15 July 2011

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

| johnboy
Join the conversation
158

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.

Join the conversation

158
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

johnboy said :

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

The Punch have just got up a good article about today’s rabble:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/carbon-freak-show/
and it sounds like they were revolutionaries too, whining for a new election.

By the sounds of it, they got some more footage of Abbott in front of rude signs, again. Fair dinkum, the gist of all this seems to be that, if the conservatives don’t get in, the election is invalid and they howl for a re-draw. It’s not a bloody fete raffle.

Spend some money while you’re here 🙂

colourful sydney racing identity4:46 pm 16 Aug 11

johnboy said :

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

Phew, that’s a relief. There I was thinking that it wasn’t going to happen.

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

colourful sydney racing identity4:42 pm 16 Aug 11

So, has the revolution started yet? When is the election?

EvanJames said :

Bizarre. Since when could demonstraters use the inside of parliament house?

You can hire the great hall for pretty much anything.

Yeah, Jethro’s right. According to the CT, 800 haters flocked into the great hall at Parly House and Bob Katter auctioned off his hat. They were inside hating gays, while outside the carbon tax people worshipped Tony Abbott.

Bizarre. Since when could demonstraters use the inside of parliament house?

I went along and had a squiz this morning.
I think it is/was actually two separate things.
A whole bunch of very old people were going into parliament house for the gay hate meeting, and a whole bunch of rednecks were gathering on the grass out front with poorly spelled signs.

Jim Jones said :

“I hate poofs and science”

Outstanding! Yep, these are the people who should be directing the course of Australian politics.

They have assumed the role of the Real People. I think Alan Jones probably told them they were the Real People. They cannot work out why their guys didn’t get up at the last election, clearly something went wrong so they’re going to fix it.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

+1

“I hate poofs and science”

Outstanding! Yep, these are the people who should be directing the course of Australian politics.

Looks like this is still on today, but they’ve re-branded it as an anti carbon tax rally. What a shame they didn’t co-ordinate with their fellow haters, and schedule it for Monday.

ConanOfCooma said :

I wish, on one hand, that the world was free of the ignorant, uneducated trash of mediocrity these protestors so clearly are.

On the other hand, I’d love to take a cricket bat to the whole lot.

My position on gay marriage is that it’s better to have more love in the world than less. Obviously my position is not shared by all.

screaming banshee8:34 pm 15 Aug 11

Alan Jones hits two birds with one stone.

Jethro said :

Does anyone know if this gay hate rally is still going ahead?
If so, is there any counter-rally planned?
Also, is it (the gay hate rally) linked to the no carbon tax rally also scheduled?

With all the furore over the trucks next week this one seems to have been forgotten.

The trucks are coming to support gay marriage.

Does anyone know if this gay hate rally is still going ahead?
If so, is there any counter-rally planned?
Also, is it (the gay hate rally) linked to the no carbon tax rally also scheduled?

With all the furore over the trucks next week this one seems to have been forgotten.

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.

Okay, you can give it a rest now. We all know about Poe, but to be fair most bible-believers are not as moronic as you portray them. Some are even capable of understanding science.

Mysteryman said :

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.

The bible doesn’t say anything about mobile phones, either…

Jeez, how thick 😛 are you, the bible does not mention mobile phones because CLEARLY, like my toaster, they do not exist.

In other news, you cant read this imaginary comment, on this imaginary website, on your imaginary screen… Because God says NO!

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.

Ahhh, you kidder you. Your post-modern, ironic denial of your ironic intent only increases the irony of the whole discussion.

We are not worthy to be in the presence of such a master of this, the most profound source of humour.

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.

The bible doesn’t say anything about mobile phones, either…

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.

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!

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 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.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster3:48 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.

Someonesmother3:48 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?

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.

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 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?

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.

colourful sydney racing identity3:23 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 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.

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’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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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 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.

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

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 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 :

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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)?

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

And we’ll send you on an intensive course in irony detection.

It’s satire, or pastiche, not irony. Perhaps we can get you on a course.

(Oh, and it’s very well done too!)

The sad thing is that I had no trouble beleiving it to be a non-satirical post, and that i did not find its posting a surprise…

…Views such as the one in Noisy’s post are actually out there! (Ref: CDP)

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

And we’ll send you on an intensive course in irony detection.

It’s satire, or pastiche, not irony. Perhaps we can get you on a course.

(Oh, and it’s very well done too!)

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.

Jim Jones said :

And we’ll send you on an intensive course in irony detection.

It’s satire, or pastiche, not irony. Perhaps we can get you on a course.

(Oh, and it’s very well done too!)

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell… wallowing in a culture of death.

Absolute gold.

That one’s going in the pool room!

Yep, and the poster to the loony bin!

And we’ll send you on an intensive course in irony detection.

Jim Jones said :

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell… wallowing in a culture of death.

Absolute gold.

That one’s going in the pool room!

Yep, and the poster to the loony bin!

Jim Jones said :

I’m pretty sure that A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster just won the entire internet with that post.

Yep! Post of the year! Is there a RA award for that??

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

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!

I’m pretty sure that A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster just won the entire internet with that post.

Thoroughly Smashed10:31 am 12 Aug 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

Nice.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

Absolute gold.

That one’s going in the pool room!

wooster said :

Gershwin has the right to disagree with me – however, he and anyone else here who has a go at people’s very right to protest this is just disgraceful and I challenge them to retract the comments (eg, nuking, baseball bats, etc)

I’ve done none of that. Get your facts right. For what it’s worth, I agree that that is out of line.

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

Gay hate groups? You have got to be f***ing kidding…

(sorry for the language JB)

THIS. Anyone who thinks these are “gay hate” groups is a total moron.

Irony is indistinguishable from stupidity, but either way, that’s a work of art. So much wrong that Johnboy may need to clean out the server with soap and a high-pressure hose.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster2:53 am 12 Aug 11

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

sarahsarah said :

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.

Call me crazy, but I think R. Slicker is using one of those pseudonym thingies that people adopt in order to be able to post anonymously on internet sites. 🙂

Well Gershwin, if it is simply a matter of ‘symbolism’ re: usage of the term marriage, I’d rather we keep it the same. About half of the electorate is over 50 (of those, a great deal in their 80s and 90s) – and a significant proportion of them would be opposed to the use of the term in that manner. Pick a battle you can win – stick to civil union.

To paraphrase the words of a different wise man, we should be weary of considering ourselves morally superior to our grandparents.

In re: the AGW debate; I’ll add my two cents. History is littered with scientific mistakes. ‘Consensus’ is influenced as much by empiricism as it is by zeitgeist. As an avid reader of history, I cannot help but feel we are following another of humanity’s cycles: same mechanism, different subject matter.

In any case, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Gershwin has the right to disagree with me – however, he and anyone else here who has a go at people’s very right to protest this is just disgraceful and I challenge them to retract the comments (eg, nuking, baseball bats, etc) made on this forum because they are an affront to the very values that make Australia a great place to live.

I said it before, but ‘day of darkness’ as a title, in itself is a bit much.

shadow boxer said :

Here’s your quote below, seems like name calling to me.

Seemed appropriate in response to “leftie-elitism at its worst… self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.”

Don’t toss around crap like that unless you’re prepared to get it back.

shadow boxer6:30 pm 11 Aug 11

Here’s your quote below, seems like name calling to me. Again I fail to see how asking 1 in 10 people to fund someones else’s symbolic policy is smart.

Gershwin said “And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer”.

Neanderthalis: “We have a model for carbon pricing that has very low reduction targets, overcompensates households, will damage our export markets and will be implemented by a government that has failed to implement anything effectively.”

I’ll concede your first two points (although it can be argued that’s only marginally palatable politically because it does compensate most households – overcompensation though, yeah, not a fan), reserve opinion on the third, and avoid the fourth (it’s a subject of debate in itself, and despite that pro- and anti- carbon tax proponents tend to be mostly aligned to the left and right respectively, I’m not going there, I’d like to stay on substantive issues).

Wooster:

“Its good fun to see how, on the one hand, public opinion is cited in support of gay marriage… yet overwhelming opposition to the carbon tax is dismissed.”

Yes, and the same applies in reverse. Both sides like to talk up their popular support, where it exists. Fair enough. Which does exactly nothing for matters where actual evidence exists, but does count where it’s simply a matter of opinion. Your argument about referring to the dictionary isn’t useful; dictionaries reflect how we use words, they don’t dictate public policy. The core issue is simply equality – before the law, and in every other sense. A big symbolic part of that is calling it “marriage”, not “civil partnership” or whatever. Although, as a wide man once observed, “Marriage is a friendship recognised by the police.”

Shadow boxer:

“lol, nice try but I think your true colours have been revealed.”

What?

“It’s a shame the proponents of this tax aren’t able to have a reasonable discussion on the best way of attacking the problem without name calling.”

Again, what?

Its good fun to see how, on the one hand, public opinion is cited in support of gay marriage (although whether or not this is the case would depend highly on the way the survey is framed – I can’t comment on that), yet overwhelming opposition to the carbon tax is dismissed. The embracing of the new cause de jour, complemented with enough high-mindedness about how the great unwashed is in no position to comment authoritatively on the subject matter, apparently, is enough to justify the suspension of genuine debate in the eyes of some.

And indeed, Gershwin, ‘marriage’ has exclusively meant the union between a male and a female. Any reputable dictionary (for eg check the shorter OED) would confirm this definition. Several thousands of years of judeo-christian culture and practice have settled that.
And don’t throw any bible-basher bs at me – I don’t believe it – but I put it to you that if the core issue is equality before the law then the most pragmatic manner to achieve it is to avoid the use of the word marriage itself.

Seems like an eminently reasonable solution to me, but then again, it looks like I believe in freedom of assembly, expression and non-violent demonstration, so what would I know?

shadow boxer4:42 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

lol, nice try but I think your true colours have been revealed.

It’s a shame the proponents of this tax aren’t able to have a reasonable discussion on the best way of attacking the problem without name calling.

Clearly asking a small portion of the community to fund the entire initiative is unfair and flawed. You might be some chance if you had a plan where we all contribute equally, but then where would we put the wedge ?

neanderthalsis4:26 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

Neither can the majority of the “price carbon or we’ll all be rooned brigade”.

Whilst I believe that there is no argument over the science of climate change, there is a lot we need to look at before we move to implement an economic solution to a scientific phenomena.

I am yet to see any have well-considered and evidence-based economic views on whether now is the time to impose a carbon price given:
a) the current vulnerability in the domestic and global market;
b) there is no international accord on carbon reduction targets;
c) the current fixed price model is a poor model compared to that taken to the 2007 election by the coalition and that put to parliament by the Rudd govt;
d) the potential damage to our terms of trade and the reduced price competitiveness of Australian goods on the international market;
e) the all carrot and no stick compensation scheme for householders does not provide any incentive for the common folk to change their habits in regard to energy usage or their broader carbon foot print.

We have a model for carbon pricing that has very low reduction targets, overcompensates households, will damage our export markets and will be implemented by a government that has failed to implement anything effectively.

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

Didn’t notice anyone complaining about the 300 carbon extremists demanding a reduction in all Australian’s living standards and a radical redistribution of wealth earlier this year?

shadow boxer said :

Gershwin said :

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

Then it doesn’t matter if I litter then, or dump my rubbish by the side of the road? My littering alone will have almost no effect on the environment.

shadow boxer3:09 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

blowers said :

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

1) I think you misread, It’s the OPPOSED peoples parade.

2) TROLL!

There’s a fine line between love and hate. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

blowers said :

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

What about all those lefties and gays who have made Canberra their home permanently? You’ll have to stay out of town

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

wooster said :

And for the record – ‘marriage’ is a value-laden term.

Yes, it means marriage, nothing less. That is exactly what the issue is all about. Thanks for getting on the same page as the rest of us.

farnarkler said :

There’ll be so many Jesus fish stickers to steal!!!

A scavenger hunt, goodie. Is there a prize for collecting the most.

colourful sydney racing identity10:31 am 11 Aug 11

wooster said :

Of the significant proportion of people opposing gay marriage, the vast majority of them fully support equality before the law; they just oppose the use of that particular term.

Source please, or are you just making it up?

There’ll be so many Jesus fish stickers to steal!!!

“especially in Canberra, we are the thinkers of society. We will be prepared.”

Goodness me – we’ve got a lot of pretentious w*nkers here.
“Day of darkness” my ass. As someone else pointed out, why is anyone disagreeing with you any less able to voice their opinions?

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And for the record – ‘marriage’ is a value-laden term. Of the significant proportion of people opposing gay marriage, the vast majority of them fully support equality before the law; they just oppose the use of that particular term.

Also, the carbon tax, whether you support it or not, is a legitimate issue to be debated or protested. The mere fact that so many of the self-anointed learned-ones in this forum oppose the very right to protest (rather than the substance of the protest itself) is a seriously damning indictment on their judgement.

I don’t think disagreeing with gay marriage means you are a gay hater… sheesh…

Stevian said :

00davist said :

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?

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting. For the purposes of humour and so he can use the phrase slippery slope

Yes, I just noticed the challenge!

Had me going for a moment there, I fully support gay marrage, but imagine if we ended up full across the board, full nationwide compulsory gay marrage for all.

I’m pretty open minded, but I can see that bringing up a few issues with the missus…

…Such as “Who’s He?, And why is he in bed with us?”

marcothepolopony4:32 pm 10 Aug 11

I wonder why Alan Jones won’t come to a Gay Hate parade?

00davist said :

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?

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting. For the purposes of humour and so he can use the phrase slippery slope

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?

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)

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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 Smashed2:29 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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…”

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?

Hdopler said :

How is this a ‘day of darkness’? citizens are utilising their democratic rights to voice their point of view; i.e freedom of political expression. Also, I utterly disagree that the group organising the national marriage day is a “gay hate group”. How does opposing gay marriage suddenly become the same as being anti-gay?

I / we may disagree with what they say but I will defend their right to say it until death!

They can say what they like. They are still a blight where ever they are

How is this a ‘day of darkness’? citizens are utilising their democratic rights to voice their point of view; i.e freedom of political expression. Also, I utterly disagree that the group organising the national marriage day is a “gay hate group”. How does opposing gay marriage suddenly become the same as being anti-gay?

I / we may disagree with what they say but I will defend their right to say it until death!

Sir_Orangepeel11:42 pm 16 Jul 11

vg said :

Funny how they must be ‘gay haters’ because they object to same sex marriage.

Like saying someone is a ‘car hater’ because they object to a road or they ‘hate’ Labor voters because they vote Liberal

Thank you, vg, for a sensible contribution.

The Frots said :

LSWCHP said :

The Frots said :

LSWCHP said :

I’m starting to feel like I’ll be disappointed if these mongrels don’t make an appearance. I’m looking forward to baring my breasts and screaming at them. Or, if not that, then some other method of protest.

If your not a female – then we’re in trouble!

Yep, we’re in trouble. But according to a recent post by Skidbladnir, this is the way that women protest in Zimbabwe, and…uh…well…I’m just looking forward to starting a bit of a multicultural social trend. Hopefully the breast baring and screaming gig will then cross the gender divide and social activism will reach a new peak of activity in Canberra, to the delight of all.

Cool……………………I understand. You realise of course that if you do that you run the high risk of becoming an ‘Icon’ with a swarm of admirers?

Still, the risk you run – people are only human after all………………………….(chuckle, snort).

Let me know if it’s on. I’ll come and while I’ll probably have some nice, warm jacket hiding the man boobs, I’ll be sure to wear the Borat just as ‘support’ for you!!

My understanding is that I’m already an icon with a swarm of admirers. Baring my breasts (such as they are) and screaming (obscenities, of course) at Alan Jones will just increase the size of my, umm, icon, and add to the number of admirers.

Feel free to join me if they are game enough to show up, with or without Borat. 🙂

haroldbeagle9:12 pm 16 Jul 11

>>”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?

vg said :

Funny how they must be ‘gay haters’ because they object to same sex marriage.

Like saying someone is a ‘car hater’ because they object to a road or they ‘hate’ Labor voters because they vote Liberal

What other emotion is inspiring them to fight to deny other people a basic right the rest of us enjoy?

vg said :

Funny how they must be ‘gay haters’ because they object to same sex marriage.

Like saying someone is a ‘car hater’ because they object to a road or they ‘hate’ Labor voters because they vote Liberal

Didn’t you get the memo? Anyone who disagrees with a lefty ideal must be a hater ot a bigot. Impossible that they could have a different opinion.

Funny how they must be ‘gay haters’ because they object to same sex marriage.

Like saying someone is a ‘car hater’ because they object to a road or they ‘hate’ Labor voters because they vote Liberal

LSWCHP said :

The Frots said :

LSWCHP said :

I’m starting to feel like I’ll be disappointed if these mongrels don’t make an appearance. I’m looking forward to baring my breasts and screaming at them. Or, if not that, then some other method of protest.

If your not a female – then we’re in trouble!

Yep, we’re in trouble. But according to a recent post by Skidbladnir, this is the way that women protest in Zimbabwe, and…uh…well…I’m just looking forward to starting a bit of a multicultural social trend. Hopefully the breast baring and screaming gig will then cross the gender divide and social activism will reach a new peak of activity in Canberra, to the delight of all.

Cool……………………I understand. You realise of course that if you do that you run the high risk of becoming an ‘Icon’ with a swarm of admirers?

Still, the risk you run – people are only human after all………………………….(chuckle, snort).

Let me know if it’s on. I’ll come and while I’ll probably have some nice, warm jacket hiding the man boobs, I’ll be sure to wear the Borat just as ‘support’ for you!!

The Frots said :

LSWCHP said :

I’m starting to feel like I’ll be disappointed if these mongrels don’t make an appearance. I’m looking forward to baring my breasts and screaming at them. Or, if not that, then some other method of protest.

If your not a female – then we’re in trouble!

Yep, we’re in trouble. But according to a recent post by Skidbladnir, this is the way that women protest in Zimbabwe, and…uh…well…I’m just looking forward to starting a bit of a multicultural social trend. Hopefully the breast baring and screaming gig will then cross the gender divide and social activism will reach a new peak of activity in Canberra, to the delight of all.

LSWCHP said :

I’m starting to feel like I’ll be disappointed if these mongrels don’t make an appearance. I’m looking forward to baring my breasts and screaming at them. Or, if not that, then some other method of protest.

If your not a female – then we’re in trouble!

I’m starting to feel like I’ll be disappointed if these mongrels don’t make an appearance. I’m looking forward to baring my breasts and screaming at them. Or, if not that, then some other method of protest.

GottaLoveCanberra6:03 pm 15 Jul 11

As long as the protest peacefully then I have no problem with this gathering, after all it is only fair they get to share their concerns too.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

The ABC is in competition with 2GB so it is truly astonishing, not only that anybody could take their “news” (left wing/green propaganda) seriously in the first place, but that someone would post a link onto what is supposed to be a serious and credible news site where the ABC tries to diss quality radio presenters.

I cannot decide which part of that sentence I found the funniest [triple mully]

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster5:06 pm 15 Jul 11

amarooresident3 said :

johnboy said :

source?

Here

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3270042.htm

Come off it! Do you believe anything the ABC says? I heard it from the horse’s mouth this morning, namely Chris Smith. He’s coming, Alan Jones probably won’t due to ill health and prior commitments and Ray Hadley is pencilled in.

The ABC is in competition with 2GB so it is truly astonishing, not only that anybody could take their “news” (left wing/green propaganda) seriously in the first place, but that someone would post a link onto what is supposed to be a serious and credible news site where the ABC tries to diss quality radio presenters.

Postalgeek said :

Consider it Riotact punctuation. Nuke from orbit is the equivalent of a full stop. Reptoids is a question mark, and Mully is an exclamation mark.

Any thread that can’t be solved with a [nuke from orbit] can surely be finished with [if only there was more speed cameras][Mully].

colourful sydney racing identity4:01 pm 15 Jul 11

Postalgeek said :

dpm said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

I love how this quote is used about 5 times a week in various threads. In fact, with minimal effort, i’m sure a version of it could be used as a reply in ANY thread! 😛

Consider it Riotact punctuation. Nuke from orbit is the equivalent of a full stop. Reptoids is a question mark, and Mully is an exclamation mark.

Lazy wit? Yes, but obligatory.

Punctuation [reptoids] Brilliant [Mully]

dpm said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

I love how this quote is used about 5 times a week in various threads. In fact, with minimal effort, i’m sure a version of it could be used as a reply in ANY thread! 😛

Consider it Riotact punctuation. Nuke from orbit is the equivalent of a full stop. Reptoids is a question mark, and Mully is an exclamation mark.

Lazy wit? Yes, but obligatory.

WoodGnome said :

So we will have a day of reckoning on the 16th August, when the sensible can out the raving loony right wingers for their scare campaign. It should be an excellent day. The Left or centre left are not the loonies, especially in Canberra, we are the thinkers of society. We will be prepared.

+1

So we will have a day of reckoning on the 16th August, when the sensible can out the raving loony right wingers for their scare campaign. It should be an excellent day. The Left or centre left are not the loonies, especially in Canberra, we are the thinkers of society. We will be prepared.

Watson said :

We should use it as an opportunity to have our own Canberra Mardi Gras on that day! (Though I admit I am now having fantasies of floats being converted into heavily armed tanks and mowing the lot of them down!)

I agree. I’m sick of these nasty people peddling their hatred. A counter-protest sounds like a very good idea.

colourful sydney racing identity12:31 pm 15 Jul 11

johnboy said :

source?

It was reported on radio national this morning.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

I love how this quote is used about 5 times a week in various threads. In fact, with minimal effort, i’m sure a version of it could be used as a reply in ANY thread! 😛

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Postalgeek said :

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

beat you 🙂

Bastard! I was distracted by the phone ringing.

amarooresident312:21 pm 15 Jul 11

Awww Alan Jones and the rest of the squawkers at 2GB aren’t coming anymore.

Holden Caulfield11:21 am 15 Jul 11

“Natural marriage”

NTTAWT

We should use it as an opportunity to have our own Canberra Mardi Gras on that day! (Though I admit I am now having fantasies of floats being converted into heavily armed tanks and mowing the lot of them down!)

Rawhide Kid Part311:11 am 15 Jul 11

How about a bonfire . It sure as hell is going to be cold up there. (is that an oxymoron?)

colourful sydney racing identity10:54 am 15 Jul 11

Postalgeek said :

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

beat you 🙂

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

colourful sydney racing identity10:52 am 15 Jul 11

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

ConanOfCooma said :

I wish, on one hand, that the world was free of the ignorant, uneducated trash of mediocrity these protestors so clearly are.

On the other hand, I’d love to take a cricket bat to the whole lot.

You know, I couldn’t have summed my feelings about the whole thing better myself!

A +1 from me.

We just need Pastor Danny Nalliah and his Catch the Fire mob of fruitcakes, and we’ve got the hat-trick.

ConanOfCooma10:12 am 15 Jul 11

I wish, on one hand, that the world was free of the ignorant, uneducated trash of mediocrity these protestors so clearly are.

On the other hand, I’d love to take a cricket bat to the whole lot.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.