Irwin Ross, Rise Up Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

Darkfalz said :

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Referring to church as “hate meetings” says all anyone needs to know about you.
‘
All points are your opinion and your opinion only. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you seem to want to enforce your opinion on the rest of us, judging by your labelling and name calling and prejudicial dismissal of opposing points of view. I want to live in a democracy. You seem to want to live in a social “progressive” dictatorship, where opinions and attitudes are state enforced and dissenters sanctioned.

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

Can you please learn the difference between opinion and fact before you make another ignorant comment.

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

ScienceRules said :

blah blah blah this hate-filled bigot blah blah blah

Well done everyone

You disagree with him. Therefore he is a “hate-filled bigot”. Very nice.

I see no evidence that what you say is true. I do see fairly plain evidence that you are a hate-filled bigot yourself though.

I have a saying, one of my personal philosophies that I try to live by:
the only thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

IP

Mine is “If you can’t laugh at those less fortunate than yourself, then who can you laugh at?”

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Pay this person

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:
3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

‘Hate-filled’ aside, apparently not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

Darkfalz said :

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

Interracial marriage was illegal in many states in the USA during the course of my lifetime. And similar arguments, seemingly from similarly intolerant people, were used to fight against its legalisation. It’s “unnatural”; it’s “immoral”; even that it’s against the will of god. Any of that sound familiar?

IrishPete said :

State care? God no! You should have been sent to a religious orphanage or boarding school to be used as a virtual sex slave. Obviously. And if you hadn’t grown up to be well adjusted and Straight, it would have been the Devil’s fault.
IP

Straight? Definitely.
Well adjusted? Not quite so clear, but I like to think so.
Tolerant? Do my absolute best, but I don’t always succeed dealing with those who try to force their religious intolerances on others.

The final one is clearly the Devil’s fault.

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

ScienceRules said :

blah blah blah this hate-filled bigot blah blah blah

Well done everyone

You disagree with him. Therefore he is a “hate-filled bigot”. Very nice.

I see no evidence that what you say is true. I do see fairly plain evidence that you are a hate-filled bigot yourself though.

I have a saying, one of my personal philosophies that I try to live by:
the only thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

IP

In other words:

1. Convince yourself your position is the only morally acceptable or valid one.

2. Anyone who disagrees with you is therefore either evil or stupid.

3. Win the argument by calling them names.

DrKoresh said :

So you’re a racist as well as a homophobe. It’s okay, I don’t think anyone here is surprised by that.
An important note, though, the definition of bigot in the OED is not an opinion, it’s as near to a linguistical fact as you can get, so you can’t dismiss it as just an ‘opnion’ (well, apparently you can, but that says more about you than it does about me, or ScienceRules) because it happens to describe you and your archaic beliefs.

Not sure how you got “racist” from me saying interracial marriage was normal throughout human history, but you clearly have a warped perspective on how you view people of different opinion to yourself. I’m able to give my opinion without calling people racists, bigots, homophobes, idiots or archaic (or for that matter gaylovers, homos, fags, poofs, niggerlovers – all terms just as prejudicial and useless in any kind of reasoned discussion).

Lots of people share my opinion on what constitutes a marriage and the relation of marriage to family, demonstrated by the fact that it’s still the law here, and is still the law in in more than 90% of countries worldwide (closer to 95%). In fact, homosexuality itself (acts thereof) is illegal in more countries than gay marriage is legal. I don’t consider that a good thing, but telling me my views are minority or ancient doesn’t stand up to reality.

People can live as they wish, and do in their bedroom as they wish, within the law. However, having definitions and social norms altered to include them is not a right. It’s a choice a small number of countries have mulled over and made, and being on either side of the debate is perfectly acceptable to me. The rapid deterioration into ad hominem by either side do not further it at all.

geni_lou said :

winstonI said :

It astounds me how the left of politics are in fact the worst fascists ever when you don’t agree with something, 66 million dead Russians can’t be wrong…..

Is there some kind of Soviet Godwin’s Law? Surely it’s just been created.

Yes, it’s called the “geni_lou” law and you just minted it, four hours before me. Damn your eyes.

IP

DrKoresh said :

On a different note, his response regarding euthanasia leaves a lot to be desired.

Do they do everything possible to prolong the lives of people who don’t want to live anymore? Or is he just avoiding the question while inserting his stance on abortion?

I also thought that he did not answer Q1. Can you send it back for him to have another go?

IP

Robertson said :

ScienceRules said :

blah blah blah this hate-filled bigot blah blah blah

Well done everyone

You disagree with him. Therefore he is a “hate-filled bigot”. Very nice.

I see no evidence that what you say is true. I do see fairly plain evidence that you are a hate-filled bigot yourself though.

I have a saying, one of my personal philosophies that I try to live by:
the only thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

IP

Jono said :

Agreed. My mother died when I was 6 and my father never remarried. Should he have been prosecuted for denying me my “basic right .. to have both a male and a female as (my) parents” as I grew up? Or should I have been sent to state care because I was denied this “basic right”?

State care? God no! You should have been sent to a religious orphanage or boarding school to be used as a virtual sex slave. Obviously. And if you hadn’t grown up to be well adjusted and Straight, it would have been the Devil’s fault.

IP

DrKoresh said :

milkman said :

ScienceRules said :

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

So, by that definition, and just for the sake of debate, being intolerant of Christians or Catholic views makes you a bigot, then. Right?

No-one’s saying they can’t hold their stupid beliefs, just that they can’t enforce them on the rest of the nation, like disallowing gay people to marry.

But that is exactly what the Libs will do when they win…*

* Not if I can help it.

I’d just like to point one thing out to those supporting “Rise Up”. They have nothing to worry about because the gays and lesbians won’t be around for long, they cannot reproduce offspring on their own due to the inherent lack of means to reproduce. Eventually they will grow old, die and leave nobody to carry on their legacy. Win for the heterosexual couples.

Darkfalz said :

Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

Sorry mate, you’re showing your prejudice there. If sexual orientation’s just a preference, why can’t people seem to chose to change it? I mean, I used to prefer canola oil, but now my preference has changed to olive oil… same sort of thing according to your language, no? It seems that sexual orientation’s a little more hard-wired than a preference.

The problem with having marriage available to only the straight majority is that it sets up the gay minority as an underclass in the view of the government (which is, of course, nothing new historically; a bunch of other minority groups have been treated in the same way). The law sets the example in these things. It’s a human rights issue – to be equal in the view of the law.

Likewise, “not teaching these things at school” is a problem – it sets up homosexuals as a perverse underclass in the minds of young people, and this results in psychological distress on the part of those young people who are homosexual. By “defending” young people by not teaching them about the range of normal attraction at school, you are in fact harming them.

Mike Crowther said :

I would’ve liked to have asked if he seriously believes that witches have been sacrificing babies on Mt. Ainslie in order to achieve power over the nations capitol?

Well obviously they have to take out a few babies. It’s not ideal but consider the alternatives!

DrKoresh said :

milkman said :

ScienceRules said :

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

So, by that definition, and just for the sake of debate, being intolerant of Christians or Catholic views makes you a bigot, then. Right?

No-one’s saying they can’t hold their stupid beliefs, just that they can’t enforce them on the rest of the nation, like disallowing gay people to marry.

If they can hold their beliefs then they can vote for whoever they like, just like you. If politicans won’t support gay marriage then maybe it isn’t what the electorate wants.

I don’t really have an opinion either way about gay marriage, but it sure is interesting watching people get fired up about it (on both sides).

Darkfalz said :

I want to live in a democracy. You seem to want to live in a social “progressive” dictatorship, where opinions and attitudes are state enforced and dissenters sanctioned.

So if two people from one group cannot legally marry due to values held by another group of people, is that an example opinion or attitude that is state enforced?

Darkfalz said :

Referring to church as “hate meetings” says all anyone needs to know about you.
‘
All points are your opinion and your opinion only. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you seem to want to enforce your opinion on the rest of us, judging by your labelling and name calling and prejudicial dismissal of opposing points of view. I want to live in a democracy. You seem to want to live in a social “progressive” dictatorship, where opinions and attitudes are state enforced and dissenters sanctioned.

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

So you’re a racist as well as a homophobe. It’s okay, I don’t think anyone here is surprised by that.
An important note, though, the definition of bigot in the OED is not an opinion, it’s as near to a linguistical fact as you can get, so you can’t dismiss it as just an ‘opnion’ (well, apparently you can, but that says more about you than it does about me, or ScienceRules) because it happens to describe you and your archaic beliefs.

I would’ve liked to have asked if he seriously believes that witches have been sacrificing babies on Mt. Ainslie in order to achieve power over the nations capitol? (I’m not sure if the party’s founder ‘Pastor’ Danny actually believes it himself, though he is a dab hand at whipping up the mob.)

milkman said :

ScienceRules said :

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

So, by that definition, and just for the sake of debate, being intolerant of Christians or Catholic views makes you a bigot, then. Right?

No-one’s saying they can’t hold their stupid beliefs, just that they can’t enforce them on the rest of the nation, like disallowing gay people to marry.

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Referring to church as “hate meetings” says all anyone needs to know about you.
‘
All points are your opinion and your opinion only. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you seem to want to enforce your opinion on the rest of us, judging by your labelling and name calling and prejudicial dismissal of opposing points of view. I want to live in a democracy. You seem to want to live in a social “progressive” dictatorship, where opinions and attitudes are state enforced and dissenters sanctioned.

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

ScienceRules said :

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

So, by that definition, and just for the sake of debate, being intolerant of Christians or Catholic views makes you a bigot, then. Right?

winstonI said :

It astounds me how the left of politics are in fact the worst fascists ever when you don’t agree with something, 66 million dead Russians can’t be wrong…..

Is there some kind of Soviet Godwin’s Law? Surely it’s just been created.

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Let’s contrast what you just typed with what Irwin Ross has typed:

“Rise Up Australia are aware that during election time many candidates fall into the trap of speaking out negatively towards their opposition, and we are strongly opposed to this. Even though we may not agree with some of their policies, Rise Up Australia respects our opponents’ freedom of speech, which is one of our top priorities. We seek to honour and respect the opposition, even if we do not agree with their policies. “

Throwing accusations of “bigotry” around makes you look petty.

That’s fine with me, rather be petty than bigoted.

Or a petty bigot.

Robertson said :

Let’s contrast what you just typed with what Irwin Ross has typed:

“Rise Up Australia are aware that during election time many candidates fall into the trap of speaking out negatively towards their opposition, and we are strongly opposed to this. Even though we may not agree with some of their policies, Rise Up Australia respects our opponents’ freedom of speech, which is one of our top priorities. We seek to honour and respect the opposition, even if we do not agree with their policies. “

Throwing accusations of “bigotry” around makes you look petty.

That’s fine with me, rather be petty than bigoted.

DrKoresh said :

Irwin Ross is free state his opinions on whatever he likes, and still be a bigot. You can have a (mostly) rational debate qouting evidence, and still throw in a few below-the-belt words at the other side. Especially when they’re espousing bigotry. Again, there’s nothing stopping you from having opinions, but sometimes your opinion is just wrong, and when it’s wrong and bigoted then you just have accept that lots of people will be willing to mention the fact.

Let’s contrast what you just typed with what Irwin Ross has typed:

“Rise Up Australia are aware that during election time many candidates fall into the trap of speaking out negatively towards their opposition, and we are strongly opposed to this. Even though we may not agree with some of their policies, Rise Up Australia respects our opponents’ freedom of speech, which is one of our top priorities. We seek to honour and respect the opposition, even if we do not agree with their policies. “

Throwing accusations of “bigotry” around makes you look petty.

Irwin is a brand of tool…

Irwin Ross is free state his opinions on whatever he likes, and still be a bigot. You can have a (mostly) rational debate qouting evidence, and still throw in a few below-the-belt words at the other side. Especially when they’re espousing bigotry. Again, there’s nothing stopping you from having opinions, but sometimes your opinion is just wrong, and when it’s wrong and bigoted then you just have accept that lots of people will be willing to mention the fact.

Darkfalz said :

MrBigEars said :

I’ve never understood why Govy is in the business of defining marriage in the first place. The state should recognise a formal relationship (and all attendant benefits and responsibilities) and the individuals involved get to call it what the hell they want.

The state does recognise them (defactos have virtually the same rights as married couples) and people can indeed call their relationships what they want. So the situation you described already exists.

So are you saying the argument is purely over the use of the word “Marriage”. That’s the bit I don’t understand, because no one has ever said they’d force churches or any other organisation to marry couples other than a man and a woman.

However the whole argument from the church seems to be over the use of a word and that is the bit most people really don’t get. So if gay people get the opportunity to a legal civil union equivalent to marriage, the church would be fine with that? Does the church realise they will probably use the word married anyway…

I just see it as some kind of selfish agenda, its ours and you can’t have it, because no one has even put up a reasonable reason how allowing gay people to get married would affect anyone in anyway what so ever.

It seems that using the bible to deny another, a human right is perfectly ok if that is your belief.

This politician whether or not you agree with him is entitled to his belief-the amount of bigots here who think otherwise is astounding-you are in fact the worst anti-freedom of speech activists i can think of.
The whole gay marriage argument remind me of pepsi vs coke or Mcdonalds vs kfc argument- oh you like pepsi well you must be an idiot, you bigot, you detractor.
Personally i don’t like judaeo-christianity as it is a religion that like a multinational corporation has been exported to countries at the cost/destruction of their traditional beliefs, a bit like how the USA exports it’s culture and destroys other nations culture.
Leave judaeo cristianity in israel where it belongs.
This person is entitled to their beliefs without being wrongly called a bigot. To do this to them is to deny them freedom of expression/belief-ideals which each of us as humans is entitled to.
Just don’t shove your meal in everyone’s face and expect everyone to like it.
It astounds me how the left of politics are in fact the worst fascists ever when you don’t agree with something, 66 million dead Russians can’t be wrong…..

Darkfalz said :

The child is literally a part of you both.

This literally makes my head explode.

Darkfalz said :

Nobody will love you like your blood.

I actually used to believe this to be true. I thought that because of that I would not have wanted to adopt nor would I have wanted to donate eggs to infertile couples.

Until I gave birth to my own child. And then I knew that the love I felt for this helpless baby had FA to do with biological ties but all with the fact that this child was completely reliant on me for giving her everything needed to survive, i.e. food, shelter and unconditional love.

Do adopted children never thrive? And stats that show that kids in single parent families lag behind as a group on the rest also reveal that this is predominantly caused by the single income status of those families. I.e. it is a financial problem, not a social one.

But go on then, show me that objective research that shows that kids do better in traditional families, disregarding any effects of differences in socio-economic status, etc.

Darkfalz said :

The state does recognise them (defactos have virtually the same rights as married couples) and people can indeed call their relationships what they want. So the situation you described already exists.

So we agree, repeal the Marriage Act (2004) and create a new instrument to formally recognise relationships (irrespective of gender of the participants). You can call your arrangement a marriage, and so can same-sex couples, others can have an evil coalition of super-mutants, and we can all go about our day. Minimal bureaucratic complexity for everyone!

Darkfalz said :

“God said” is as meaningless to me as “because equality!”

Ugh! Go make some friends and you might start appreciating that their hopes, dreams and love are just as important as your own.

“Rise Up”, everytime I see that I think of “Get Up” !

joingler said :

I am in full agreement that child should have a mother and father figure in their life. But the key word is ‘figure’.

Everyone needs peers beyond their immediate family. But there’s no bond like the bond between mother, father and child. The child is literally a part of you both. Nobody will love you like your blood.

Sadly it doesn’t always remain that way, but you can’t just dismiss these ties as trivial and interchangeable in my opinion.

joingler said :

The argument against same sex marriage is a simple one: It is ungodly.

Never an argument I have used, or would use. And I would also discourage people of a like mind from using it. “God said” is as meaningless to me as “because equality!”

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Amazing what passes for “bigotry” these days. Even when stated with utmost respect and sensibleness.

Homosexuals, the cultural superclass with whom all must agree.

Awwww, the elitist communist homosexual cultural superclass are oppressing you. You poor thing, I really feel sorry for you. No really, I do.

Clearly I am not oppressed, as I feel quite comfortable expressing my views on family and marriage. I am braver than most though. Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it. Name calling is generally what you do when you disagree with someone but can’t articulate exactly why their points are invalid.

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it. In all but the 18-30 demographic, there simply isn’t. And a referendum would blow this out of the water.

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

It is not name calling when it’s stating a fact.

I am in full agreement that child should have a mother and father figure in their life. But the key word is ‘figure’. It does not have to be biological mother/father. Older siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles, family friends and even teachers/sports coaches can be that figure in a childs life.

The argument against same sex marriage is a simple one: It is ungodly. But the bible clearly states in multiple places that marriage is a union between man woman and god. So based on the logic of the argument against same sex marriage, all marriages that are not between two Christians should be also banned. Does Rise Up Australia (and other religious groups) agree or disagree with this?

Having said all this, at least their answers are a lot more direct than a lot of the others that have posted. And at least they (unlike other parties *cough* animal justice *cough*) have the guts to put their controversial policies/beliefs out there.

Darkfalz said :

Clearly I am not oppressed, as I feel quite comfortable expressing my views on family and marriage. I am braver than most though. Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it. Name calling is generally what you do when you disagree with someone but can’t articulate exactly why their points are invalid.

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it. In all but the 18-30 demographic, there simply isn’t. And a referendum would blow this out of the water.

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

Not often (ever?) I would say this, but Darkfalz has written a very good comment there.

Darkfalz said :

bundah said :

BimboGeek said :

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

No I think you’ll find that there’s a huge number who share his views which will be,sadly, evident Saturday week.

Strange thing to say, since your ex-PM Gillard and until very recently would-be-PM-again Rudd shared the same view.

So, sad for you maybe. But the rest of us just get on with our lives.

There are actually lots of people who disagree with gay marriage. Over time this will change, though.

Postalgeek said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Here_and_Now said :

Darkfalz said :

Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it.

It’s not, really. It’s actually fairly non-indicative in that regard.

I think when one party resorts to calling the other names the argument has been lost for sure.

Name-calling might diminish the ability of the name-caller to conduct a rational argument in the eyes of an onlooker, but it doesn’t prove or disprove the position of the other person(s). It just means the argument has yet to be raised to the level of a rational debate.

There is a clear difference between being right and ‘winning’ a rational debate. Name calling has no place in rational debate, however, so once it starts there’s not much point continuing.

MrBigEars said :

I’ve never understood why Govy is in the business of defining marriage in the first place. The state should recognise a formal relationship (and all attendant benefits and responsibilities) and the individuals involved get to call it what the hell they want.

The state does recognise them (defactos have virtually the same rights as married couples) and people can indeed call their relationships what they want. So the situation you described already exists.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Here_and_Now said :

Darkfalz said :

Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it.

It’s not, really. It’s actually fairly non-indicative in that regard.

I think when one party resorts to calling the other names the argument has been lost for sure.

Name-calling might diminish the ability of the name-caller to conduct a rational argument in the eyes of an onlooker, but it doesn’t prove or disprove the position of the other person(s). It just means the argument has yet to be raised to the level of a rational debate.

These guys and the Animal Justice Party are going to be fighting it out for most useless spot on my ballot paper. One’s all hatey and stupid, the other all hatey and fundy *shudders*

I’ve never understood why Govy is in the business of defining marriage in the first place. The state should recognise a formal relationship (and all attendant benefits and responsibilities) and the individuals involved get to call it what the hell they want.

bundah said :

BimboGeek said :

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

No I think you’ll find that there’s a huge number who share his views which will be,sadly, evident Saturday week.

Strange thing to say, since your ex-PM Gillard and until very recently would-be-PM-again Rudd shared the same view.

So, sad for you maybe. But the rest of us just get on with our lives.

BimboGeek said :

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

I think Darkfalz is Philip Pocock. If your ex was like Pocock, you have my deepest commiserations.

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

cherry picked social-media type polling.

Galaxy polls and Fairfax/Neilson polls are cherry picked social media type polling?

ROFL

I’ve looked at the questions asked in such polls, and they are very carefully worded and usually leading. Additionally, even in phone polling (and there are examples of this on other issues, in other countries) there’s a sense that the person feels someone knows their name, address, phone number or whatever, and may feel pressed to give a response. Particularly on social issues where one may not want to share what their real opinion is. Alone in the privacy of a the polling booth though, any such pressure, real or imagined, is off.

As I said, bring on a referendum. A social change this big should go through one anyway (it’s not an economic policy or tax reform, after all). If I’m wrong, I’ll accept it.

You really are detached from reality.

housebound said :

Darkfalz said :

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

I think the Libs are at risk of being a one-term wonder unless they get some rigour into their policy formulation. For the sake of the country, let’s hope Finance (or Treasury?) can get them more grounded.

Anything is possible. The swinging part of the electorate is alarmingly fickle these days. We aren’t the US yet where the welfare vote will get even a terrible president over the line or re-election.

Something to keep in mind though. The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd civil war has wiped out swathes of the party, with resignations from senior staff as well as relatively young ones. Many of their “big hopes” will lose their seat next weekend. Without a shadow cabinet, they risk falling into obscurity. Who will they be replaced with? Yep, the next generation of union cronies. This will just continue the rot. That’s my take anyway.

BimboGeek said :

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

No I think you’ll find that there’s a huge number who share his views which will be,sadly, evident Saturday week.

BimboGeek said :

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

You married a douchebag? Well, I suppose it’s legal, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

Darkfalz said :

You actually expect they’d admit it? What are they scared of, if not a repudiation of the unproven polling they are trying to use to force the issue through parliament as happened in the UK and NZ?

So…no source, then. Just ‘no one admits it, therefore it’s true’.

Um…right.

So noted.

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

cherry picked social-media type polling.

Galaxy polls and Fairfax/Neilson polls are cherry picked social media type polling?

ROFL

I’ve looked at the questions asked in such polls, and they are very carefully worded and usually leading. Additionally, even in phone polling (and there are examples of this on other issues, in other countries) there’s a sense that the person feels someone knows their name, address, phone number or whatever, and may feel pressed to give a response. Particularly on social issues where one may not want to share what their real opinion is. Alone in the privacy of a the polling booth though, any such pressure, real or imagined, is off.

As I said, bring on a referendum. A social change this big should go through one anyway (it’s not an economic policy or tax reform, after all). If I’m wrong, I’ll accept it.

Darkfalz said :

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

I think the Libs are at risk of being a one-term wonder unless they get some rigour into their policy formulation. For the sake of the country, let’s hope Finance (or Treasury?) can get them more grounded.

(To avoid accusations of bias, let’s think of an ALP grand plan that didn’t go according to plan, and then it’s even)

Also is it just me or does darkfalz remind everyone of their douchebag ex husband who didn’t have any real friends?

davo101 said :

Jim Jones said :

and preying for the Liberals.

Perhaps with a rifle from the grassy knoll?

One can only pray..

Here_and_Now said :

Darkfalz said :

Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it.

It’s not, really. It’s actually fairly non-indicative in that regard.

I think when one party resorts to calling the other names the argument has been lost for sure.

Darkfalz said :

cherry picked social-media type polling.

Galaxy polls and Fairfax/Neilson polls are cherry picked social media type polling?

ROFL

Jim Jones said :

and preying for the Liberals.

Perhaps with a rifle from the grassy knoll?

BimboGeek said :

Any lawmaker who intends to legislate in respect to any of the items listed in section 51 and in such a way that people are unable to freely exercise their religion, is going to have his law thrown out by the High Court.

Except that the High Court takes a very narrow interpretation and would probably throw out any challenge.

Here_and_Now said :

Darkfalz said :

Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it.

It’s not, really. It’s actually fairly non-indicative in that regard.

Darkfalz said :

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it.

Citation needed? Because that’s not been the reason against a referendum from anyone I’ve read or heard.

You actually expect they’d admit it? What are they scared of, if not a repudiation of the unproven polling they are trying to use to force the issue through parliament as happened in the UK and NZ?

ScienceRules said :

Boy, this isn’t even wrong. There are many ways to produce a child, none of which require marriage.

If producing children doesn’t require marriage, why do gays require marriage? Say you achieved gay marriage, would you insist on taxpayer funded insemination treatment or surrogates to make up for the “inequality” of not having the biological requirements to reproduce? How about taxpayer funded milk formula for gay dads to make up for the “inequality” of not having milk glands?

There are zero ways to produce a child without a male’s sperm and a female’s egg.

Marriage is a sign that a man and a woman are ready to commit to each other, which is clearly the optimal situation if they are to be conceiving and raising a child together. This is so basic, and it is so clear from countless empirical (not cherry picked) studies that children do best in in-tact biological families.

Good luck to you, but clichés like “on the wrong side of history” and “love is all that matters” don’t add anything meaningful to the debate.

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Amazing what passes for “bigotry” these days. Even when stated with utmost respect and sensibleness.

Homosexuals, the cultural superclass with whom all must agree.

Awwww, the elitist communist homosexual cultural superclass are oppressing you. You poor thing, I really feel sorry for you. No really, I do.

Clearly I am not oppressed, as I feel quite comfortable expressing my views on family and marriage. I am braver than most though. Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it. Name calling is generally what you do when you disagree with someone but can’t articulate exactly why their points are invalid.

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it. In all but the 18-30 demographic, there simply isn’t. And a referendum would blow this out of the water.

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

Sitting on the wrong side of history, denying that it’s happening and preying for the Liberals to turn back the clock.

Darkfalz said :

Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it.

It’s not, really. It’s actually fairly non-indicative in that regard.

Darkfalz said :

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it.

Citation needed? Because that’s not been the reason against a referendum from anyone I’ve read or heard.

Darkfalz said :

.Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

I suddenly became very nauseous.

Have a good read of the Constitution, in particular Section 51: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

And read very carefully the wording of section 116: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

Any lawmaker who intends to legislate in respect to any of the items listed in section 51 and in such a way that people are unable to freely exercise their religion, is going to have his law thrown out by the High Court.

I think it’s abominable that the current wording allows cultural oppression as long as freedom is not being restricted but that’s Australia. As more religions stand up for marriage equality, perhaps there will be reason to challenge the current laws. Two gay people who wish to celebrate the religious and spiritual experience of marriage are currently restricted from practicing that belief.

Jim Jones said :

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Amazing what passes for “bigotry” these days. Even when stated with utmost respect and sensibleness.

Homosexuals, the cultural superclass with whom all must agree.

Awwww, the elitist communist homosexual cultural superclass are oppressing you. You poor thing, I really feel sorry for you. No really, I do.

Clearly I am not oppressed, as I feel quite comfortable expressing my views on family and marriage. I am braver than most though. Being called a bigot is generally a sign you’ve won the argument, or at least that the other person has lost it. Name calling is generally what you do when you disagree with someone but can’t articulate exactly why their points are invalid.

I would love a referendum on the subject because it would put it to bed for at least a decade. Gay marriage proponents don’t, however, because the pressure they try exert relies on cherry picked social-media type polling that there is majority support for it. In all but the 18-30 demographic, there simply isn’t. And a referendum would blow this out of the water.

Hopefully PM Abbott stays in power a long, long time.

Darkfalz said :

CraigT said :

I think you’ve all missed the point: this guy’s platform is specifically predicated on a belief in some kind of sky-fairy.

Actually, his beliefs are predicated on the fact it takes a mother and father to produce a child, and that they are for many obvious reasons the best suited to raise the child. I don’t see where a “sky-fairy” enters into it. God didn’t tell me that men and women are both unique and complimentary, and biologically created to mate with each other. Believing in god or not doesn’t change the basic laws of nature, evolution, companionship and reproduction.

That being said, I have no issues with legal civil unions. People should have no issues with the implicit legal rights revolving around their chosen life partner. Don’t call it a marriage when it isn’t, and don’t push it in schools as though children need to know about it. They need to know how to spell, how to add, and how to find Australia on a map, not what certain groups of individuals get up to in the bedroom.

Boy, this isn’t even wrong. There are many ways to produce a child, none of which require marriage. Sticking your fingers in your ears and wailing “isn’t, isn’t ISN’T” and rejecting even the existance of LGBT people is the very definition of bigotry.

Face it mate, you lost. You’re on the wrong side of history. Gays exist and soon they’ll be able to marry and rightly so. Get over it.

johnboy said :

People drift into charismatic churches in the first place due to a lack of friends and broader community ties.

I’m no fan of them either. Places like Hillsong and C3 are just a money making enterprises, pyramid schemes based around “the tithe”. They don’t teach religion, they teach how bad you are if you don’t give a minimum 10% (plus “offering”) of your income to them, indefinitely.

Robertson said :

watto23 said :

The traditional definition of a family no longer exists
…
but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

I don’t know where you live, but here in Canberra the majority of families are nuclear families consisting of a mother, a father, married, with about 2.5 children.
If you ask people what a family is, the majority will describe that norm.

Mum & dad? Hate speech!

Darkfalz said :

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Amazing what passes for “bigotry” these days. Even when stated with utmost respect and sensibleness.

Homosexuals, the cultural superclass with whom all must agree.

Awwww, the elitist communist homosexual cultural superclass are oppressing you. You poor thing, I really feel sorry for you. No really, I do.

CraigT said :

I think you’ve all missed the point: this guy’s platform is specifically predicated on a belief in some kind of sky-fairy.

Actually, his beliefs are predicated on the fact it takes a mother and father to produce a child, and that they are for many obvious reasons the best suited to raise the child. I don’t see where a “sky-fairy” enters into it. God didn’t tell me that men and women are both unique and complimentary, and biologically created to mate with each other. Believing in god or not doesn’t change the basic laws of nature, evolution, companionship and reproduction.

That being said, I have no issues with legal civil unions. People should have no issues with the implicit legal rights revolving around their chosen life partner. Don’t call it a marriage when it isn’t, and don’t push it in schools as though children need to know about it. They need to know how to spell, how to add, and how to find Australia on a map, not what certain groups of individuals get up to in the bedroom.

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Amazing what passes for “bigotry” these days. Even when stated with utmost respect and sensibleness.

Homosexuals, the cultural superclass with whom all must agree.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I can see the merit in what people here say about two mums or two dads are better than none, etc. I will draw the line and agree with the last statement made by Irwin, that in private people can do whatever they want with whomever they want, they can hold hands and pretend to be couples whether they are gay, bi, both or whatever. When you combine the terms “gay” and “marriage”, two ideologies that conflict in so many ways, there is bound to be some tension from both sides.
As far as I’m concerned, call me a bigot, idiot or whatever you want, marriage is a church instituted union between a man and a woman. When you take that idea anywhere beyond that concept, it deviates from the doctrines and is not considered acceptable.
In terms of law, if gay couples are seeking the same rights as married people, I guess it’s fair enough, but they shouldn’t be calling it marriage. Civil union, registration of relationship perhaps, but NOT marriage. If you want to push this issue, what’s to stop polygamy becoming the norm, say one dad and three wives? I’d love to see the Centrelink payments for that one, especially with 12 kids involved. It just opens up a whole can of worms the taxpayer doesn’t need.

Marriage is much older than the church and in cultures that have no church. To say marriage is a church instituted union is moronic. I got married by a celebrant, are you saying me and my wife’s marriage is not relevant and our children are at a disadvantage because of it?

wildturkeycanoe said :

(cutting for clarity)
As far as I’m concerned, call me a bigot, idiot or whatever you want, marriage is a church instituted union between a man and a woman. When you take that idea anywhere beyond that concept, it deviates from the doctrines and is not considered acceptable..

I’m not going to call you a bigot, or an idiot. But I am going to call you wrong.

Marriage is a union that is sanctioned by the state. That’s why there’s a Marriage act (which was reformed by the Howard Government in 2004 to add the man-woman thing – you’re defending a longstanding institution that’s less than 10 years old).

Marriages can be performed in churches. But they don’t have to be. 69% of weddings were civil ceremonies with no relationship to religion at all.

As well, several churches are happy to perform gay marriages. By picking one narrow definition over others, you’re denying freedom of religion to practice as they see fit.

I think it makes no sense to have relgiious beliefs controlling a civil institution. A comparison is holy communion – churches serve bread and wine, does that mean they should have complete control over how people choose to consume bread and wine?

I’m an agnostic – which means I’m genuinely uncertain about whether there is a god or not. But if there is … I can’t believe he wants people to use religion as a weapon to divide people. That’s what humans do. Flawed, mistaken humans. Who used religion to justify all kinds of horrible things over the years. And will probably do so again.

I respect Irwin’s right to believe what he wants. But he’s wrong on this. He’s not an idiot, and he’s not a bigot. He’s just wrong.

wildturkeycanoe said :

As far as I’m concerned, call me a bigot, idiot or whatever you want, marriage is a church instituted union between a man and a woman. .[/quote>

I’m not going to call you a bigot, or an idiot. But I am going to call you wrong.

Marriage is a union that is sanctioned by the state. That’s why there’s a Marriage act (which was reformed by the Howard Government in 2004 to add the man-woman thing – you’re defending a longstanding institution that’s less than 10 years old).

Marriages can be performed in churches. But they don’t have to be. 69% of weddings were civil ceremonies with no relationship to religion at all.

As well, several churches are happy to perform gay marriages. By picking one narrow definition over others, you’re denying freedom of religion to practice as they see fit.

I think it makes no sense to have relgiious beliefs controlling a civil institution. A comparison is holy communion – churches serve bread and wine, does that mean they should have complete control over how people choose to consume bread and wine?

I’m an agnostic – which means I’m genuinely uncertain about whether there is a god or not. But if there is … I can’t believe he wants people to use religion as a weapon to divide people. That’s what humans do. Flawed, mistaken humans. Who used religion to justify all kinds of horrible things over the years. And will probably do so again.

I respect Irwin’s right to believe what he wants. But he’s wrong on this. He’s not an idiot, and he’s not a bigot. He’s just wrong.

I feel sorry for Rise Up people. I don’t think they have any friends.

Think about your group of friends. Think about your family. My brother married a Chinese lady. My Aunt married a man who had previously been very gay in the theatre. Few of my friends can say their entire family was born in Australia and I can only think of a handful of even my Facebook friends who are 3rd generation Australian on both sides.

Being the racist homophobic party appeals to people who don’t get out and make friends, because you just can’t make friends without being surrounded by a rainbow of all kinds of people. Even in my redneck town my little sister was good friends with a little girl who lived with her mum and stepmum. At work I get lots of love from the Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim staff and so I give them lots back because friendly people just naturally make friends with each other without looking for reasons to hate.

So, I don’t know if I explained it properly but this “we hate everyone” club is their only social contact. Obviously we can’t vote for them but give them their moment and hope that they make friends.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If you want to push this issue, what’s to stop polygamy becoming the norm, say one dad and three wives? I’d love to see the Centrelink payments for that one, especially with 12 kids involved. It just opens up a whole can of worms the taxpayer doesn’t need.

I’m surprised we went this long without the “slippery slope” argument brought up, but here we have it. Though I’m still surprised that nobody has said that gay marriage will open the doors for paedophilia/bestiality/whatever. Thanks wildturkeycanoe for being a little bit more tactful than that, mate.

They are unrelated issues. Yes, there are people in favour of polygamy out there, but until you see a serious push for polygamy in Australia, please stop relating it back to the gay marriage debate.

Ideally, I don’t support a legal concept of marriage for hetero or homosexual people. I would prefer the government to register “civil unions” or similar for everybody, and then priests, civil celebrants, etc. can decide how and for whom they conduct ceremonies. However under the current system, I fully support gay marriage. Furthermore I’m also friends with DrKoresh’s friend with two mums, and I’ll be a second character reference to him and his sisters.

This makes it easy to know who to put list. Thanks RA.

CraigT said :

I think you’ve all missed the point: this guy’s platform is specifically predicated on a belief in some kind of sky-fairy.

Now, this might sound a bit harsh, but if you’re going to start calling anybody an “idiot”, surely there’s a prime candidate you should have in mind….

I don’t blame people for being religious, being religious is one of the defining aspects of humanity. I’m not religious, and the implications of not believing in God or the afterlife scares me shitless everyday. I’m envious of religious people I’d give anything to have that kind of comfort. I just can’t bring myself to sincerely believe in God, and I’m too cynical to recognise theories of immortal existence as anything other than wishful thinking. I don’t see anything wrong with believing, I don’t think it’s stupid or wrong, it’s only wrong when people try to enforce their view of how things should be on other people.

I can see the merit in what people here say about two mums or two dads are better than none, etc. I will draw the line and agree with the last statement made by Irwin, that in private people can do whatever they want with whomever they want, they can hold hands and pretend to be couples whether they are gay, bi, both or whatever. When you combine the terms “gay” and “marriage”, two ideologies that conflict in so many ways, there is bound to be some tension from both sides.
As far as I’m concerned, call me a bigot, idiot or whatever you want, marriage is a church instituted union between a man and a woman. When you take that idea anywhere beyond that concept, it deviates from the doctrines and is not considered acceptable.
In terms of law, if gay couples are seeking the same rights as married people, I guess it’s fair enough, but they shouldn’t be calling it marriage. Civil union, registration of relationship perhaps, but NOT marriage. If you want to push this issue, what’s to stop polygamy becoming the norm, say one dad and three wives? I’d love to see the Centrelink payments for that one, especially with 12 kids involved. It just opens up a whole can of worms the taxpayer doesn’t need.

Robertson said :

Jono said :

Agreed. My mother died when I was 6 and my father never remarried. Should he have been prosecuted for denying me my “basic right .. to have both a male and a female as (my) parents” as I grew up? Or should I have been sent to state care because I was denied this “basic right”?

.

Logic fail. Just because planes sometimes crash doesn’t mean pilots should not be expected to not crash them.

Many people believe a child has a basic human right to its mother and its father. The UN supports this in their declaration of the rights of the child.
Ask any teacher if they are of the opinion that children growing up without both their parents are vastly more likely to be troubled and/or troublesome.

“Ask ANY teacher…” (my emphasis) – I just asked my wife, who’s a primary school teacher, and she strongly disagrees.

“Just because planes sometimes crash doesn’t mean pilots should not be expected to not crash them.” Fantastic non sequitur. Back to the discussion at hand.

Your proposition is that I would have been far better off if my father had remarried, and therefore there should have been pressure brought to bear for him to do so, as it was in the best interests on both me and my brother. Is that not consistent with what you’re saying? By bringing us up in a household without a mother, he was severely disadvantaging us from what you’re saying. Surely the rights of the child take precedence over the rights of the parent and he should have been prevented from allowing us to be brought up with such a disadvantage, shouldn’t he?

“The UN supports this in their declaration of the rights of the child” – Where?

milkman said :

Screaming the others are bigots doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the intellectual capacity of those doing the screaming.

Not “screaming”, milko just pointing out the bleedin’ obvious. Refusing some citizens the same privelages available to the majority based on their sexuality is bigotry. Nothing difficult or controversial there.

I think you’ve all missed the point: this guy’s platform is specifically predicated on a belief in some kind of sky-fairy.

Now, this might sound a bit harsh, but if you’re going to start calling anybody an “idiot”, surely there’s a prime candidate you should have in mind….

Screaming the others are bigots doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the intellectual capacity of those doing the screaming.

CraigT said :

ScienceRules said :

Secondly “traditional marriage” was once defined as a bloke and as many wives as he could support, or a rapist and his victim (as long as he paid the father of the girl that he raped). So what’s your point?

Marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. Some people want to change that. Some of those people think abuse of their opponents is a convincing argument. Who do they think they are kidding?

Quite so, Craig. And we are working to change that definition to more accurately reflect the fact that LGBT people are actually human with just as much right to marry someone they love as anyone else.

A visit to their Facebook page reveals all really…

CraigT said :

ScienceRules said :

Secondly “traditional marriage” was once defined as a bloke and as many wives as he could support, or a rapist and his victim (as long as he paid the father of the girl that he raped). So what’s your point?

Marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. Some people want to change that. Some of those people think abuse of their opponents is a convincing argument. Who do they think they are kidding?

It’s just so hard not to abuse the kind of person that wants to dictate what constitutes a family and family values against majority opinion and without any kind of credible evidence that a “nuclear family” is any better than the alternatives. I mean, it demonstrates a fear (or at least irrational intolerance) of alternative lifestyles when they say gay couples can’t raise children and a total lack of intellectual integrity or credibility when they try to justify their position with anecdotes or inaccurate representations of history as if it were irrefutable fact.

I manage to rise up (haha) above it though, I never resort to abusing cretinous morons, that would be rude.

ScienceRules said :

Secondly “traditional marriage” was once defined as a bloke and as many wives as he could support, or a rapist and his victim (as long as he paid the father of the girl that he raped). So what’s your point?

Marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. Some people want to change that. Some of those people think abuse of their opponents is a convincing argument. Who do they think they are kidding?

watto23 said :

Robertson said :

watto23 said :

The traditional definition of a family no longer exists
…
but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

I don’t know where you live, but here in Canberra the majority of families are nuclear families consisting of a mother, a father, married, with about 2.5 children.
If you ask people what a family is, the majority will describe that norm.

According to the census only 46.1% were two parent families .

>70% of parent families in the ACT are 2-parent families.

83.2% of families are couples. 36.6% are couples without children. 15.4% are single parent familes. That tiny little bit left over are called “other families”.

Robertson said :

watto23 said :

The traditional definition of a family no longer exists
…
but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

I don’t know where you live, but here in Canberra the majority of families are nuclear families consisting of a mother, a father, married, with about 2.5 children.
If you ask people what a family is, the majority will describe that norm.

Firstly that’s not the majority opinion (as if that matters when it comes to human rights anyway), survey after survey has shown opinion in Australia and elsewhere significantly supporting marriage equality.

Secondly “traditional marriage” was once defined as a bloke and as many wives as he could support, or a rapist and his victim (as long as he paid the father of the girl that he raped). So what’s your point?

Robertson said :

watto23 said :

The traditional definition of a family no longer exists
…
but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

I don’t know where you live, but here in Canberra the majority of families are nuclear families consisting of a mother, a father, married, with about 2.5 children.
If you ask people what a family is, the majority will describe that norm.

According to the census only 46.1% were two parent families and this doesn’t discriminate between seperated and remarried families or gay couples and children.
Again you just assume the majority would say that, but clearly the shift is away from what you and Rise Up members think. note how people are not telling rise up they can’t have their mother father and a few kids families. Yet they feel they can tell everyone else that they are wrong.

In a strange way I admire that he’s willing to stand up for such unpopular views. That’s not to say I agree of course… far from it.

He’s picked the wrong electorate – they might have more success in Northern Queensland.

On a different note, his response regarding euthanasia leaves a lot to be desired. Do they do everything possible to prolong the lives of people who don’t want to live anymore? Or is he just avoiding the question while inserting his stance on abortion?

watto23 said :

The traditional definition of a family no longer exists
…
but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

I don’t know where you live, but here in Canberra the majority of families are nuclear families consisting of a mother, a father, married, with about 2.5 children.
If you ask people what a family is, the majority will describe that norm.

johnboy said :

Enough with the personal abuse both of you.

Me, abuse? Never! 😮

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Not everybody shares your opinion, and unless you have any evidence in the form of IQ tests, your “idiot” assertion is baseless.

If you think that children cannot be properly raise by gay couples or single parents, you’re an idiot. And if you think that an IQ test is a comprehensive and accurate assessment intelligence, you’re an idiot.

You’ve missed the point. Labelling somebody an idiot on the sole evidence that they disagree with your opinion is in itself fairly idiotic. An IQ test would be far better evidence than no evidence at all.

And I don’t see anybody saying a single parent “can’t raise a child properly”, I just recognise there is a fairly popular idea that children have a right to their parents.

Many people seem to think adults have a right to children. I would suggest they have got the wrong idea and that the rights of the children are far more important and should take precedence.

johnboy said :

Enough with the personal abuse both of you.

Sorry Dad…

Robertson said :

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

It just makes you an idiot. What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together? A child has a right to a happy and loving home, and having two parents of opposite genders is not a prerequisite do that.

Not everybody shares your opinion, and unless you have any evidence in the form of IQ tests, your “idiot” assertion is baseless.

I’m pretty sure that the term “idiot” in this context actually meant “someone who favours the application of tribal laws born of Iron Age nomadic goatherders to a 21st Century cosmopolitan democracy”. It would probably be more acurate to call such a person “fearful, bigoted, un-thinking and nasty” than an idiot.

ScienceRules said :

blah blah blah this hate-filled bigot blah blah blah

Well done everyone

You disagree with him. Therefore he is a “hate-filled bigot”. Very nice.

I see no evidence that what you say is true. I do see fairly plain evidence that you are a hate-filled bigot yourself though.

Robertson said :

Not everybody shares your opinion, and unless you have any evidence in the form of IQ tests, your “idiot” assertion is baseless.

If you think that children cannot be properly raise by gay couples or single parents, you’re an idiot. And if you think that an IQ test is a comprehensive and accurate assessment intelligence, you’re an idiot.

Jono said :

Agreed. My mother died when I was 6 and my father never remarried. Should he have been prosecuted for denying me my “basic right .. to have both a male and a female as (my) parents” as I grew up? Or should I have been sent to state care because I was denied this “basic right”?

.

Logic fail. Just because planes sometimes crash doesn’t mean pilots should not be expected to not crash them.

Many people believe a child has a basic human right to its mother and its father. The UN supports this in their declaration of the rights of the child.
Ask any teacher if they are of the opinion that children growing up without both their parents are vastly more likely to be troubled and/or troublesome.

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

Maybe bigot is harsh, but its true. while they probably don’t say they disapprove of single parents, their beliefs incriminate them. The traditional definition of a family no longer exists and hanging onto it is a sign that people live in denial and can’t move on. The reality is they can keep their marriage act, but it won’t stop the majority of families these days being non-conformist to their ideals.

Rise up goes last on my ballot. My concern is many preference deals were done and rise up is not last on many tickets that hold opposite ideals…..

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

It just makes you an idiot. What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together? A child has a right to a happy and loving home, and having two parents of opposite genders is not a prerequisite do that.

Not everybody shares your opinion, and unless you have any evidence in the form of IQ tests, your “idiot” assertion is baseless.

Well I was going to wade in here on the views of this hate-filled bigot and his theocratic fellow-travellers but I see that the ever reliable RA mob has done the job already.

Well done everyone

DrKoresh said :

What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together?

I suspect that Rise Up Australia politicians would wholeheartedly support the repeal of no-fault divorce if they thought they could get away with it.

This is a very weird mix of responses, some like 3 and 7, come across as well considered¹, and coherently written expressions of firm policy. Then the answer to 4… in one paragraph it says that housing affordability is tied to commonwealth, local and international factors, but claims it can’t be helped because it would require governments to interfere with the free market. No where else in their answers to I see any concern for interference in the free market.

…and question 9 – the actions of the IMF, WTO and UN are of equal concern to Australian citizens as the NSA when it comes to data gathering? ²

Question 8 just flat out waffles, and totally fails to address the question.³

¹ - Although this one is based on bats#it crazy arse#at fundy logic
² - *Cough* conspiracy nut keywords *cough
³ - Not the only candidate to fail to understand that some of these questions are aimed at them as a person, not just them as a proxy for a party (or in this case a charismatic religious leader of dubious sanity

poetix said :

Rollersk8r said :

Ahh, Rise Up Australia as in the Jesus Rise Up Party. Ok, got it. That’s all I need to know.

I very much doubt that Jesus would vote for these people.

People like this always remind me of the quote that’s been commonly attributed to Ghandi on the subject of Christianity – “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

It just makes you an idiot. What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together? A child has a right to a happy and loving home, and having two parents of opposite genders is not a prerequisite do that.

Agreed. My mother died when I was 6 and my father never remarried. Should he have been prosecuted for denying me my “basic right .. to have both a male and a female as (my) parents” as I grew up? Or should I have been sent to state care because I was denied this “basic right”?

The sex of your parents (or even the number, in my case) isn’t the major issue, what’s critical is to be brought up in an environment where you’re loved, wanted, respected and given the skills to join society.

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

It just makes you an idiot. What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together? A child has a right to a happy and loving home, and having two parents of opposite genders is not a prerequisite do that.

+1000

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

It just makes you an idiot. What do you think we should do about couples with kids who get divorced? Force them to stay together? A child has a right to a happy and loving home, and having two parents of opposite genders is not a prerequisite do that.

“we affirm the basic right for a child to have both a male and a female as its parents (and to know why they are) in the best interests of the child”

I don’t think people like this even realise how offensive statements like this are. Aside from the obvious, that it implies gay couples are incapable of raising ‘normal’ children, what about the umpteen thousand kids (like me) raised in single parent households? What about the traditional family units that abuse and belittle their kids? One of my mates has two mums, he and his sisters are some of the loveliest, most well adjusted people I know. It’s a load of ignorant bullshit that has absolutely no factual basis, it only serves as a smokescreen to cover up bigoted people’s hatred and insecurities.

I need to step back before I start getting abusive about this offensive shite the baldy who spouted it. I’ll finish reading the rest of his responses, maybe he’s redeemed himself in there somewhere.

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

That’s right. It’s the inane fundy bigotry that makes them bigots.

Q4 – The way I read that is despite clear evidence that the electorate thinks housing affordability is a problem, you’re going to dismiss it as a non-issue, and despite seeming to support keeping the government out of the way, you’re fine with continuing the massive and damaging distorting interference it currently conducts.

Great.

pierce said :

Does this mean that people calling for cyclist registration make Rise Up look moderate?

Apparently so.

Robertson said :

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

Who the f*ck is this guy to tell the people of Australia that they can’t provide a loving and safe home for children unless they are a man and a woman. What about sole (not single, this has nothing to do with relationship status) parents of either sex? Are they failing too because the child has only one parent, be it male or female?

Religion and politics do not mix. One is a cult, the other …. well.

Rollersk8r said :

Ahh, Rise Up Australia as in the Jesus Rise Up Party. Ok, got it. That’s all I need to know.

I very much doubt that Jesus would vote for these people.

Ahh, Rise Up Australia as in the Jesus Rise Up Party. Ok, got it. That’s all I need to know.

Opposing changes to the Marriage Act and stating a belief that a child has a right to a mother and a father doesn’t make anybody a bigot.

“Rise Up Australia operates on biblical principles…”

Does that include the principles of slavery that are set out in the Bible?

Q7 and Q8: that’s all I needed to know.

Jim Jones said :

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Yep, that’s a pretty accurate summary.

Ah, the ‘god told me to be a bigot’ party.

Truly the worst of the lot. You have to sink pretty low to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time around, and yet they’ve accomplished it almost without trying.

Does this mean that people calling for cyclist registration make Rise Up look moderate?