August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House

johnboy 15 July 2011 160

Earlier in the week we were disturbed that the kings of Sydney talkback radio, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, and Chris Smith, were coming to Canberra to broadcast from the lawns of Parliament House.

We gather that’s for some sort of anti carbon tax rally.

But now the Sydney gay media is noting that there’s going to be a gay hate march converging on our fair city that same day:

A collection of gay hate groups will join forces to rally against marriage equality in Canberra next month.

An initiative of the Australian Family Association, the National Marriage Coalition, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and Dads4Kids: Fatherhood Foundation, the coalition is aiming for a repeat of its 2004 rally which coincided with the Howard Government’s changes to the Marriage Act.

The groups will meet in Parliament House’s Great Hall on August 16.

The ‘National Marriage Day’ is being advertised by the group as being the first day of sitting for the new Senate in which the Greens hold the balance of power, despite the new Senate having already sat this month.
“You are needed in Canberra to show support for natural marriage and warn all politicians,” its call to action on the ACL website reads.

Is it time for Canberra to get it’s freak on?

UPDATE: Thanks to the readers who’ve pointed out Radio National reporting that the unholy trinity are scared to face the people of Canberra.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
160 Responses to August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House
Filter
Order
00davist 00davist 4:12 pm 10 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

00davist said :

That is how you prioritise your life, and as long as no one is getting hurt, and you are happy, then I can’s see a damn issue.

However, Should people who have different priorities, be stopped from getting married?

You know how it is with these things, they start it off as a voluntary scheme, but eventually it becomes compulsory. It’s a slippery slope.*

*Bazinga!

I’m having trouble following you here, are you suggesting if we allow gay marriage, it will become compulsory?

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 4:11 pm 10 Aug 11

R. Slicker said :

I can’t understand why gays would want to embrace a pointless heterosexual ritual when one of the tenets of being gay is the non-conformity.

You’re one of those that does the harm, then?

P:S I’m not against granting marriage rights to gays for so long as they are going to use it appropriately.
But it at least has a detectable effect in reducing HIV infection rates, primarily by increasing the number of people who identify as homosexual, secondarily by reducing the nuber of men partaking in risky behaviour due to marriage enforcing societal relationship norms.

However, stats from Scandanavia suggest that the rate of uptake is less than expected, and that homosexual marriages don’t last anywhere near as long as heterosexual ones and that their rate of divorce is significantly increased .(lesbians particularly).
IE: The gays aren’t really as enthusiastic about the marriage thing as you believe, apparently for them protesting against inequality is more fun than living with equality.
(In so far as conclusions can be drawn from the data against which the phenomenon is measured)

Erg0 Erg0 4:03 pm 10 Aug 11

00davist said :

That is how you prioritise your life, and as long as no one is getting hurt, and you are happy, then I can’s see a damn issue.

However, Should people who have different priorities, be stopped from getting married?

You know how it is with these things, they start it off as a voluntary scheme, but eventually it becomes compulsory. It’s a slippery slope.*

*Bazinga!

00davist 00davist 3:58 pm 10 Aug 11

R. Slicker said :

I’m gay and I don’t support gay marriage.

One of the good things about being gay is the freedom and the fact that you can spend all your money on yourself, you don’t have to see all your money being blown for years on feeding and educating the kids, keeping the missus happy (both financially and sexually), pre-nup agreements and legal hassles and expense when marriages break down.

I can’t understand why gays would want to embrace a pointless heterosexual ritual when one of the tenets of being gay is the non-conformity. As Laura Lee sang in 1971, Wedlock Is A Padlock.

I realise I am in the minority here but I really do think there are other priorities.

That is how you prioritise your life, and as long as no one is getting hurt, and you are happy, then I can’s see a damn issue.

However, Should people who have different priorities, be stopped from getting married?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:58 pm 10 Aug 11

R. Slicker said :

I realise I am in the minority here but I really do think there are other priorities.

The ‘priorities’ argument is a good reason not to do anything. It’s easy to find something that’s ‘more important’.

Back in the day, people used to be able to do many things at once, some of them important, some of them less so.

sarahsarah sarahsarah 3:52 pm 10 Aug 11

R. Slicker said :

I’m gay and I don’t support gay marriage.

One of the good things about being gay is the freedom and the fact that you can spend all your money on yourself, you don’t have to see all your money being blown for years on feeding and educating the kids, keeping the missus happy (both financially and sexually), pre-nup agreements and legal hassles and expense when marriages break down.

I can’t understand why gays would want to embrace a pointless heterosexual ritual when one of the tenets of being gay is the non-conformity. As Laura Lee sang in 1971, Wedlock Is A Padlock.

I realise I am in the minority here but I really do think there are other priorities.

S… seriously? With a name like that you HAVE to be trolling.

My humble apologies if you just have incredibly cruel parents.

R. Slicker R. Slicker 3:42 pm 10 Aug 11

I’m gay and I don’t support gay marriage.

One of the good things about being gay is the freedom and the fact that you can spend all your money on yourself, you don’t have to see all your money being blown for years on feeding and educating the kids, keeping the missus happy (both financially and sexually), pre-nup agreements and legal hassles and expense when marriages break down.

I can’t understand why gays would want to embrace a pointless heterosexual ritual when one of the tenets of being gay is the non-conformity. As Laura Lee sang in 1971, Wedlock Is A Padlock.

I realise I am in the minority here but I really do think there are other priorities.

00davist 00davist 3:16 pm 10 Aug 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

“I oppose gay marriage because…”

…marriage is the union of a man and woman, entered into freely, for life.

That’s just precedent, it’s not a reason. Why do you believe it should stay that way?

It’s a definition. If you want to change the definition, then you change it for everyone.

Circular logic doesn’t actually answer the question.

+1

Classified, Can you actually give an answer to why it should be that way?

Why should it be limited to a man and a woman?

I am happy to consider your reasoning, but please try to avoid barricaiding with comments such as “Becase thats the way it is”, “That’s how it’s always been”, “Because God [or jesus, or Alah, or Pope Paul, Or Uncle Frick’n Cracker] Dais so”

Seriosly, why should it be limited?

EvanJames EvanJames 3:02 pm 10 Aug 11

dtc said :

Why are Dads4Kids (about which I know nothing) protesting against gay marriage – I mean, at the very least they should support gay males getting married, then there are 2Dads4Kids (well, obviously gay men can have kids regardless of marriage).

Dads and Fathers groups seem to be generally angry about everything, from what I can gather.

As for marriage, I think it’s to ensure that men can generate progeny and then ensure that the progeny survive and that they’re THEIR progeny and not some other bugger’s. That’s how it came about, anyway. Marriage is surprisingly similar across the cultures so it’s not founded in religion.

So if they want to invoke the origins of marriage to fight off gay marriage, then to be consistent they have to also condemn any marriages that don’t generate children.

dtc dtc 2:45 pm 10 Aug 11

Come on, surely someone can use the phrase ‘slippery slope’ in this argument….

Why are Dads4Kids (about which I know nothing) protesting against gay marriage – I mean, at the very least they should support gay males getting married, then there are 2Dads4Kids (well, obviously gay men can have kids regardless of marriage).

Eppo Eppo 2:33 pm 10 Aug 11

qbngeek said :

Marriage is an outdated religious concept that has no place in law.

I’m not even sure if it was based on religion originally. Certainly not modern religions anyway.

Thoroughly Smashed Thoroughly Smashed 2:29 pm 10 Aug 11

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

“I oppose gay marriage because…”

…marriage is the union of a man and woman, entered into freely, for life.

That’s just precedent, it’s not a reason. Why do you believe it should stay that way?

It’s a definition. If you want to change the definition, then you change it for everyone.

Circular logic doesn’t actually answer the question.

Classified Classified 2:18 pm 10 Aug 11

qbngeek said :

Marriage is an outdated religious concept that has no place in law. The legal term for ‘marriage’ should be amended to ‘civil union’ or something similar. Then you get ‘civil unionised’ ion the eyes of the law and the government. If you choose to you can then get married in the eyes of whatever tax dodging fairy worshippers, oops I mean church, that you choose.

From a practical perspective, I guess marriage is just one way to gain ‘civil union’ under law. From a legal perspective, it’s no different to having a civil celebrant, or fronting up to the registry office. And it doesn’t matter whether the union is gay or straight, from a legal perspective it’s all the same.

Classified Classified 2:15 pm 10 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

“I oppose gay marriage because…”

…marriage is the union of a man and woman, entered into freely, for life.

That’s just precedent, it’s not a reason. Why do you believe it should stay that way?

It’s a definition. If you want to change the definition, then you change it for everyone.

qbngeek qbngeek 2:14 pm 10 Aug 11

Marriage is an outdated religious concept that has no place in law. The legal term for ‘marriage’ should be amended to ‘civil union’ or something similar. Then you get ‘civil unionised’ ion the eyes of the law and the government. If you choose to you can then get married in the eyes of whatever tax dodging fairy worshippers, oops I mean church, that you choose.

When we got married I refused to refer to it as a marriage and would only refer to it as a joining or affirmation, even then we only did it to make sure we got the same benefits as married couples.

EvanJames EvanJames 2:09 pm 10 Aug 11

It could be an opportunity for fun and profit. Set up a food stall, and serve them highly-priced e coli burgers…. profit.

Erg0 Erg0 2:07 pm 10 Aug 11

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

“I oppose gay marriage because…”

…marriage is the union of a man and woman, entered into freely, for life.

That’s just precedent, it’s not a reason. Why do you believe it should stay that way?

Classified Classified 2:00 pm 10 Aug 11

Stevian said :

Classified said :

haroldbeagle said :

>>”I’d love to take a cricket bat to the whole lot.”

>>”this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem”

>>”I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit”

>>”I am now having fantasies of floats being converted into heavily armed tanks and mowing the lot of them down”

Sorry, but who are the haters?

Probably people who said or wrote those things. But do you think all people who oppose gay marriage believe these things, or support this?

Most do. I can’t think of any good reason to oppose gay marriage, can you?

Not so sure about that. I suspect there are a few people who genuinely ‘hate’ the idea, people who strongly support the idea, and a lot of people who may have an opinion but at the end of the day don’t really care.

Stevian Stevian 1:55 pm 10 Aug 11

Classified said :

haroldbeagle said :

>>”I’d love to take a cricket bat to the whole lot.”

>>”this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem”

>>”I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit”

>>”I am now having fantasies of floats being converted into heavily armed tanks and mowing the lot of them down”

Sorry, but who are the haters?

Probably people who said or wrote those things. But do you think all people who oppose gay marriage believe these things, or support this?

Most do. I can’t think of any good reason to oppose gay marriage, can you?

Classified Classified 1:53 pm 10 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

Hdopler said :

How does opposing gay marriage suddenly become the same as being anti-gay?

Here’s a thought experiment for you – complete this sentence with a statement that is neither directly or indirectly derogatory to gay people:

“I oppose gay marriage because…”

…marriage is the union of a man and woman, entered into freely, for life.

I have no issue at all with the legal recognition of gay unions, including having all legal rights as marriage does.

That said, I feel strongly enough to type a couple of sentences on a website. I don’t feel strongly enough to turn up at a protest. If and when gay marriage is recognised, it won’t change my life. It’s an opinion, and if you disagree with it, I don’t really mind.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site