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
Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:41 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

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.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Classified Classified 2:55 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

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.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Oh FFS! There – happy?

The definition of marriage does not include any disclaimers about early exit. The fact that some people decide to do so (that is, dissolve their marriage) does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original definition. I wouldn’t have thought there’d be too many people who enter marriage honestly who have a specific end date in mind.

You’ve provided nothing to show this to be untrue, other than to say ‘but some people don’t go through with it’.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:06 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

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.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Oh FFS! There – happy?

The definition of marriage does not include any disclaimers about early exit. The fact that some people decide to do so (that is, dissolve their marriage) does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original definition. I wouldn’t have thought there’d be too many people who enter marriage honestly who have a specific end date in mind.

You’ve provided nothing to show this to be untrue, other than to say ‘but some people don’t go through with it’.

So, the definition doesn’t remotely match the reality, but this definition is so important that we should never alter it to be inclusive of same sex couples?

Seems a tad odd to me, to demonstrate such willful blindness towards the definition in one respect, but be so fundamentalist about it in another. To me, it indicates that the problem with gay marriage isn’t changing a definition at all, it’s something else entirely.

Added to which is the fact that that definition is a relatively recent thing anyway. People were getting married thousands of years before the invention of the English language.

00davist 00davist 3:08 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

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.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Jim, at this point in time, the definition reffered to by classified “The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” Remains unchainged.

The change that you are reffering to is not in the difinition itself, but more the increase in people who are no longer sticking to that definition.

I have seen pleanty of people take cars beyond their standard definition, that does not change the definition of a car, it just means that sometimes people find paramaters outside that definition.

Classified,

It seems to me that part of the reason that we have been able to have a good discussion on this mater is the fact that your reasoning is not based in hatred.

You do not seem to oppose gay marraiage due to having a problem with gay people, but more (at least this is what I have perceved) becuse to make such a change would be altering something historic, Like changing the facade of a heritage buliding. It may not necissarily fit the streetscape anymore, but to change it would be to step away from it’s history.

I understand exactly where you are comming from, however, as i have mentioned, the issue that stands is the fact that marriage is still considered the ‘Social norm’, and it is seen as the minority couple that choses not to wed. Therefore, by not alowing gay people to ‘Marry’ we are in effect saying ‘you can not be part of the normal’.

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

If a normal couple is expected (gennerally) to wed one day, then we will never see gay couples as normal unles a) they too can wed, or B) normall couples are no longer expected to ‘Wed’ in the traditional sense of the term.

It is a tricky topic, and the fact is, there is no outcome that will satify everyone, that is why we need to have calm, and rational discussion about the matter, so that not only does everyone feel that they have at least been heard, but also as to come to a result that satisfies the needs of as many people as possible.

And thankyou to you too, It can be hard to have a constructive discussion sometimes.

Erg0 Erg0 3:12 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

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’.

Admittedly, the “club” comment was intended to be a little provocative, though it does cut to the heart of the reason why I assert that opposing gay marriage is inherently anti-gay. Notwithstanding JJ’s objection, the definition of marriage, born of history, could equally be “the joining of two people, entered into for life”. Understand that I don’t equate “anti-gay” with “gay hating”, I simply mean that I feel there is no rational basis for excluding gay couples from marriage.

All of this is rooted in the broader issue regarding the concept of marriage itself – I see it as an evolving social construct, whereas others see it as being an immutable constant in a sea of swirling chaos (pardon the exaggeration), often for reasons that are more emotive than rational. In any case, I realise that not everyone thinks the same way as I do (and vice versa), but I’m satisfied that I’ve conveyed my point of view so I’ll just leave it there.

Classified Classified 3:13 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

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.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Oh FFS! There – happy?

The definition of marriage does not include any disclaimers about early exit. The fact that some people decide to do so (that is, dissolve their marriage) does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original definition. I wouldn’t have thought there’d be too many people who enter marriage honestly who have a specific end date in mind.

You’ve provided nothing to show this to be untrue, other than to say ‘but some people don’t go through with it’.

So, the definition doesn’t remotely match the reality, but this definition is so important that we should never alter it to be inclusive of same sex couples?

Seems a tad odd to me, to demonstrate such willful blindness towards the definition in one respect, but be so fundamentalist about it in another. To me, it indicates that the problem with gay marriage isn’t changing a definition at all, it’s something else entirely.

Added to which is the fact that that definition is a relatively recent thing anyway. People were getting married thousands of years before the invention of the English language.

The definition is fine, in fact the only person that seems to be having a problem is you!

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:13 pm 12 Aug 11

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Classified Classified 3:19 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

Perhaps we need to use the civil union view, whereby anyone who wants to (that is, gay and straight people 18 or over) can be legally recognised as a unoin for legal purposes and registration. Outside this, people would then be free to pursue their own ceremony for personal and/or religious purposes, and we could simply authorise celebrants appropriately. For most people I would think the ceremony would be the important part, and everyone would be under the same legal structure anyway.

Just a thought.

Classified Classified 3:20 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Thanks for your contribution, it is greatly appreciated.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 3:23 pm 12 Aug 11

please tell me that we have not got to page 5 of this without a single ‘i only support gay marriage if both the chicks are hot’ comment.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:27 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Thanks for your contribution, it is greatly appreciated.

No … really … I’m worried. If gay people get married in Australia, all the dictionaries will all be wrong. The repercussions will be widespread and disastrous. Nazis will again ride dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

Classified Classified 3:32 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Thanks for your contribution, it is greatly appreciated.

No … really … I’m worried. If gay people get married in Australia, all the dictionaries will all be wrong. The repercussions will be widespread and disastrous. Nazis will again ride dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

You do realise that the only one carrying on about dictionaries here is you, right?

Are you (or have you been) an academic?

p1 p1 3:42 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

No … really … I’m worried. If gay people get married in Australia, all the dictionaries will all be wrong. The repercussions will be widespread and disastrous. Nazis will again ride dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

Won’t somebody think of the children!!!!11!!1!!!

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life….”

I too was confused by this, but by the part in bold. How come no one ever gathers to protest that divorce should be outlawed and divorcees branded mentally incompetent, and educated about how divorce is a life style choice, which, with the help of Jebus, they can be saved from?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:44 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Thanks for your contribution, it is greatly appreciated.

No … really … I’m worried. If gay people get married in Australia, all the dictionaries will all be wrong. The repercussions will be widespread and disastrous. Nazis will again ride dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

You do realise that the only one carrying on about dictionaries here is you, right?

Are you (or have you been) an academic?

And you do realise that you appear to be the only one who thinks that a particular (modern) definition of marriage is unassailable or unchangeable?

The anti-intellectualism angle is a nice touch though.

Someonesmother Someonesmother 3:48 pm 12 Aug 11

yes for some reason the hate group sent me some literature which I sent back with a terse note expalining that I did not agree with their twisted, small minded propaganda and did not wish to receive their hatred and vilification through the post. Isn’t there some sort of law against inciting public vilification? I will thankfully be away for the weekend so won’t have to experience the the haters trying to take us back to the days of Queen Victoria. Perhaps they would like to bring back child labour and slavery too?

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster 3:48 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

Several people on this board seem to be confused about my previous post. I thought I made it perfectly clear but it looks like I’ll have to clarify and reassert my original post.

It wasn’t “ironic”, “satirical”, “pastiche” or “a send up” it is the truth. Man has no control over the weather or climate, it was predetermined by the Almighty at the time of Creation. Thus, there is no such thing as man-made or anthropomorphic climate change. Just look in The Bible.

As I also said in my post, Cardinal Pell has said that there is no such thing as climate change. Although the Heavenly Father hasn’t given an opinion in an Encyclical or a Papal Nuncio, I’m sure that if this cult of climate change gets any further out of hand he will be forced to act.

The Bible does not say anything about climate change and therefore it doesn’t exist. End of story.

00davist 00davist 3:50 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

00davist said :

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

Perhaps we need to use the civil union view, whereby anyone who wants to (that is, gay and straight people 18 or over) can be legally recognised as a unoin for legal purposes and registration. Outside this, people would then be free to pursue their own ceremony for personal and/or religious purposes, and we could simply authorise celebrants appropriately. For most people I would think the ceremony would be the important part, and everyone would be under the same legal structure anyway.

Just a thought.

I think that is something that needs to be looked into, I guess it’s also the ceremony bit though…

Maybe if we gave ‘Civil Union’ a nice name, and started the tradition of having a somewhat marriage like celebration all tied up with it, and made it so that marriage itself was more an optional extra that some people went and did too, if that was what they wanted.

It would also mean though, that marriage would need to be handed back to the religios entities to cotrol, and no longer would the Govt. have the controll over it, as they do now. as it would be replaced with a non-religios joining ceremony and legal union.

It is likely in that cucumstance, that there would also be some gay marriage, as with marriage back in the hands of the church, some denominations would maybe go for it others would not. I imagine if you were to have a catholic marriage, as an addition to your “Whatever replced marriaged in the general public perception of a normal legal and ceremonial union” (WRMITGEPONLCU) you would not be able to do so if you were gay.

It would become that most couples would be assumed to one day have a Wrmitgeponlcu, and that any cuple would be able to do so, while a couple that happened to also be religios, and wised to do so, could go and have a weding, organised by their church, it would not be a legal thing anymore, but if you beleive in Catholic God for example, you would probably want to have a ‘Wedding’ on top of your Wrmitgeponlcu, so that you felt you were joined in the eyes of god.

00davist 00davist 4:34 pm 12 Aug 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

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

Several people on this board seem to be confused about my previous post. I thought I made it perfectly clear but it looks like I’ll have to clarify and reassert my original post.

It wasn’t “ironic”, “satirical”, “pastiche” or “a send up” it is the truth. Man has no control over the weather or climate, it was predetermined by the Almighty at the time of Creation. Thus, there is no such thing as man-made or anthropomorphic climate change. Just look in The Bible.

As I also said in my post, Cardinal Pell has said that there is no such thing as climate change. Although the Heavenly Father hasn’t given an opinion in an Encyclical or a Papal Nuncio, I’m sure that if this cult of climate change gets any further out of hand he will be forced to act.

The Bible does not say anything about climate change and therefore it doesn’t exist. End of story.

Satirical or not, I still have to add this:

Nor does the bible mention my taoster, Now I’m really confused!

Classified Classified 4:41 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

I’m also a bit confused how your definition of marriage – ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” – is so important given that same sex marriages are legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and parts of the USA.

What’s happena if Australia joins in? Will all our dictionaries explode?

Thanks for your contribution, it is greatly appreciated.

No … really … I’m worried. If gay people get married in Australia, all the dictionaries will all be wrong. The repercussions will be widespread and disastrous. Nazis will again ride dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

You do realise that the only one carrying on about dictionaries here is you, right?

Are you (or have you been) an academic?

And you do realise that you appear to be the only one who thinks that a particular (modern) definition of marriage is unassailable or unchangeable?

The anti-intellectualism angle is a nice touch though.

Still harping on the definition when you’re the only one arguing about it… ok.

I figured the academic thing would get a rise! Have a top weekend!

Classified Classified 5:03 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

Classified said :

00davist said :

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

Perhaps we need to use the civil union view, whereby anyone who wants to (that is, gay and straight people 18 or over) can be legally recognised as a unoin for legal purposes and registration. Outside this, people would then be free to pursue their own ceremony for personal and/or religious purposes, and we could simply authorise celebrants appropriately. For most people I would think the ceremony would be the important part, and everyone would be under the same legal structure anyway.

Just a thought.

I think that is something that needs to be looked into, I guess it’s also the ceremony bit though…

Maybe if we gave ‘Civil Union’ a nice name, and started the tradition of having a somewhat marriage like celebration all tied up with it, and made it so that marriage itself was more an optional extra that some people went and did too, if that was what they wanted.

It would also mean though, that marriage would need to be handed back to the religios entities to cotrol, and no longer would the Govt. have the controll over it, as they do now. as it would be replaced with a non-religios joining ceremony and legal union.

It is likely in that cucumstance, that there would also be some gay marriage, as with marriage back in the hands of the church, some denominations would maybe go for it others would not. I imagine if you were to have a catholic marriage, as an addition to your “Whatever replced marriaged in the general public perception of a normal legal and ceremonial union” (WRMITGEPONLCU) you would not be able to do so if you were gay.

It would become that most couples would be assumed to one day have a Wrmitgeponlcu, and that any cuple would be able to do so, while a couple that happened to also be religios, and wised to do so, could go and have a weding, organised by their church, it would not be a legal thing anymore, but if you beleive in Catholic God for example, you would probably want to have a ‘Wedding’ on top of your Wrmitgeponlcu, so that you felt you were joined in the eyes of god.

Thanks for the discussion, definitely food for thought.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site