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
Classified Classified 11:29 am 12 Aug 11

Mysteryman said :

00davist said :

No you are not a respectable Aussie, you are an un-educated, Closed minded, Idiot, who believes that if you think its right, it must be right, and to hell with anyone who dare disagree with your lordship.

Honestly, get over yourself, you sanctimonious, self serving, out of touch, TROLL!

Exactly how does that differ from the gay marriage groups, the anti gay marriage groups, the civil libertarians, the religious groups, the atheists, or anyone else squawking about their opinions/beliefs?

It depends on the individual, not the group. There are individuals in most groups who are willing to rationally discuss issues and consider the opinions of others, just as there are individuals are are so rabid they can barely string together.

Personally I think it’s a bit of a shame that the discussion can’t be sensibly had, because it’s an important issue for some people.

dtc dtc 11:45 am 12 Aug 11

Are those arguing for ‘civil unions’ arguing that gays should have civil unions but hetros have marriage? Or that everyone has a ‘civil union’ (and then can, should they wish, add some form of church or belief ceremony to also be ‘married’)?

If the latter, I can understand the point but surely the result is that everyone – including heteros – now are ‘civilly unioned’. So all those people who claim that marriage has 1000s of years of history and meaning will no longer be married, they will now be civilly unioned the same as everyone else?

Do you think people opposed to gay marriage would prefer

(a) gays being able to use the word ‘marraige’ or
(b) being told that they are no longer married themselves (unless they had a church wedding)?

or would this only apply in the future – people already married would be married but people joining up in the future would be civilly unioned?

There is an interesting constitutional issue out of these semantics – the Cth is not able to legislate in respect of ‘civil unions’, only marriage. But marriage in the Constitution may (but not definitely) be able to include gay marriage.

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 11:53 am 12 Aug 11

No. It’s irony. I suggest you find a dictionary and look up a definition.
Almost all satire is based on a foundation of irony, as is a great deal of pastiche. The fact that you know these words and use them properly, but seem to believe that they preclude irony (which is at their very core) bodes ill.

The piece contains irony, but as a piece it is more correctly referred to as a satire on, or pastiche of, a right-wing/Christian post.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pastiche
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

00davist 00davist 12:33 pm 12 Aug 11

Mysteryman said :

00davist said :

No you are not a respectable Aussie, you are an un-educated, Closed minded, Idiot, who believes that if you think its right, it must be right, and to hell with anyone who dare disagree with your lordship.

Honestly, get over yourself, you sanctimonious, self serving, out of touch, TROLL!

Exactly how does that differ from the gay marriage groups, the anti gay marriage groups, the civil libertarians, the religious groups, the atheists, or anyone else squawking about their opinions/beliefs?

Never said it did mate!

00davist 00davist 12:35 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Mysteryman said :

00davist said :

No you are not a respectable Aussie, you are an un-educated, Closed minded, Idiot, who believes that if you think its right, it must be right, and to hell with anyone who dare disagree with your lordship.

Honestly, get over yourself, you sanctimonious, self serving, out of touch, TROLL!

Exactly how does that differ from the gay marriage groups, the anti gay marriage groups, the civil libertarians, the religious groups, the atheists, or anyone else squawking about their opinions/beliefs?

It depends on the individual, not the group. There are individuals in most groups who are willing to rationally discuss issues and consider the opinions of others, just as there are individuals are are so rabid they can barely string together.

Personally I think it’s a bit of a shame that the discussion can’t be sensibly had, because it’s an important issue for some people.

Although, This is a good point.

BTW Classified, I asked a question before, you never answered, Beleive it or not, I am actually interested to hear what you have to say.

So sum up, my question is (without answering with blocks such as ‘god said so’, or ‘It’s always been that way’) Why should marrage be limited to a man an a woman (In your opinion)?

Thumper Thumper 12:49 pm 12 Aug 11

I find it ironic that you’re all arguing over the definition of irony.

Classified Classified 12:50 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

BTW Classified, I asked a question before, you never answered, Beleive it or not, I am actually interested to hear what you have to say.

So sum up, my question is (without answering with blocks such as ‘god said so’, or ‘It’s always been that way’) Why should marrage be limited to a man an a woman (In your opinion)?

Why should it be limited? Because marriage has survived social change over many centuries, always as the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life, and that persistence makes it special and worth preserving in its current form. Does this reason violate the ‘unacceptable answers’ defined in your post? Possibly.

As I said earlier in the thread, although this is my opinion, it’s not one I hold strongly. Quite a few people I know share my view, just as many would prefer marriage to be open to same-sex couples. The difficulty really lies with our lawmakers, as they have to balance opinions like mine against the interests of same-sex couples.

Erg0 Erg0 1:28 pm 12 Aug 11

The “institution” of marriage has changed many, many times over the last couple of thousand years, almost always in favour of allowing greater freedoms to the participants. In many cases, that aspect had survived throughout the history of marriage… until it was changed. Why stop now, at this particular change, unless the root of the issue is that you just plain don’t want to let gay people into your little club?

chewy14 chewy14 1:32 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

So sum up, my question is (without answering with blocks such as ‘god said so’, or ‘It’s always been that way’) Why should marrage be limited to a man an a woman (In your opinion)?

Yes, why should it be limited to a man and a woman?
Perhaps a man and multiple women or multiple men and a woman?
If not, why not?

Classified Classified 1:33 pm 12 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

The “institution” of marriage has changed many, many times over the last couple of thousand years, almost always in favour of allowing greater freedoms to the participants. In many cases, that aspect had survived throughout the history of marriage… until it was changed. Why stop now, at this particular change, unless the root of the issue is that you just plain don’t want to let gay people into your little club?

Using the definition of marriage being the ‘union of a man and woman, entered into for life’, how has that changed many, many times? Just curious – let’s keep it nice.

Erg0 Erg0 1:41 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

The “institution” of marriage has changed many, many times over the last couple of thousand years, almost always in favour of allowing greater freedoms to the participants. In many cases, that aspect had survived throughout the history of marriage… until it was changed. Why stop now, at this particular change, unless the root of the issue is that you just plain don’t want to let gay people into your little club?

Using the definition of marriage being the ‘union of a man and woman, entered into for life’, how has that changed many, many times? Just curious – let’s keep it nice.

My point is that the definition of marriage is transitory and essentially meaningless. It used to include various other “essential” criteria, such as bridal virginity, taking your husband’s name and holding a ceremony in a church. This is why I said earlier that it’s only precedent, not an actual reason.

Classified Classified 1:49 pm 12 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

Classified said :

Erg0 said :

The “institution” of marriage has changed many, many times over the last couple of thousand years, almost always in favour of allowing greater freedoms to the participants. In many cases, that aspect had survived throughout the history of marriage… until it was changed. Why stop now, at this particular change, unless the root of the issue is that you just plain don’t want to let gay people into your little club?

Using the definition of marriage being the ‘union of a man and woman, entered into for life’, how has that changed many, many times? Just curious – let’s keep it nice.

My point is that the definition of marriage is transitory and essentially meaningless. It used to include various other “essential” criteria, such as bridal virginity, taking your husband’s name and holding a ceremony in a church. This is why I said earlier that it’s only precedent, not an actual reason.

OK, I think I see your point now. There have indeed been various changes around things that relate to marriage, such as the examples you gave, but I don’t think these things have changed the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life’. Given that you find the definition itself meaningless (which I’m not criticising, BTW), I guess this is where our viewpoints differ. For me, the definition is important and special – I don’t see it as some kind of ‘club’.

00davist 00davist 1:51 pm 12 Aug 11

I will quickly clarify my ‘Unacceptable Answers’ comment: I am more than happy to engage in discussion over matters such as this, I believe open and fair debate is essential.

It is impossible to have a discussion with people who expect that firmly stating “Because God Said So” is an end-all argument, that can not be opposed, even though it only holds validity to those who share the belief in question.

As for you answer, I have no issue with it, you are not trying to use non-answers, as answers to end discussion in your favour.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and while I personally do not share your view, you have an opinion, based on what marriage means to you, and what makes it significant to you, I imagine therefore, if you were to see change of any form to the use of the word ‘Marriage” it would have a negative impact on it’s importance to you, as that importance is weighted partially on its stability of meaning over time.

Personally, I feel that Marriage needs to find it’s home, as it sits in a bit of a mid point as far as I can tell. If it wants to belong to religion, then it needs to take a step back from being the commonly accepted form of union, IE, if marriage is a Christian ideal, then it needs to become that, and just that, a practise undertaken separately by it’s followers. And we need to move forward and find a new over-arching legal union/ceremony.

I put to you this, If marriage is based in religion, then why does society in general, not object when an atheist man, and an atheist woman are wed? (IE, why do we need to single out a Gay couple as different?)

While we continue to draw lines between straight and gay people, there will never be full equality. I believe that any gay couple should be allowed to do whatever is considered the ‘Norm’ for a couple, so, either marriage stays ‘the norm’ as it currently is, and we allow all people to participate, or it becomes property of Christianity, and we accept that society needs a new ‘Norm’ that everyone can share in equally.

Free speach has been brough up a fair bit here, and I feel what you are saying fits under that heading, while i disagree with you Classified, You have every right to say what you have, My only concern is those who go beyond free speach, iether by trying to force their view onto others, or by using violence.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 1:56 pm 12 Aug 11

Ben_Dover said :

No. It’s irony. I suggest you find a dictionary and look up a definition.
Almost all satire is based on a foundation of irony, as is a great deal of pastiche. The fact that you know these words and use them properly, but seem to believe that they preclude irony (which is at their very core) bodes ill.

The piece contains irony, but as a piece it is more correctly referred to as a satire on, or pastiche of, a right-wing/Christian post.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pastiche
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

I’ve taught theories of satire and pastiche at a university level and if a student started pulling this kind of crap, I’d stare over my glasses at them and snort derisively while those around him shuffled their feet with embarrassment.

Please stop being a d***head. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Classified Classified 2:04 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

I will quickly clarify my ‘Unacceptable Answers’ comment: I am more than happy to engage in discussion over matters such as this, I believe open and fair debate is essential.

It is impossible to have a discussion with people who expect that firmly stating “Because God Said So” is an end-all argument, that can not be opposed, even though it only holds validity to those who share the belief in question.

As for you answer, I have no issue with it, you are not trying to use non-answers, as answers to end discussion in your favour.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and while I personally do not share your view, you have an opinion, based on what marriage means to you, and what makes it significant to you, I imagine therefore, if you were to see change of any form to the use of the word ‘Marriage” it would have a negative impact on it’s importance to you, as that importance is weighted partially on its stability of meaning over time.

Personally, I feel that Marriage needs to find it’s home, as it sits in a bit of a mid point as far as I can tell. If it wants to belong to religion, then it needs to take a step back from being the commonly accepted form of union, IE, if marriage is a Christian ideal, then it needs to become that, and just that, a practise undertaken separately by it’s followers. And we need to move forward and find a new over-arching legal union/ceremony.

I put to you this, If marriage is based in religion, then why does society in general, not object when an atheist man, and an atheist woman are wed? (IE, why do we need to single out a Gay couple as different?)

While we continue to draw lines between straight and gay people, there will never be full equality. I believe that any gay couple should be allowed to do whatever is considered the ‘Norm’ for a couple, so, either marriage stays ‘the norm’ as it currently is, and we allow all people to participate, or it becomes property of Christianity, and we accept that society needs a new ‘Norm’ that everyone can share in equally.

Free speach has been brough up a fair bit here, and I feel what you are saying fits under that heading, while i disagree with you Classified, You have every right to say what you have, My only concern is those who go beyond free speach, iether by trying to force their view onto others, or by using violence.

This is probably the most sensible and balanced discussion I have engaged in with people who don’t share my view on this subject. Thanks for that.

I completely appreciate that we have a ways to go for gay people to have true equality, and that is the reason why I don’t hold this view strongly. I can see that from the perspective of others my view doesn’t seem to promote equality. This is something I’m still working through, although I do think the existing civil unions frameworks goes a way towards providing this equality.

As for the free speech, I agree entirely. Rational discussion is good, forcing opinions onto others is not. Violence is never acceptable.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:10 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

but I don’t think these things have changed the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life’.

You’ll have to scrub that whole ‘entered into for life’ part for a start, which kind of ruins your argument entirely.

Sorry.

Classified Classified 2:13 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

but I don’t think these things have changed the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life’.

You’ll have to scrub that whole ‘entered into for life’ part for a start, which kind of ruins your argument entirely.

Sorry.

Why? Are there marriages that last only for periods specified when the marriage occurs?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:20 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

but I don’t think these things have changed the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life’.

You’ll have to scrub that whole ‘entered into for life’ part for a start, which kind of ruins your argument entirely.

Sorry.

Why? Are there marriages that last only for periods specified when the marriage occurs?

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

but I don’t think these things have changed the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life’.

You’ll have to scrub that whole ‘entered into for life’ part for a start, which kind of ruins your argument entirely.

Sorry.

Why? Are there marriages that last only for periods specified when the marriage occurs?

About a third of all marriages in Australia end in divorce, the concept of divorce is very familiar to us all, and very few people are under any illusions that they can’t get out of marriage quite quickly and easily if and when they want to. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would call that “entered into for life”.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:21 pm 12 Aug 11

The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life … or until one of you has had enough.

Classified Classified 2:26 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life … or until one of you has had enough.

Have you ever been to a wedding where the celebrant said that? Do we attack the idea of a contract because sometimes people don’t meet their obligations? No, didn’t think so.

I know you’re just trolling now, so I won’t bother responding further.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site