17 July 2012

Christian Lobby hits the ACT Greens with a Please Explain on polyamory

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65

The Australian Christian Lobby is mad keen for the ACT Greens’ Generalissimo Meredith Hunter to let us know what she thinks about polyamorous marriage (Big Love).

“Given the Greens have been strong proponents for Territory-based civil unions that mimic marriage, Ms Hunter needs to explain whether we will see a Greens-led push for polyamorous or polygamous civil unions in the ACT,” Mr Shelton said.

I’ve always been a big fan of The Pogues view on the subject “Two wives are allowed in the Army, but one’s too many for me”.

Should we hear back from the Greens we’ll let you know.


UPDATE 17/07/12 13:37 A Greens spokesperson had this to say:

ACT Greens policy platform, as endorsed April 2012 states:

“ACT Greens want legislative amendment to the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to allow for legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.”

Also available here: http://act.greens.org.au/policies/act/sexuality-gender-identity

Views expressed to the contrary are in a personal capacity.

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Mysteryman said :

He would seem more credible if he didn’t make inaccurate statements.

I’d back him over you. Anything in particular you want to use or are we just handwaving?

johnboy said :

Simon Jenkins recently had an excellent article in the Guardian on how the church only recently got involved in the marriage game and dragged the state along for the ride.

If any proof were needed for church disestablishment, it is the capacity of canon lawyers to find quarrels in straws. What consenting adults do in private should be of no concern to governments, and that applies to worship as much as sex. If grownups want to dress in Tudor costume, douse babies in water, intone over the dead and do strange things with wine and wafers, it is a free country. But for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order.

The church has a dreadful record on marriage. Rome placed chastity and celibacy as the highest state of man (and woman), while marriage was for the fallen. As Milton said, the church regarded matrimony as a state of disgrace, “a work of the flesh, almost a defilement”. Only when medieval bishops saw where the money was did they declare marriage “so sacramental that no adultery or desertion could dissolve it”.

Throughout the middle ages the church struggled to gain control of what had been an essentially secular contract between men and women. It was not until the 13th century that weddings had to be hallowed by a priest, even if this meant little more than an exchange of vows in a porch. Churches tried to bribe couples to the altar, as by giving them sides of bacon (hence “bringing home the bacon”). Common law marriage in England was not outlawed until 1753.

He would seem more credible if he didn’t make inaccurate statements.

poetix said :

That’s Malcolm Turnbull, and I wish that he was still leader of the Liberals.

As a swinging voter who has given up hope of voting for any of the major parties until someone decent comes along, so do I.

HenryBG said :

And why would you feel the need for a government licence to regularise your choice of intimate relationship?

Exactly. The government should not be sanctioning, licencing, or certifying any relationship at all.

Simon Jenkins recently had an excellent article in the Guardian on how the church only recently got involved in the marriage game and dragged the state along for the ride.

If any proof were needed for church disestablishment, it is the capacity of canon lawyers to find quarrels in straws. What consenting adults do in private should be of no concern to governments, and that applies to worship as much as sex. If grownups want to dress in Tudor costume, douse babies in water, intone over the dead and do strange things with wine and wafers, it is a free country. But for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order.

The church has a dreadful record on marriage. Rome placed chastity and celibacy as the highest state of man (and woman), while marriage was for the fallen. As Milton said, the church regarded matrimony as a state of disgrace, “a work of the flesh, almost a defilement”. Only when medieval bishops saw where the money was did they declare marriage “so sacramental that no adultery or desertion could dissolve it”.

Throughout the middle ages the church struggled to gain control of what had been an essentially secular contract between men and women. It was not until the 13th century that weddings had to be hallowed by a priest, even if this meant little more than an exchange of vows in a porch. Churches tried to bribe couples to the altar, as by giving them sides of bacon (hence “bringing home the bacon”). Common law marriage in England was not outlawed until 1753.

p1 said :

mouthface said :

So here’s some distasteful shit on a slippery slope:
A woman marries her adult son, both consenting.
Two adult siblings marry, both consenting.
Two adult same sex siblings marry, both consenting.. just saying.
So this is a little unrealistic, but what the heck?

Seems to me, that a large part of any argument about marriage is that a lot of people cannot separate, even a little, the concepts of marriage, sexual intercourse, and reproduction.

Why would you want to separate them?

And why would you feel the need for a government licence to regularise your choice of intimate relationship?

Marriage is just a cultural practice with a particular meaning. The usual sociophobic suspects trying to demolish our society have just latched onto this as their latest battle against society. Why so many in authority feel the need to bother engage with this nonsense is both surprising and ominous for our future.

I’m sure they’ll be “calling the Human Rights Commission” as we speak…plus ca change….

mouthface said :

So here’s some distasteful shit on a slippery slope:
A woman marries her adult son, both consenting.
Two adult siblings marry, both consenting.
Two adult same sex siblings marry, both consenting.. just saying.
So this is a little unrealistic, but what the heck?

Seems to me, that a large part of any argument about marriage is that a lot of people cannot separate, even a little, the concepts of marriage, sexual intercourse, and reproduction.

Walker said :

Let’s not be too anthropocentrically hasty. What is it with first world westerners thinking they’ve got the goods on everything..

Oh, I don’t know, how about the fact the rest of the world’s defective nations and cultures are falling over themselves alternately applying for foreign aid, or trying to emigrate to first world nations?

We *used* to have the goods, now we’re busy crawling up our own arses by forgetting about progress in order to placate crackpot fringes.

Jethro said :

…or a possum doesn’t have the ability to make the informed consent required.

Well, that explains the noises the possums were making in the tree out the front at 3am.

Deref said :

It’s time that religions’ ownership of interpersonal relations was consigned to the dustbin of history.

Someone f**king elect this man/woman as prime minister. That is the best suggestion I have read in this entire thread.

mouthface said :

So here’s some distasteful shit on a slippery slope:
A woman marries her adult son, both consenting.
Two adult siblings marry, both consenting.
Two adult same sex siblings marry, both consenting.. just saying.
So this is a little unrealistic, but what the heck?

I’m with p1 and chewy – “Remove all legal meaning to the word marriage. Have the government hand out “Registration of Relationship Between Two Consenting Adults Certificates” … then the church can hold all the marriages they want and it won’t mean s**t to anyone else.”

Aside from the genetic defect issues noted by Deref, if two people want to enter into a legally recognised relationship (won’t call it marriage) then what the heck indeed? Why do you feel the need to crawl into someone elses bedroom to check? Why are two consenting adults in a consenting relationship “distasteful shit”? Says more about you than them, I reckon.

mouthface said :

So here’s some distasteful shit on a slippery slope:
A woman marries her adult son, both consenting.
Two adult siblings marry, both consenting.
Two adult same sex siblings marry, both consenting.. just saying.
So this is a little unrealistic, but what the heck?

Starting from the irrefutable premise that there’s no such thing as a victimless crime, there’s damn good reason why closely genetically-related people of opposite sexes shouldn’t reproduce. The offspring of such marriages would be highly likely to be victims.

However, “two adult siblings marry, both consenting” – as long as they’re the same sex, no victim, no problem.

Similarly with polygamy.

These things can and probably do go on without official recognition. It’s time that religions’ ownership of interpersonal relations was consigned to the dustbin of history.

Jethro said :

Haven’t the new de facto laws already paved the way for polygamy? If I’m correct (which I may very well not be), I seem to recall that Australia’s most recent de facto laws give legal rights to mistresses of married men.

Honestly, if people want to be in polygamous relationships, why is that an issue for the rest of us? As long as all adult partners in the relationship consent, why is it a big deal (apart from the fact it deviates from current social norms)?

Polygamy has more of a historical basis than gay marriage (and I don’t see how gays getting married should be something that concerns the rest of us either). The Christians certainly couldn’t use biblical law to protest against it.

The slippery slope argument only holds up if the slippery slope leads to truly abhorrent practices (and even then, only if the slippery slope can be proven to actually exist in the circumstances). That’s why the next ‘slippery slope’ argument’ – that gay marraige (and then polygamy) will lead to legalised marriage between adults and children (or adults and animals) doesn’t hold water; surely the key issue in a legal contract between people should be the ability of those entering the contract to consent. A man and a man can consent to a marriage. A man and a woman and a woman can also consent. A child or a possum doesn’t have the ability to make the informed consent required.

Just because an idea is distasteful to us (and to me, the idea of having to share my partner with someone else is very distasteful) doesn’t mean we should prohibit other consenting adults from living the life they want. Polygamous relationships already exist in Australia. They just haven’t been fully codified under law.

Jethro said :

Haven’t the new de facto laws already paved the way for polygamy? If I’m correct (which I may very well not be), I seem to recall that Australia’s most recent de facto laws give legal rights to mistresses of married men.

Honestly, if people want to be in polygamous relationships, why is that an issue for the rest of us? As long as all adult partners in the relationship consent, why is it a big deal (apart from the fact it deviates from current social norms)?

Polygamy has more of a historical basis than gay marriage (and I don’t see how gays getting married should be something that concerns the rest of us either). The Christians certainly couldn’t use biblical law to protest against it.

The slippery slope argument only holds up if the slippery slope leads to truly abhorrent practices (and even then, only if the slippery slope can be proven to actually exist in the circumstances). That’s why the next ‘slippery slope’ argument’ – that gay marraige (and then polygamy) will lead to legalised marriage between adults and children (or adults and animals) doesn’t hold water; surely the key issue in a legal contract between people should be the ability of those entering the contract to consent. A man and a man can consent to a marriage. A man and a woman and a woman can also consent. A child or a possum doesn’t have the ability to make the informed consent required.

Just because an idea is distasteful to us (and to me, the idea of having to share my partner with someone else is very distasteful) doesn’t mean we should prohibit other consenting adults from living the life they want. Polygamous relationships already exist in Australia. They just haven’t been fully codified under law.

So here’s some distasteful shit on a slippery slope:
A woman marries her adult son, both consenting.
Two adult siblings marry, both consenting.
Two adult same sex siblings marry, both consenting.. just saying.
So this is a little unrealistic, but what the heck?

Let’s not be too anthropocentrically hasty. What is it with first world westerners thinking they’ve got the goods on everything. (Not that polygamy would answer much for us, may even backfire in our society as it stands).

At any rate why this even brought up, right? Yes. here it’s a misleading “what next toasters” argument. This approach herewith annulled and void.

Jethro said :

Just because an idea is distasteful to us (and to me, the idea of having to share my partner with someone else is very distasteful) doesn’t mean we should prohibit other consenting adults from living the life they want. Polygamous relationships already exist in Australia. They just haven’t been fully codified under law.

It should be all or nothing, not just single out the 2 member relationships.

Although how many people will get ‘married’ for tax purposes?

PoQ said :

Seriously, the problem with the ACL is that they’re repressed. They are acting like sniggering schoolboys.

Yeah, let’s talk about psycho-sexual disorders…

Haven’t the new de facto laws already paved the way for polygamy? If I’m correct (which I may very well not be), I seem to recall that Australia’s most recent de facto laws give legal rights to mistresses of married men.

Honestly, if people want to be in polygamous relationships, why is that an issue for the rest of us? As long as all adult partners in the relationship consent, why is it a big deal (apart from the fact it deviates from current social norms)?

Polygamy has more of a historical basis than gay marriage (and I don’t see how gays getting married should be something that concerns the rest of us either). The Christians certainly couldn’t use biblical law to protest against it.

The slippery slope argument only holds up if the slippery slope leads to truly abhorrent practices (and even then, only if the slippery slope can be proven to actually exist in the circumstances). That’s why the next ‘slippery slope’ argument’ – that gay marraige (and then polygamy) will lead to legalised marriage between adults and children (or adults and animals) doesn’t hold water; surely the key issue in a legal contract between people should be the ability of those entering the contract to consent. A man and a man can consent to a marriage. A man and a woman and a woman can also consent. A child or a possum doesn’t have the ability to make the informed consent required.

Just because an idea is distasteful to us (and to me, the idea of having to share my partner with someone else is very distasteful) doesn’t mean we should prohibit other consenting adults from living the life they want. Polygamous relationships already exist in Australia. They just haven’t been fully codified under law.

Pork Hunt said :

FioBla said :

> legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I can haz marriage?

Quick, to the RSPCA.

I married a bitch once…

More fool you – I never married mine.

Deref said :

“…civil unions that mimic marriage…”

As opposed to religious ceremonies that mimic marriage?

Ha! +1

Every time any media outlet refers to the “Australian Christian Lobby”, it should include an express statement that the ACL is an unelected (or self-selected) body with absolutely no representative basis from the mainstream Christian religions. It seems – like the similarly concocted Australian Defence Association – to exist purely to give a couple of folk a megaphone to which they are not really entitled.

There might be others of this kind, apart from the bizarre phenomenon of industry lobbyists purporting to offer objectivity.

The simpler course might be to ignore them until they go away. But this would require the Australian media to think beyond reciting what’s in a media release. Seriously, if I marketed myself as the Australian Sensible Lobby, the media would reprint any self-serving rubbish I produced and interview me on TV and radio, when really I may not be all that sensible and I am certainly not the chosen advocate of any group of sensible people.

LSWCHP said :

Pork Hunt said :

LSWCHP said :

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

And to hell, truly ruly, with the ACL.

Your version of hell or theirs?

My understanding of the conventional Christian version of hell is that it would be a pretty bad place to spend eternity. You know, burning in flames while being tortured by demonic monsters etc etc. Honestly, only a collection of lunatics could come up with such a concept, and only lunatics would perpetuate the nonsensical belief that an omnipotent God would sanction such a fate for a person because that person didn’t believe in him/her/it.

So, given the option, I would sentence the ACL and all who sail with them to that particular version of hell because it’s all of their own making. Given that they perpetuate this monstrous nonsense it would be nothing less than they deserve.

I’m cool with that, theirs it is then…

Are the ACL lobbying for the revocation of the divorce laws as well? After all, divorce detracts from the sanctity of marriage. And as marriage is a ritual of the church, all those marriage celebrants performing civil marriages should be sacked too. And people living in sin should be smited thoroughly.

Seriously, the problem with the ACL is that they’re repressed. They are acting like sniggering schoolboys.

GetUp! desreve all they get. Bunch of raving loonies.

Pork Hunt said :

LSWCHP said :

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

And to hell, truly ruly, with the ACL.

Your version of hell or theirs?

My understanding of the conventional Christian version of hell is that it would be a pretty bad place to spend eternity. You know, burning in flames while being tortured by demonic monsters etc etc. Honestly, only a collection of lunatics could come up with such a concept, and only lunatics would perpetuate the nonsensical belief that an omnipotent God would sanction such a fate for a person because that person didn’t believe in him/her/it.

So, given the option, I would sentence the ACL and all who sail with them to that particular version of hell because it’s all of their own making. Given that they perpetuate this monstrous nonsense it would be nothing less than they deserve.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I only believe in gay marriage because it makes the ACL dicks hot under the collar.

Pork Hunt said :

FioBla said :

> legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I can haz marriage?

Quick, to the RSPCA.

I married a bitch once…

You poor c***

FioBla said :

> legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I can haz marriage?

Quick, to the RSPCA.

Why do you discriminate between me and my donkey?

LSWCHP said :

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

And to hell, truly ruly, with the ACL.

Your version of hell or theirs?

LSWCHP said :

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

And to hell, truly ruly, with the ACL.

I love this comment but I wasn’t aware that assholes are organs in the sense the kidneys and liver are…

FioBla said :

> legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I can haz marriage?

Quick, to the RSPCA.

I married a bitch once…

LSWCHP said :

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

I’ve never heard JB referred to as an organ before.

PrinceOfAles5:21 pm 17 Jul 12

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

When will the government realise that they shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? It should be civil unions for anyone and everyone. Anyone wanting to have a relationship recognised by the state should be able to.

+1

Remove all legal meaning to the word marriage. Have the government hand out “Registration of Relationship Between Two Consenting Adults Certificates” (to people who fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay a fee – probably form number RRBTCAC2012).

Then the church can hold all the marriages they want and it won’t mean s**t to anyone else.

Getting down on one knee and saying to your girlfriend “please will you register our consenting adult relationship with me” sound a bit stupid 🙂

johnboy said :

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

I love this place. Any organ that dumps on the ACL and GetItUp simultaneously is truly great. 🙂

And to hell, truly ruly, with the ACL.

> legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I can haz marriage?

Quick, to the RSPCA.

c_c said :

Australian Christian Lobby, Get Up, there both terrible parts of the political landscape. One is for the old and foolish, the other for the young and dumb.

While the Liberal and Labor parties are for the old and dumb and the young and stupid. Have we covered everybody?

Jivrashia said :

Deref said :

“…civil unions that mimic marriage…”

As opposed to religious ceremonies that mimic marriage?

Couldn’t we go back to the good old days of clubbing someone you fancy and dragging them into your cave?

Only Greens live in caves.

Australian Christian Lobby, Get Up, there both terrible parts of the political landscape. One is for the old and foolish, the other for the young and dumb.

Mysteryman said :

You mean like GetUp! ?

(Bolding mine for emphasis)
GetUp and Bennelong Institute
THE MATTER:
Whether GetUp, a registered business name of GetUp Limited, and whether the Bennelong Institute, a registered business name of Jeremy Goff and Associates Pty Ltd, are associated entities.
HOW MATTER RAISED:
Referred by the Special Minister of State

AEC CONCLUSION:
After reviewing the available information, the AEC is unable to conclude that the entities are associated entities for the purposes of the Act. The entities do not appear to be controlled by one or more registered political parties, nor do they appear to operate wholly or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more registered political parties.

In particular, the currently available information does not show a real or actual benefit to any party or parties, nor does it show a sufficiently direct link between the entities and any political party or parties. As a result, the AEC has insufficient grounds on which to undertake a formal investigation under the Act.

(By the way, if in the opinion of the AEC, GetUp doesn’t have any detectable benefit or significantly favourable effect for any party, are GetUp’s organisers really doing anything more than taking a salary, leading a high-profile lifestyle, and spending member’s money under the pretext of ‘providing support to issues their members care about’?)

Mysteryman said :

You mean like GetUp! ?

Pretty much. Actually GetUp are a good example, as there is a lot of similarity between them (and the slightly left leaning chunk of the population who they claim to represent) and the ACL (and the mainstream Christian block they purport to represent).

I find groups like this much more insidious then the obvious lobby trolls – those groups funded by big tobacco, mining or supermarket groups to push and obvious commercial agenda.

GetUp is mostly a way to fleece lefties of their cash. Mind you the ACL do something similar to their own nutbags.

“Marriage: a friendship recognised by the police.” – Robert Louis Stevenson

VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:24 pm 17 Jul 12

Morelia said :

Religious opinion is like a penis; it’s fine to have one and even be proud of it, but don’t bring it out in public and gods help you if you try to force it on my child.

Awesome. Like.

SnapperJack said :

Yes it’s fine for the loopy far-left green lobby to run wild and be promoted up hill and down dale by a compliant media but when a conservative group tries to do it …

We promote their march up to the top of the hill and the march back down again?

p1 said :

Mysteryman said :

I’m sure every lobby group has people who feel that way towards them. Fact is, lobby groups exist because they represent voters whether you like them or not. I could think of a few groups who don’t deserve any attention in my opinion.

The issue is when a lobby group is well funded and reported on, yet actually represent the views of a small minority.

You mean like GetUp! ?

I don’t think it’s really much of an issue at all. Most politicians have a fair understanding of which groups represent who (and how many), and give them an appropriate audience. The real problem is that most voters don’t have any idea and assume that because they oppose/support something (presumably their friends do, too) that most of Australia must oppose/support it to.

The greens should simply ignore them. They’re going to vote for Z anyway – all five of them.

HenryBG said :

qbngeek said :

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

Yeah, same with the homosexual lobby. Not relevant and shut up.

Yes it’s fine for the loopy far-left green lobby to run wild and be promoted up hill and down dale by a compliant media but when a conservative group tries to do it …

Mysteryman said :

I’m sure every lobby group has people who feel that way towards them. Fact is, lobby groups exist because they represent voters whether you like them or not. I could think of a few groups who don’t deserve any attention in my opinion.

The issue is when a lobby group is well funded and reported on, yet actually represent the views of a small minority.

I wish that the ‘Australian Christian Lobby’ would (a) stop trying to muddy the waters on the undeniable justice of gay marriage by dragging in all sorts of other issues and (b) stop giving Christians a bad name as a group of intolerant bogans.

No-one is even suggesting the eminently sensible situation of polyandry (-:

‘Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment %u2013 whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.’

That’s Malcolm Turnbull, and I wish that he was still leader of the Liberals. http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speeches/reflections-on-the-gay-marriage-issue-michael-kirby-lecture-2012/

Deref said :

“…civil unions that mimic marriage…”

As opposed to religious ceremonies that mimic marriage?

Couldn’t we go back to the good old days of clubbing someone you fancy and dragging them into your cave?

qbngeek said :

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

Yeah, same with the homosexual lobby. Not relevant and shut up.

colourful sydney racing identity2:39 pm 17 Jul 12

Deref said :

“…civil unions that mimic marriage…”

As opposed to religious ceremonies that mimic marriage?

Or religions that mimic reality.

Religious opinion is like a penis; it’s fine to have one and even be proud of it, but don’t bring it out in public and gods help you if you try to force it on my child.

chewy14 said :

When will the government realise that they shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? It should be civil unions for anyone and everyone. Anyone wanting to have a relationship recognised by the state should be able to.

+1

Remove all legal meaning to the word marriage. Have the government hand out “Registration of Relationship Between Two Consenting Adults Certificates” (to people who fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay a fee – probably form number RRBTCAC2012).

Then the church can hold all the marriages they want and it won’t mean s**t to anyone else.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:26 pm 17 Jul 12

chewy14 said :

When will the government realise that they shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? It should be civil unions for anyone and everyone. Anyone wanting to have a relationship recognised by the state should be able to.

Once you strip away all the emotion, this is probably the best solution there is. You have a civil union, then if you want a religious marriage you go and get one.

qbngeek said :

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

I’m sure every lobby group has people who feel that way towards them. Fact is, lobby groups exist because they represent voters whether you like them or not. I could think of a few groups who don’t deserve any attention in my opinion.

chewy14 said :

Ah the Greens, what ignorant bigots.
It puts the lie to their apparent support of “Marriage Equality”

+1.

qbngeek said :

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

argh, you beat me to it. These weirdos wield waaaay too much power, unjustifiably. They held Howard and Rudd in thrall, but it’s not clear just how many people they actually represent.
Talk about shadowy men.

qbngeek said :

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

I would like the Australian media to stop giving them so much undeserved exposure. The ACL has a ridiculously small number of actual members, yet the media love flogging their outdated views to the world just to fill some column inches.

And yes, I’m aware that I’m only enabling them by making this thread longer…

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:55 pm 17 Jul 12

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

Ah the Greens, what ignorant bigots.
It puts the lie to their apparent support of “Marriage Equality”

When will the government realise that they shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? It should be civil unions for anyone and everyone. Anyone wanting to have a relationship recognised by the state should be able to.

“…civil unions that mimic marriage…”

As opposed to religious ceremonies that mimic marriage?

The argument that homosexual marriage / civil unions being allowed will end up with other ‘abomonations’ being allowed such as polygamous marriages, people marrying little boys or girls, people marrying animals or even marrying their favourite chair or car.

Mr Shelton, when you resort to that level of argument then you know (or should know) you’ve already lost.

Taking one of the many countries that legalised same-sex marriage, Canada. How exactly did Canadian society collapse into anarchy when it was legalised? What’s that? It didnt? Okay then, how come none of the gay marriages in the countries that have legalised or recognise havent caused any harm to society here? Won’t the society damaging effect cross international borders?

I am mocking you Mr Shelton? Absolutely. I’m married with two children but I would have thought that we would have left such feeble minded thinking back in the middle ages along with the village idiots suffering from clap addled brains.

Ahh, the old so when did you stop beating your wife trick.

I would like the Australian Christian Lobby to shut the f**ck up. Or else, please explain whay you are even relevant in any political debate.

CrocodileGandhi1:27 pm 17 Jul 12

I really hope that the Greens give the correct answer: That there is no good reason not to allow consensual polyamorous marriage, but that this issue is completely tangential to gay marriage and should be considered as a seperate issue.

Though I doubt they will say that, as this will just lead Jim Wallace and his awful cronies to trumpet, “The ACT Greens want to create a path for all of Australia which will inevitably lead to people marrying their toasters!”.

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.