kids. It might be against their values.
Not because of religion, necessarily . . . . some see it as defying nature.
Right or wrong ( in your mind), these people have the same right as you to think in whatever fashion they see fit, and to do so without being branded a ( insert latest term used by the left to denigrate one who has independent thought )
Why all of a sudden . . . after SO many years of wanting to be different

Let the tirade of abuse begin. How dare I have an alternate point of view.

Well when you write dribble you should expect a reply. And I make that statement personally not as an official representative of the left/Marxist world cabal.

You reference a series of ridiculous reasons to vote no and present them as valid. Someone who votes no because they had a bad encounter with a gay man is a moron and deserves to be called out.

Gay and Lesbian people didn't become homosexual because they wanted to be different. This isn't a choice, this is who they are. If you really think that gay men thought being gay was some planned point of difference then that's flat out stupid.

And don't behind some sob story about alternative views. You can form whatever view you want but limiting someone else's basic hum rights takes it a step further.

Now why precisely do you object to amending the Marriage Act?

And as it is contrary to nature, there are people who see that.
….
So what if the person who had the bad encounter with a gay man was a 16/18yr old boy that was indecently assaulted ? I don't think that calling him out as a moron will help, but if it does help you deal with a differing view point, then moron it is.
...
Like I said " let the abuse begin, how dare I hold alternate views"
....
Anyway, I've politely put my point of view across again, and yet again await the uproar from the Oh so tolerant left.

You call gay people un-natural but the left aren't tolerant? You're a homophobe, that sums it up. Thankfully people like you are increasingly in the minority.

If you can't see how hating an entire class of people based on a single person is moronic them I can't help you.

I think this regressive left or far left is just a load of BS that is an attempt to justify homophobia. It's a simple decision in relation to allowing people who are homosexual to have the same rights as heterosexual people. To me it's an easy decision.

People who are homophobic which to me is just like being racist are coming up with excuses to justify not allowing people the same rights and the regressive left are an easy target.

I'm pretty right wing and I can't see any reason to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

 

[Abraham]

People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when **the truth is** that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely.

Passing opinion off as fact always cheapens an argument. What are the many other laws that **will** change? Effectively telling people to "go and read the internet" is a pretty lazy way of trying to make a point.

Except it is not an opinion, and is based entirely on factual events that have occurred overseas once SSM was legislated.

I have repeatedly detailed what these changes will be, from changes to school curriculums, pressure on churches to conform with radical LGBT ideology, the closure of charities, schools, and private businesses, even changes to adoption laws preventing christian couples from adopting, and a massive widening of anti-discrimination laws that will basically make it illegal for Australians to champion traditional marriage. There is much more, but im sure you get the hint.

And i have not told people to simply go off and read the internet, but to do their own investigating and see for themselves if they doubt what i am saying is true.

Speaking of lazy… have you bothered to check whether what i have said is true? Or are you content to pass your own opinions off as fact?