National Day of Action for marriage equality

Extremely good post Simbo.

I am not against same-sex civil unions, the problem though is that the Government of the time ripped the whole idea of marriage from the Church and the natural ramifications which I’ll not go into, but simply acknowledge that there is a lot of issues that hinge off a ‘marriage’, instead of coming up with their own policies on the subject.

While convenient for them, we are simply going through the consequences of hollow decision making.

I think we’re missing two big points here:

1) originally, the thread was all about bagging out the socialists. I miss that – that was all kindsa fun, and something we could all get behind. Can’t we get back to bonding over our shared hatred of someone else?

2) If you think the defining characteristic of marriage is “between a man and a woman” … well, that’s something I disagree with profoundly. When I last entered into a relationship that seemed reasonably serious and stable and like something that was going to go on for a while, I started contemplating certain phrases. “Forsaking all others”. “In sickness and in health, for richer for poorer till death do us part”. That’s what marriage is supposed to be about. Being with that someone else, and being with them for the rest of your life, whatever comes along. I really don’t see anything wrong with two adults, of whatever gender, declaring a solemn commitment to one another before friends and family. I like the traditional part of that – that people have found one another, and attached, and held that commitment in their hearts as a serious thing for the rest of their lives. And … I kinda think it’s sad that some people have a problem with that. Not because they’re necessarily bigots. But because their understanding of what other people have in their lives is so very very limited.

What makes a relationship special is very simple. It’s the fact that it’s yours. Big Daves marriage, Maelinar’s marriage, are important and special to them becuase they’re to the most important person to them. That’s it. The fact that two men or two women might happen to have those kinda feelings as well, and want to share it … I think that’s a perfectly lovely thing.

Then again, I’m a big poof about this stuff sometimes.

Who is stifling BigDaves freedom of speech? He has had many opportunities to spout his bigot speech, which he has taken full advantage of. Absolutely no one is stopping him. Just disagreeing with and pointing out a clear cut case of bigotry. Shame on us. Perhaps people have forgotten some of BigDaves quotes, here is one – I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them – Unless every homosexual in the world personally did something to bigdave, then the only other explanation is that he is a bigot. A bigot who doesn’t have the balls to admit it. Also he is the real hypocrit here: He is trying to take advantage of (so-called) left wing ideas about freedom of expression, but only when it applies to himself being able to unreasonably attack a group of people, not when people reasonably attack his ideas.

He also has a sook whenever anybody challenges his ideas, taking advantage of the same freedom of speech that he apparently holds so dear. BigDave: We have to listen to you, you have to listen to us, so hows about you stop pretending anyone is trying to censor you, you’re just not the hard done by victim you so clearly want to be.

Someone help me out, explain to me why gay marriage (not religious marriage, just a civil marriage) would be a bad thing? Without using the following reasons:

1. The church the church!! – Not talking about religious weddings at all. The marriage Act doesn’t define marriage as a religious institution, it is possible to have non religious marriages in australia.

2. Because it isn’t right now! – Laws are designed to be changed, as society progresses. The sentiment that something shouldn’t be legal because it wasn’t previously is clearly bunk, if that were the case then divorce would be illegal, because at some point it was law, and if a law shouldn’t be changed… Not to mention voting etc.

3. Because I dont want it! – Thats not a reason. That is the conclusion, how about some reasons for it.

4. Because goat polygamy will be next! – You don’t know that. Besides, that is not the issue at hand at all, if and when goat polygamy comes up to be legalised, thats when we will discuss goat polygamy, until then how about we stick to what this is really about, homosexual marriage. Remember that? Think of those two in love men who just want to be able to say they are married, that are bloody disliked by BigDave for no other reason than that they exist? That is what we are debating. They are who you want to deny rights to, rights that you take for granted.

But yeah, shame on the left for pointing out to Dave that he is a bigot, thats the real moral crime here.

Read my argument, and those of quite a number of others. Refusing the right to have legally recognized a ceremony that holds cultural and spiritual meaning for many people on the basis that those people are homosexual is discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual preference. Discrimination against someone because of their sexual preference is probably one of the most clear-cut examples of bigotry you can find.

Others wanted to debate on the usage of the term, so I did. I stand by my opinion.

Deadmandrinking said :

“Read the argument and you’ll see I wasn’t the one who brought bigot into this argument.
And think…multiple wives and homosexuality are two different things.”

Read my argument DMD. I wasn’t comparing their relative morality. I was saying that all society has ‘norms’.
Challenging them is OK, but it doesn’t automatically give you the high moral ground where you can sling abuse at all those who aren’t as ‘liberal’ as you. Goodbye.

I think yellow-yolk is an offensive color and anyone who paints the inside of their house with it should be put to death. Do not call me an idiot! It is my opinion and I am entitled to it and it will suddenly implode if you call me names :_(

JB – don’t knock Federation Yellow, thats unAustralian.

Most Australians might oppose painting the inside of your house egg-yolk yellow.

That wouldn’t make it any of their business.

Read the argument and you’ll see I wasn’t the one who brought bigot into this argument.

And think…multiple wives and homosexuality are two different things.

Get over yourself DMD. If you challenge society’s norms, there will always be those who oppose the change. It doesn’t make them a bigot.

Recently an Australian Muslim leader said that polygamy should be allowed in Australia.

I think its fair to say that most Australians oppose the idea of a man having multiple wives, even though it is quite acceptable in many countries.

Are then ‘most Australians’ bigots? No. It is just a view commonly held in this society that a man should have only one wife. If you want to change society’s view, make your case. (I have no problem with gay marriage btw)

Self righteous name-calling at all those who don’t share your particular view doesn’t help your case.

BigDave said :

I wouldn’t waste your time Aurelius.
Freedom of speech is something that’s not allowed on this website. Sorry, what I meant was, freedom of speech is allowed just so long as the resident bully boys on this forum agree with you. If they don’t then prepare for the mother of all hate campaigns!

Shut-up and go back to your yard number 43586. You will not be fed this week.

I wouldn’t waste your time Aurelius.
Freedom of speech is something that’s not allowed on this website. Sorry, what I meant was, freedom of speech is allowed just so long as the resident bully boys on this forum agree with you. If they don’t then prepare for the mother of all hate campaigns!

How was I wrong? Marraige does not belong to any religion and many non-religious people have traditional ceremonies, because it means something to them.

96 was an expression of how you personally feel about tradition. Other people live in this society too. You say you’d rather have something stay in a world that’s constantly changing. Sorry, but you don’t get to decide that. Society does.
109 – Society IS evolving to that point. There have been many, many unofficial marriage ceremonies in Australia and around the world. Legislation is part of the natural evolution of any social institution.
122 – The ceremony of marriage means a lot to many people of all persuasions. To say that this tradition should only be open to certain people..your essential refusing someone the right to practice the traditions of their culture. Yes, I said rights. This is about rights.

It is not marriage that is archaic. It now has the opportunity to evolve and stay relevant to society. It is only the conservatives that want to exclude others from the traditions and institutions of our society and culture that are archaic.

Sorry DMD, but I think you’re wrong.
Dave expressed that he did not like a certain demographic. That is no different to what I did. To give gay people some special status that says “You can’t express a dislike of them” different to any of the groups I mentioned by way of example does not stand up. There is no special status reserved for them. After all, Dave didn’t say he bashes gay people, or denies them any rights. He states a dislike. No different to me saying I dislike Bulgarians, left-handed people or popes.
Throwing names around and trying to label someone ‘bigot’ just because you don’t like his opinions is flawed and as hypocritical as has been pointed out above.
(And for the record, I wasn’t joking, I don’t like Queenslanders).

You’re wrong on both points. Go back and re-read posts 96, 109 and 122. You made a rather feeble effort to respond in post 126, but honestly, you really haven’t engaged in any serious debate about the points being brought up, other to than to sprout crap crap like “your a bigot” and “it’s their right”, without trying to explain or justify either position.

This is my last post in this topic. It’s got nothing to do with heads being held high, it’s about wasting time with someone who clearly can’t play the ball rather than the man, and has not ability to clearly articule an argument.

You were basically saying, as far as I understand it a) That it shouldn’t need to be legislated – which is B-S, because legal recognition and protection of the right to the ceremony does need to be instituted at some point and b) Gay people shouldn’t like marriage because it’s involved with religion, which is also B-S because the marriage ceremony is not the property of any one religion and there have been many, many people who’ve been married in a traditional ceremony (including my parents) and not been religious.

You were using a tactic to walk out with your head high. It’s a cowardly tactic. I see you leaving with your tail between your legs.

Frankly, I couldn’t be arsed going through t all again. The posts are there for you if you want them.

Also, this website seems to have a bug in that for long threads I’m typing blind and guessing the location of the post button, which is probably why my spelling has deteriorated so much!

Alright, go over the points you wanted addressed, I was pretty sure they were covered by myself or others.

You ignored the rest, thoguh, which is where the debtae was starting to get interesting.

You do realize that I addressed the point about marriage and religion very early on in this argument, though…

Religeon spawned from society, not vice-versa.

wow.

not game to say anything on here, I will be labelled a bigot, homophobe etc.

I will just keep my opinions (for once) to myself….

DMD – you ignored most of my points (you certainly didn’t respond to them), got stuck with repetitive crapola, and then wind up by trying to (unsuccessfully) pass off your original comments as the whole story. You really aren’t much of a debater. Shame, really, becuase normally I enjoy having views challenged and debated, but you have the intellect of a child, so it isn’t really worth the effort any more.

You can insert more of your mindless, generic crap below if your like.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

It’s a shame DMD wasn’t able to contiue the debate, but had to resort to the childishness I spoke of earlier. I thought we were having a good discussion before you reverted, and showed your true (shallow) colours.

That is utter b-s VY, the ‘name calling’ came out of your protesting at the word bigot being applied by most to what were clearly bigoted statements. You would have noticed that I held off using that word for the last few statements, then you pulled the ‘argument is too childish’ card because you clearly had no ground and ran away to sulk. If you want to stick to your small-minded views, fine, just don’t go around accusing people of not being good enough to argue with you.

Aurelis…what you’re failing to address is that by saying ‘I do not like gays’, someone is essentially isolating a group with a wide range of backgrounds, views and personalities. Your following examples are a little silly as well (sorry, was that name calling?) – Teenagers? Well, that’s a bit ageist. Queenslander, well, I suppose you were trying to be funny *clap clap*, Young Liberals, that’s political views and with political views, that is a person’s approach to the world around them. You can hate parties who campaigned to have worker’s rights flushed down the toilets. That’s part of the whole ‘affecting other people’ philosophy.

That being said, I do know one of the Liberal Candidates in the ACT and I like him as a person. I’ve said to him I’m not voting for him, but I’ll have a beer and chat with him any time.

Homosexuality does not affect anyone but so-inclined people, and only should affect them in privacy. By saying you hate that group of people based on their sexual perferences, you are, as dictionary.com puts it – n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.’ or a ‘a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own’ Group = homosexuality.

Now before you start jumping up down about myself not liking Big Dave’s opinions, just remember that there is a fine line between ‘opinion’ and ‘bigotry’. Technically, you might say, I could be a bigot, by branding Dave’s bigoted views as bigoted – but then you’d be a bigot by calling me bigot and so on and so forth until we’re all bigots.

Or maybe we could start to understand English. By calling Dave and VY bigots, as they support systematic prejudice by a system and the former has admitted outright prejudice against a certain group of people – am I not merely pointing out a fact? There’s a bit of a line between a political view and outright prejudice, I think. Would refusing to tolerate racism be bigotry? If you answered yes to this question, I have another dictionary definition for you – mo·ron Audio Help /?m?r?n, ?mo?r-/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-on, mohr-] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Just apply 1. 😉

Whether we agree or disagree with Dave, I think it a bit rich to label someone a bigot because he says “I do not like (insert demographic group here)”
I don’t like Young Liberals, (most) Queenslanders, teenagers, those who can’t tell the difference between ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ and people with stupid made-up names. That doesn’t make me a bigot. It just means I don’t like some types of people.

By the way DMD, you’re a poo-poo head.

It’s a shame DMD wasn’t able to contiue the debate, but had to resort to the childishness I spoke of earlier. I thought we were having a good discussion before you reverted, and showed your true (shallow) colours.

Careful Simbo, you smart mouthed homos deserve a slap when you use the big words and fancy ideas.

[Note to Canberra Times journos, this is what we call a joke]

ANd Big Dave, you don’t actually HAVE a question. You have … I don’t know what you have. Perhaps if you could define what the word bigot means, and explain why “I just dislike gays” doesn’t fit under that definition, I’d be able to understand it…

Tap…the time has come…

We shall begin rounding up the homophobes, branding them with numbers and sending them to forced labor camps where they will be starved and subjected to chemical warfare experiments…before we gas them, slowly.

Yes Dave, you are the one being discriminated against here. You are the victim. It must be hard for you. Wah wah wah.

BigDave said :

But you can’t answer the question can you?

What? Why do we all expect you to respect our opinion? Well..for starters, our opinion tends to be more that homosexual people deserve to be judged just the same as everyone else…on the content of their character, not their sexual preference.

You’ve got me quoting Martin Luther King. The man was great, but if I have to quote him to counter something you say, then you really do have a problem.

Aaah, Mael, you’re allowed to hate people wearing pink polo shirts as much as you like. I’m happy to join you. I don’t own a single one. None of the men I’ve ever gone out with has ever worn a pink polo shirt or popped a collar in my presence. So… stupid generalisation number one blown out of the water.

But I think I might sit out your maths class, if you don’t mind. 60 people in the ACT attended the rally. There was also a rally in Melbourne on Sunday, that got a bit of TV coverage (saw it on the channel 10 news) and I believe there are similar ones in other capitals as well. So let’s say that at the very least, the first part of your hypothesis is rather ridiculously flawed.

Plus, let’s add that there’s people like me out there, who do care about the issue, but really can’t abide hanging out with people like Passy any more. So we probably would go onto the 60.

And there may be one or two “don’t cares” on top of that number. Or maybe… oh, probably most of the 19 million who havne’t gone to a rally? And I’m happy for people not to care, as long as their not caring means they don’t oppose anything. If you’re stating you’re opposed to it, it means you damn well DO care, even if you can’t, for whatever reason, bring yourself to admit it.

And I may as well bring in the personal stats card. Out of the four weddings I’ve been to (all between man and woman, all currently legal as far as I know), only one has been in a church, conducted under the heading of any form of religion. That’s 25%. Which is… not a majority. Now maybe I mix in very secular circles, but I’d be willing to bet that the overall percentage of weddings conducted in a religious form of any kind is not a majority. Which makes religion rather irrelevant to this discussion, wouldn’t you say? Never mind that religion is not one monolithic single thought on this issue anyway – it is possible to be homosexual AND have a spiritually supportive base.

But you can’t answer the question can you?

Big Dave the only person defaming your character here is you.

Disliking one person doesn’t make you a bigot.
Disliking a whole group of people, sight unseen, based on their race, religion or sexuality does make you a bigot.

Society does a lot for minority groups – and so we should. If we didn’t, we’d have no wheelchair access, no blood bank for haemophiliacs, no language translators, no gaols etc etc. We’ve moved on from majority rules.

And if there is no need whatsoever for gay couples to be able to declare their love and commitment publicly in front of friends and family while dressed to the nines – then why is there a need for heteros to do this? Can the whole idea of marriage – who needs it??

Mael – where did the 21 million figure come into it? How do you figure that marriage is an important institution to the whole population? Or is that the number of people who think that there shouldn’t be “gay marriage”. I’m think I’m missing your point.

If the argument you’re trying to make is “a majority of the population don’t want gay marriage”, I think that’s debatable. I seem to recall a Hare-Clarke poll showing a majority in support (can’t cite it, and happy to be proved wrong). It just sounds like a bit of a blanket statement for mine.

Big Dave – calling you a pillock doesn’t make DMD, JB or Simbo bigoted. I think it shows remarkable good judgement, myself.

Mælinar – *spoiler alert* I’ve seen S04E13 said :

You can call me a bigot all you like, I don’t care for your reasonings but pink polo shirts with popped collars = Mælinar’s dislike list.

I think its about now that the stats card is going to get pulled. Ironic really when somebody who can’t fathom the difference between the opinion of 21,000,000 and 60 is most probably going to ask it.

Excusing your random comment about polo shirts, do you really think 20,999,940 people were vehemently opposed to gay Marraige? Do you really think there are only 60 gay people in Australia? Give me a march against gay marriage and you’ll have some ground.

VY, whatever, go back to being ignorant and wailing about ‘traditions’ you don’t understand.

Why is it that everyone who didn’t go to this rally is assumed to be against gay marriage? How does that make sense?

I feel your pain BigDave, you’re just trying to honestly let out your opinions, and these people keep pointing out how unreasonable you are. Its damn unreasonable to expect reason from you Dave! Why cant people see that? Its your opinion, and you’re bloody well entitled to it, no reason required!

You’ve been raising the same point over and over. I’ve told you why it’s wrong, you’ve failed to properly challenge mine. Legislation is part of the natural progression of social values and institutions. It also serves other purposes too. That does not mean the first purpose is invalid.

No, I raised and explored a number of points, but you seem stuck on the ‘but it’s just wrong’ approach. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere here. Plus, I had enough of your repetitive BS and name calling.

simbo, I’ve said before I don’t care what names you come up with or how much mud you sling. No sleep will be lost here. I just think you’re all hypocrites.

Hypocritical because it’s OK for you guys to insult me and attempt to defame my character just because I don’t share your views. Yet you expect everyone else to respect yours!

Steady on, you’ve turned into what you claim to hate most. Bigots!

You guys are priceless! LMFAO!

Anyway, that’s it from me on this thread. I’ll leave you to argue amongst yourselves, you’re good at that.

You can call me a bigot all you like, I don’t care for your reasonings but pink polo shirts with popped collars = Mælinar’s dislike list.

I think its about now that the stats card is going to get pulled. Ironic really when somebody who can’t fathom the difference between the opinion of 21,000,000 and 60 is most probably going to ask it.

I gotta say, I always get an education out of the comments field here. Who knew apparently declaring you dislike people based on their sexuality isn’t bigoted? Apparently my understanding of the word “bigot” was entirely mistaken!

You know, you’d almost think a guy who was so incredibly sensative about being called a bigot might go out of his way to be called one. And possibly, oh, I dunno… not be bigoted against people?

It seems wrong that heterosexual couples can get a non religious civil marriage by law yet homosexuals cant. The reasons it is right have been lacking.

Because something is law now doesn’t mean it should be. By that kind of logic the law should never have been changed to give women and aboriginies the vote.

The argument some people, who surely aren’t bigots, have flirted with seems to be because homosexuals are a minority, they shouldn’t have the right to marry… right.

These arguments are so clearly flawed one cant help but wonder if those that hold this idea as true are either lying and coming up with any old excuse to justify an opinion thats real reasons are not particularly socially accpeted anymore, or if they are stupid.

Or both.

I was reading about the concept of legalising multiple marriages the other day, and there some interesting points raised by the women involved in the ‘pro’ lobby. Apparently, at the moment, men and women are entering into multiple marriages unofficially anyway (because their religions allow multiple marriage). So some men are unofficially and illegally ‘marrying’ two, three and even four wives (I have absolutely no idea why anybody would choose to do this to themselves either … and I’m sure my poor husband probably can’t think of anything worse!)but because the marriages are not legalised in this country, the subsequent ‘wives’ have absolutely no legal rights or protection. I felt a bit sorry for the ‘extra’ wives (and their kids).

Now I just need to find two wives…

Deadmandrinking said :

FredJ said :

Dude their periods get synchronised!

Yeah, good point. Three incomes could mean a holiday a month though? For you, of course.

I like your thinking.

FredJ said :

Dude their periods get synchronised!

Yeah, good point. Three incomes could mean a holiday a month though? For you, of course.

Dude their periods get synchronised!

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

DMD, I think we’ve already covered the points you are trying to re-raise. So that’s it from me.

You’ve been raising the same point over and over. I’ve told you why it’s wrong, you’ve failed to properly challenge mine. Legislation is part of the natural progression of social values and institutions. It also serves other purposes too. That does not mean the first purpose is invalid.

Well, Aurelis, I’m not here to change your views. I can only express mine. I’m probably the wrong person to ask anyway. I personally support multiple marriage, as long as it’s consensual by all parties. Why? Because what any number of consenting adults do in the bedroom or in their spare time that does not impact upon anyone else is fine by me. I also don’t think multiple marriages will be as common as homosexuality.

(Plus…dude…two chicks…TWO! Blonde and brunette, spunky and smart sexy, both bi, arm around one, arm around the other…third of the housework, three incomes {or two ;)}, envy of your mates, official kinghood in the tribe of man….DUDE!…I wish the impossible would happen to me, Fred, your a c**t).

Don’t pity me. I don’t have 3 wives – thank god. One woman is plenty!

DMD, I think we’ve already covered the points you are trying to re-raise. So that’s it from me.

DMD, I pity Fred myself.
But my point is that if you support gay marriage, then the same reasoning supports multiple marriage.
For that matter, the same logic supports me marrying a tree (as long as the tree can give informed consent – let’s debate that one sometime).
I personally don’t support the current gay marriage push because I think it’s bad law, and there is no need for it. I’d hoped a discussion such as we’ve had here would show someone showing a need for the reform, but it hasn’t.

Mælinar – *spoiler alert* I’ve seen S04E13 said :

Tagline – I am no longer going to call you a bigot…just ignorant and out of your depth. – Comment by (flap flap flap) DeadManDrinking August 2008.

WMD – you are conveniently answering your own questions. the basic question is why is that tradition important to 21 million people? You said it’s something you feel that’s important, yet you haven’t really given a reason why other than it is tradition. – umm well because its important to 21 million people, as opposed to 60 (which is what this thread is originally about).

While in your world it may seem perfectly acceptable to bend over backwards for every minority group that appears, the real world is not so forgiving and unfortunately you often seem to confuse the two.

You have again not been reading this thread and commenting. Typical. How will society be bending over backwards? Is gay marriage going to affect anyone else other than gays to a substantial degree

G-Fresh said :

Deadmandrinking said :

G-Fresh said :

Congratulations 🙂

Congrats on being a tool 🙂

Congrats on being alcoholic 🙂

Thanks 🙂 I’m proud.

^ I meant Fred…was getting confused by names.

Aurelius said :

Is there any difference between support for gay marriage, and support for multiple marriages?
It’s not affecting anyone else if Fred down the road has three wives, so should he be allowed to?
Every argument I have heard in favour of this proposal applies equally to multiple-marriages. Including the “why not?” asked at #65.

Exactly, why not? I envy dave.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

A reflection of society’s values?

You’d think so, but I suggest that there are examples of where legislation does not reflect society’s values. Also, society’s values are not necessarily consistent. For example, I bet we could easily find people who believe we should legislate the death penalty for murder and violent rape, just as we could find people are believe we should blame all crime on society itself and let offenders walk free.

Also, some legislation is for our own good, even though it may be widely disapproved of, such as security classifying and protecting sensitive govt information.

As I said before, let the govt make provision for gay unions, and then let society run its course in choosing to cater within existing social structures, or not. It’s certainly not up to the govt to legislate the thinking of individual members of society, or their organisations – govt legislation should be largely about regulating actual behaviours. This seems to me to be the way in which we preserve both our freedom of thought and speech while maintaining workable law and order.

Not all legislation is a reflection of society’s values, true, but the natural progression of a changing value is to become legislated at some point.

Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, gender or sexual preference (not political views, note Dave) is something we do need to regulate as well. Refusing the right to get married on the basis of gender and sexual preference is discrimination.

Tagline – I am no longer going to call you a bigot…just ignorant and out of your depth. – Comment by (flap flap flap) DeadManDrinking August 2008.

WMD – you are conveniently answering your own questions. the basic question is why is that tradition important to 21 million people? You said it’s something you feel that’s important, yet you haven’t really given a reason why other than it is tradition. – umm well because its important to 21 million people, as opposed to 60 (which is what this thread is originally about).

While in your world it may seem perfectly acceptable to bend over backwards for every minority group that appears, the real world is not so forgiving and unfortunately you often seem to confuse the two.

I didn’t ask you for examples of bigotry. You just took my views and conveniently put them under your own heading as “Bigotry”. Defaming my character just because I hold different views from yourself can also be conceived as an act of bigotry. But what would be the point of trying to explain that to any of you? You’re too wrapped up in your own ideology to listen to anyone else. Perhaps it’s you who are out of their depth.

Stop talking ‘off the top of your head’?
Maybe then you’ll get called a bigot less.

Yes God.

Deadmandrinking said :

G-Fresh said :

Congratulations 🙂

Congrats on being a tool 🙂

Congrats on being alcoholic 🙂

As for the term Marriage, its archaic at best – if Homosexual males and females can have a marriage, union, joining, whatever you want to call it, so be it, as long as they are afforded the same rights as 2 consenting heterosexual adults.

Agree, although apparently this is isn’t good enough for some.

A reflection of society’s values?

You’d think so, but I suggest that there are examples of where legislation does not reflect society’s values. Also, society’s values are not necessarily consistent. For example, I bet we could easily find people who believe we should legislate the death penalty for murder and violent rape, just as we could find people are believe we should blame all crime on society itself and let offenders walk free.

Also, some legislation is for our own good, even though it may be widely disapproved of, such as security classifying and protecting sensitive govt information.

As I said before, let the govt make provision for gay unions, and then let society run its course in choosing to cater within existing social structures, or not. It’s certainly not up to the govt to legislate the thinking of individual members of society, or their organisations – govt legislation should be largely about regulating actual behaviours. This seems to me to be the way in which we preserve both our freedom of thought and speech while maintaining workable law and order.

Aurelius said :

Is there any difference between support for gay marriage, and support for multiple marriages?
It’s not affecting anyone else if Fred down the road has three wives, so should he be allowed to?
Every argument I have heard in favour of this proposal applies equally to multiple-marriages. Including the “why not?” asked at #65.

I guess some people would draw the distinction that marriage is between two people. I think that is gibberish and ignorant of historical record.

I would then say that I think that should be handled by voluntary societal interaction as well. We certainly have polyamorous relationship groups today. I don’t think they should be recognised by Government or given special monetary remuneration, just like I don’t think any relationship should be.

As for the compromise ‘civil union’ position, ooh now we are getting nuanced. I’m not one to want to splinter an already loose coalition…

G-Fresh said :

Congratulations 🙂

Congrats on being a tool 🙂

I would be interested to know if these “Civil Unions” also include default rights that marriages have like enduring power of attorney, access to partners super if they die tax responsibilities etc.

As for the term Marriage, its archaic at best – if Homosexual males and females can have a marriage, union, joining, whatever you want to call it, so be it, as long as they are afforded the same rights as 2 consenting heterosexual adults.

Just because they are the same sex does not mean that they love their partner any less than a heterosexual couple, and in turn they should get the same rights AND responsibilities as any married heterosexual copule.

As for what they call it, who cares, its a word…as long as it has the same legal rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage its fine by me.

For the record, I have a Mrs and am straight as an arrow.

BigDave said :

I’m not discriminating, I just find them offensive. I don’t like the Labor party very much, but am I discriminating against them by saying that? No, it’s just someone else’s view. Same thing.

Actually technically you are discriminating against them. We all discriminate, it is a necessity of action and thought.

Is there any difference between support for gay marriage, and support for multiple marriages?
It’s not affecting anyone else if Fred down the road has three wives, so should he be allowed to?
Every argument I have heard in favour of this proposal applies equally to multiple-marriages. Including the “why not?” asked at #65.

Congratulations 🙂

You asked for examples of bigotry, we provide them, you decide they were “just off the top of my head” as if that makes it better.

Stop talking ‘off the top of your head’?

Maybe then you’ll get called a bigot less.

BigDave said :

But where is the comparison I was supposedly making? I wasn’t. It was just a sentence I plucked out the top of my head.
Surely I don’t need to explain that to a genius such as yourself?

As for the other nothing point, I don’t think it warrants a comeback.

I think most of you comments have been plucked out of the top of your head. I am no longer going to call you a bigot…just ignorant and out of your depth.

But don’t you think that somewhere along the line, this might need to be legislated? Isn’t that what legislation should be? A reflection of society’s values?

But where is the comparison I was supposedly making? I wasn’t. It was just a sentence I plucked out the top of my head.
Surely I don’t need to explain that to a genius such as yourself?

As for the other nothing point, I don’t think it warrants a comeback.

BigDave said :

Yes tap. In a few decades there will be no boundaries, no rights, no wrongs, sex with animals will be permitted so long as you have a licence. And the society which we once knew will have been slowly eroded away.

Your words not mine.

No comeback on the other point either?

DMD – if you’re so happy to abandon tradition, why can’t you also also abandon the word?

Let’s take your idea of ‘social institution’ and run with it. Do you think it appropriate that the government legislates social institutions? I don’t – that’s for society to decide and evolve. It’s already been suggested to change Marriage Act to Unions Act, which would include gay people in having a formal ‘romantic and financial bond’, as you put it. Isn’t this what the gay community seeks? Gay people (and their supporters) are quick to denounce religious and traditional views – why then insist in being part of a social institution that is not only related, but indeed an integral part of such societal organisations?

This debate is not about how ‘gays getting married affects others’, it’s about altering a social institution that has stood for many generations and represents the human story, which is what tradition is all about. Given that gay people seem, in general, dislike religion (which I don’t blame them for), and have a viable alternative in formal civil unions, I don’t see what the problem is. It seems to me that we have a workable solution.

Where did I say I was comparing gay marriage to bestiality exactly?

I didn’t, you are just implying.

I’m not discriminating, I just find them offensive. I don’t like the Labor party very much, but am I discriminating against them by saying that? No, it’s just someone else’s view. Same thing.

Lets see BD, there was comment 41, that was well beyond gay marriage, and 72 when you compared homosexuality with bestiallity.

So it’s time to stop the lies in your frantic and feeble attempts at self-justification.

If you don’t like being called a bigot I suggest you stop talking like one.

What I find outrageous is that you are offended by the word ‘bigot’, when you openly say you do not like homosexuals…which is basically discriminating by sexual preference.

I shouldn’t say outrageous, I should say depressed at the state of humanity.

Like I said, DMD. It’s my opinion and one which I’m entitled to. The problem is that the entire gay population and yourself seem to find it outrageous that some of us think differently.

BigDave said :

What’s interesting here is the fact that, unlike some people, I’ve not called anyone by any name or tried to defame their character simply because they disagree with my views. That wouldn’t be fair, but it’s deemed OK for you to do it to me and pretty predictable all the same. All I’ve done is express my disapproval of gay marriage, no more, no less.
I can only guess that if you feel the need to use these tactics then you’re pretty much out of ideas and are just desperate as hell to win the argument.

Sticks and stones…

#19 “Who gives a flying f**k about gay marriage? I certainly don’t. And I don’t like that word “homophobia” either. A phobia is a fear. I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them. And before you all jump up and shout “bigot” and “narrow minded”, may I remind you that it’s my opinion and I’m damn well entitled to it.”

Apart from the entire gay population, including the ones that post on this site…

Go home, sweet cheeks.

I wasn’t calling you names in that last post.

It has been thought about, probably a lot more than on the opposition’s part. I note no realistic reason as to why marriage should be kept between a man and a woman has been given – other than not very detailed excuses about religion and tradition. The first is easy – we no longer live in a one-religion society, so separation between traditional religious values and the state is an important attitude in regards to social issue. With tradition…the basic question is why is that tradition important to 21 million people? You said it’s something you feel that’s important, yet you haven’t really given a reason why other than it is tradition.

The reason that we should allow gay marriage is because marriage is not a tradition ‘owned’ by any one institution. It is something that has been with many of the societies that have come together to make this country for thousands of years. In fact, I will remove the word ‘tradition’ and replace it with ‘social institution’, as the manner and ceremonies under which this institution has been conducted have changed and varied from culture to culture.

Marriage basically represent the romantic and financial bond of a couple. It is a step which many relationships strive to reach, and it is important for a good number of people.

Relationships have changed over the years. Homosexuality is now becoming more accepted. We have many openly homosexual people in positions of power and importance. IVF technology allows same-sex couples to produce children. Homosexuality is slowly losing it’s alienation from society, and morally, there is no problem with that.

The reason marriage as an institution should change is not simply for the sake of change, it is because it’s position as a social institution requires it to meet the needs of society. Homosexual couples may not be a majority, but they do have a number and their needs need to be addressed by our society and it’s institutions, especially if it really is at little cost to society.

There is really no downside to it. Homosexuality involves two people and primarily affects two people (the rest can really grow up and just accept it, to be honest). Banning gay marriage affects a sizable group of people, not banning affects a small portion of society to a lesser degree – kind of like Todd Carney not being able to play in the Raiders, really.

Can you give me an honest example of how a married gay couple would affect the lives of someone else, based on their sexuality and in a degree that is worse than not being able to have the same rights as everyone else?

What’s interesting here is the fact that, unlike some people, I’ve not called anyone by any name or tried to defame their character simply because they disagree with my views. That wouldn’t be fair, but it’s deemed OK for you to do it to me and pretty predictable all the same. All I’ve done is express my disapproval of gay marriage, no more, no less.
I can only guess that if you feel the need to use these tactics then you’re pretty much out of ideas and are just desperate as hell to win the argument.

Sticks and stones…

Post #100, post #100… woo hoo!

The theory that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer relevant in today’s society.

Why? Try to explain your position without the emotion and name calling.

That is the problem with traditionalism in regards to law and social issues. Times change, people change, technology changes, attitudes change.

True, but not all of it is good. Which is why we need to think about things. The attitude of changing only for the sake of change, and blindly accepting anything without due thought is an attitude prevalent in the young (and often immature) as they strive to make their mark on the world. I fear you are falling into this category.

As Jakez said, I am willing to seriously consider an alternate point of view by trying to analyse exactly why I disagree something. I invite you to do the same – try to step away from the righteous indignation and actually think instead of sprouting the change for change’s sake that you have been.

Hang on DMD let us note that VY essentially took a giant leap into strongly considering a change to civil unions in terms of Government action, leaving marriage and its recognition to society/cultural groups.

Now I accept absolutely your point that in a private organisation realm, precluding gay marriage is ‘discriminatory’. Note that many things we do are discriminatory and discrimination is not a bad thing at all, I believe you are suggesting that this discrimination would be ‘bad or unjust discrimination’. I also agree with you that within this private sphere I would prefer gay marriages to be recognised. That is a fight that members of a religion/cultural group must have on an intra level.

However your post seems strongly combative and I would suggest needlessly so. Do not strike someone who has taken a step towards adopting a pluralist view lest you push them back into their shell.

As for BigDave however, have at it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

If the harm is with the word, why not take the reverse angle. Change the “Marriage Act” to the “Civil Unions Act” and apply it to everyone regardless of sexuality. Churches can still call it a marriage (in the eyes of the church, the rites of marriage form a marriage with or without the civil component under the Marriage Act.

This seems entirely reasonable to me. I guess, though, that I would put myself in with traditionalists in this argument, meaning that I would prefer the term marriage to maintain it’s traditional meaning.

As I alluded to earlier, I don’t have a problem with gay civil unions. But marriage has a specific, traditional meaning to me, and I don’t want it changed simply because a minority to whom it previously hasn’t applied now wants in.

Also, being “marked as separate from gays” isn’t a real issue for me, as everyone is different anyway. It’s simply that I would prefer the meaning of the rite of marriage to remain constant in world that is otherwise rapidly changing. Like I said, traditionalist view.

VY, there’s been campaigning for gay marriage for quite a while. Only now has it gained enough momentum and a realistic opportunity for these laws to come into place.

The problem with your traditionalist view is you seem to want to hold onto something that is discriminatory at heart. The theory that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer relevant in today’s society. That is the problem with traditionalism in regards to law and social issues. Times change, people change, technology changes, attitudes change. Homosexuality is more and more becoming an accepted way of life, and rightly so, since sex between two consenting adults never hurt anyone. Society needs to adapt to that, else we’ll have a situation where the laws are behind the people.

Finally, BigDave, you would not have been called a bigot had you not been jumping up and down about it. You wanted to argue with me over whether your views made you a bigot. I held the opinion that it does. Why don’t you find some pride in the word…or think about the issue a little more.

If the harm is with the word, why not take the reverse angle. Change the “Marriage Act” to the “Civil Unions Act” and apply it to everyone regardless of sexuality. Churches can still call it a marriage (in the eyes of the church, the rites of marriage form a marriage with or without the civil component under the Marriage Act.

This seems entirely reasonable to me. I guess, though, that I would put myself in with traditionalists in this argument, meaning that I would prefer the term marriage to maintain it’s traditional meaning.

As I alluded to earlier, I don’t have a problem with gay civil unions. But marriage has a specific, traditional meaning to me, and I don’t want it changed simply because a minority to whom it previously hasn’t applied now wants in.

Also, being “marked as separate from gays” isn’t a real issue for me, as everyone is different anyway. It’s simply that I would prefer the meaning of the rite of marriage to remain constant in world that is otherwise rapidly changing. Like I said, traditionalist view.

Yes I generally concur with your thoughts Shab.

Agreed Shab.

The argument that religious organisations would be subject to civil action for discrimination for refusing to marry people doesn’t hold any water. For example – the Catholic Church isn’t obliged to perform your wedding ceremony if you’re not Catholic. I don’t see that being homosexual would be treated any differently.

The aim of the Marriage Act is enabling – not compelling – certain entities (like churches) to act as an agent of the state to marry individuals.

If the harm is with the word, why not take the reverse angle. Change the “Marriage Act” to the “Civil Unions Act” and apply it to everyone regardless of sexuality. Churches can still call it a marriage (in the eyes of the church, the rites of marriage form a marriage with or without the civil component under the Marriage Act.

Going down that path seems a little pointless to me, but it’s better than the alternative. Going down the “Separate but Equal” path of a Marriage Act (for straights) and a Civil Unions Act (for gays) strikes me as creepy. They had a similar approach to law about 50 years back in the Southern US that was put in place for similar reasons. I think they called it Jim Crow.

VY – where is the harm in allowing homosexuals access to marriage? IIRC you were married in a church (a place where gays are not permitted to marry, as I mentioned). Isn’t that different enough to mark you as separate from gays?

So let those traditionalists maintain the sanctity of marriage and let the gays and lesbians have their civil unions / commitment ceremonies.

Exactly. Just bear in mind that this view (which I agree with) apparently makes you a bigot.

I agree jakez,

Most reasonable people would not have a burning issue with a civil union / lifetime commitment ceremony type event. I am a Catholic, but I’m also a (small l) liberal (also a big L Liberal but no-one is perfect…) I can see the reasonings of the church for wanting to keep the sacrement of marriage as a holy institution but I also strongly believe in the personal freedom of the individual to make those decisions that affect their lives.

There will always be those sections of society that have a problem with the use of the term “marriage” as it applies to anything other than the man & woman relationship. So let those traditionalists maintain the sanctity of marriage and let the gays and lesbians have their civil unions / commitment ceremonies. There will still be those g&l’s that rant about the evilness of the capitalist heterosexual society that oppresses them and there will still be straight people who believe that all gays should be beaten with a stout stick and all lesbians should be attractive blondes that appear in movies, but hey, that’s life.

neanderthalsis said :

tap said :

Its the government that needs to allow gay marriage, not private organisations.

If the gubbmint legislated to allow gay marriage, then many private organisations would be directly affected. Those who are service providers, be they the Catholic, Methodist, Jehovahs Witnesses, Islamic, Exclusive Bretheran, Dazni / Yazidi, Coptic Orthodox or even civil celebrants, would possibly face legal actions for discrimination over a refusal to conduct a marriage service that directly contravenes their beliefs.

I’m not sure I accept this as true however the last three posts absolutely show why the Government should not be in the business of making marriages. Marriages should be left to civil society through it’s religious and cultural institutions (and I speak quite broadly and inclusively). Civil society is completely capable of handling this.

The Government should uphold contracts and issues of Family Law (and let’s not get into that goldmine of despair and broken dreams). Whether that is through a civil union I’m not sure. I do know it definitely should not involve a Government provided ceremony as that blurs the lines.

…as I have said previously, I don’t like my chances on seeing change of this nature (although talking to people on RiotAct about it has given me much greater hope), in which case to the extent that the Government is going to enter into this realm, I don’t think it should make considerations based on gender.

tap said :

Its the government that needs to allow gay marriage, not private organisations.

If the gubbmint legislated to allow gay marriage, then many private organisations would be directly affected. Those who are service providers, be they the Catholic, Methodist, Jehovahs Witnesses, Islamic, Exclusive Bretheran, Dazni / Yazidi, Coptic Orthodox or even civil celebrants, would possibly face legal actions for discrimination over a refusal to conduct a marriage service that directly contravenes their beliefs.

Hence the term ‘civil unions’, which I don’t think anyone here has a major problem with.

Its the government that needs to allow gay marriage, not private organisations.

I think it irrational to make demands on a private organisation by forcing them to ‘marry’ people that they don’t believe should be married, but keep on slugging BigDave tigers.

BigDaves right to discriminate without being discriminated against is sacred! Why are you the only one who is allowed to freely express their opinion dave?

I’ve seen this behaviour from racists as well, they see themselves as the victim.

BigDave I’m guessing you think it’s a-OK to discriminate against people based on race as well right? Do you wistfully look back on the days when inter-racial marriage was illegal as well? No, you’re not a bigot at all.

People like you are called homophobic for a reason, because for some irrational (yes irrational!!! Do you find gay men constantly paying you unwanted attention? Interfering in your life? I doubt it VERY much – if anything, based on your rantings in this thread, they would steer WELL clear of you, as well as a lot of other people I’m thinking!) reason you are fearful and feel threatened by homosexuals. Hope you sort your issues and insecurities out soon, then you can be a much happier individual. Have a great day 🙂

Thanks for the standard and typical response DMD. Wish we could all be as perfect as you.

Witch hunt. End of story.

BigDave said :

At the end of the day, and VY touched on this earlier, you have to admit that you contradict yourselves. You all want respect and gay rights, but what about the rights of others? By calling everyone who disagrees a bigot, are you not disrespecting our rights? You can’t have it all your own way.
I blame the gay lobby, the government (ACT particularly) and to a certain extent the media. They all try to tell us what to think and what they’ll have you believe is popular opinion, just so it fits their own agendas regardless of what the real public think.
And therefore, anyone who thinks differently from them, gets what you’ve seen here on this thread. A witch hunt. End of story.

Here’s the thing.

When you open your eyes and stop spouting hate you realise that gays and lesbians aren’t your problem.

Back when I worked for Hoyts I’ll never forget when one of the projectionists, who was gay, was out having a smoke with his regular smoking buddy the security guard.

The enormous guard launched into a tirade about why how much he hated homosexuals expounding at length about how he wanted to hurt those weirdoes.

And then earning for mine the title of “bravest man in the world” the slightly built projectionist took a deep breathe and said “you know I’m gay right?”

I heard the story from the stunned guard who was at the time totally confused to discover his best buddy was gay. I told him to get over it and he did. Last I heard they were still great friends.

The best boss I ever worked for was gay, and as I have noted the continued operation of this site is more regularly threatened by turbo-charged heteros.

Personally I still much prefer women for my own intimate relationships, but as there are still lots of women out there I really don’t understand the hatred.

For those threatened by lesbians I recommend meeting one.

They make the best wingmen.

As I’ve said frequently before, you have every right to vocalize your wish to discriminate against a certain demographic. I have every right to call you a bigot for doing so.

At the end of the day, and VY touched on this earlier, you have to admit that you contradict yourselves. You all want respect and gay rights, but what about the rights of others? By calling everyone who disagrees a bigot, are you not disrespecting our rights? You can’t have it all your own way.
I blame the gay lobby, the government (ACT particularly) and to a certain extent the media. They all try to tell us what to think and what they’ll have you believe is popular opinion, just so it fits their own agendas regardless of what the real public think.
And therefore, anyone who thinks differently from them, gets what you’ve seen here on this thread. A witch hunt. End of story.

Yawn. Going to bed with the missus and have her lay face down.

Later sweetheart.

LMFAO.

But seriously, good night girls.

Go to bed, Dave, you tiger.

Wait…no…don’t…oh, wait, yes.

Tiger, Dave, tiger.

Big Dave did just associate gay marriage with no boundaries, no rights, no wrongs, and sex with animals didn’t he? Remember my prediction about the sky not falling and bigots looking more and more silly, if its possible to look more silly that is.

Yep, it’s been a great day for fishin’

BigDave said :

Yes tap. In a few decades there will be no boundaries, no rights, no wrongs, sex with animals will be permitted so long as you have a licence. And the society which we once knew will have been slowly eroded away.

Oh yes, that’s a really good thing.

Good night.

DMD *smooch*

Note, children, how BigDave seems to readily associate bestiality and homosexuality, then proceeds to kiss me…

Yes tap. In a few decades there will be no boundaries, no rights, no wrongs, sex with animals will be permitted so long as you have a licence. And the society which we once knew will have been slowly eroded away.

Oh yes, that’s a really good thing.

Good night.

DMD *smooch*

tap said :

In time gay marriage will be allowed. On that day, the sky will not fall, the all loving, all loving and all powerful god will not rock up and smite society for letting consenting adults do what they want to do. Heterosexuals will continue to get married, or not, as is their want and bigots will continue to whine about how gay marriage is wrong, but in more careful ways, just as they hide their homophobia today by trying to convince people that they are not against homosexuality, just homosexual marriage (complete with backward reasons derived from conclusions). Then a few decades later people will look back and wonder why their was ever an issue about it in the first place, and be ashamed that it took so long for homosexuals to really get all the same rights as heterosexuals. Of course their will still always be bigots, but they will look more and more silly as their excuses why they are against gay marriage are proved garbage.

History is filled with examples situations like the above happening.

It is a good thing.

But ah…they are not bigots, my friend. They are the real oppressed in our society. Year by year, day by day, their rights to sh*t on everyone they don’t see fit are being compromised by ‘democratic’, ‘fair’ and ‘common sense’ ideals.

Those of us who don’t think the rights…oh, ‘privelages’ of homosexuals should be compromised because of their sexual preferences are the real bigots. You fag. 😉

In time gay marriage will be allowed. On that day, the sky will not fall, the all loving, all loving and all powerful god will not rock up and smite society for letting consenting adults do what they want to do. Heterosexuals will continue to get married, or not, as is their want and bigots will continue to whine about how gay marriage is wrong, but in more careful ways, just as they hide their homophobia today by trying to convince people that they are not against homosexuality, just homosexual marriage (complete with backward reasons derived from conclusions). Then a few decades later people will look back and wonder why their was ever an issue about it in the first place, and be ashamed that it took so long for homosexuals to really get all the same rights as heterosexuals. Of course their will still always be bigots, but they will look more and more silly as their excuses why they are against gay marriage are proved garbage.

History is filled with examples situations like the above happening.

It is a good thing.

God, does he ever stop?

LOL VY. Think I’ll do the same. With my wife.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

No, my opinion is that the concept of a ‘right’ is something that isn’t real. It’s simply a privilege granted under law. And laws have differing rules for different people anyway – ‘fair’ doesn’t come into it. My opinion is that the current law doesn’t need to change. By trying to tell me my opinion, then dismissing it out of hand is just as bigoted as you claim I am.

Oh, and fair catch by Johnboy – I completely missed that!

Isn’t your opinion that gay couples should not have the ‘privilege’ to be married? Is the exclusion of them from that privilege based solely on their sexual preference?

Discrimination. Bigotry.

Anyway, it’s been a long day and I’m off to bed. With my wife.

I’ll check in on you bigots tomorrow.

I didn’t really have a strong opinion on this issue (perhaps because most of my gay friends cohabitate with their partners without being too worried about the formality aspect)until I attended a recent wedding, where the bride, in her wedding vows, stated that she felt priviledged to be able to stand before her friends, family and society and have a formal and recognised ceremony etc… etc… when so many of her friends were not entitled to share that same priviledge. She makes a good point. People in this thread have asked the author of this post to stay ‘why’ … but I guess my question is ‘why not’? Really – who is it effecting- other than the people that choose this option? I challenge those who are against the notion to give me one good reason why not… (noting that numerous hetro couples get married but do not have children and/or are not religiously inclined).

No, my opinion is that the concept of a ‘right’ is something that isn’t real. It’s simply a privilege granted under law. And laws have differing rules for different people anyway – ‘fair’ doesn’t come into it. My opinion is that the current law doesn’t need to change. By trying to tell me my opinion, then dismissing it out of hand is just as bigoted as you claim I am.

Oh, and fair catch by Johnboy – I completely missed that!

LMAO

“I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them. And before you all jump up and shout “bigot” and “narrow minded”, may I remind you that it’s my opinion and I’m damn well entitled to it.”
big dave: 19

This is where ‘bigotry’ came into the discussion. Twice.

BigDave said :

Thanks for the name calling DMD. Par for the course.

Well it’s not really name calling, is it? It’s pretty much the definition of the word.

Thank you johnboy.

And what is this? The Homophobe day of Action? Why is everyone suddenly crying for the right to stamp all over other peoples?

VY, you just don’t understand…your opinion is that people who don’t share your sexual preference should not be allowed the same rights. That is bigotry. End of story.

#41 by Big Dave:

You know what I think is hilarious about you guys simbo? It’s the fact that you just can’t stand it when others disagree or disapprove of your lifestyles. It irks the hell out of you!! All you can do is resort to petty name calling and hope it shocks or shames us. It doesn’t.

Evidently.

No VY, you must not disagree with gay marriage. But it’s OK as long as they all know you’re expressing your bigotry.

Saying you disapprove of someone’s lifestyle simply because they’re harmlessly homosexual is pretty much just bigotry.

Agreed, but is anyone actually saying this here. I haven’t noticed any posts that specifically disagree with specifically homosexual activity. Because it’s such an emotive issue it can be hard for people to isolate the issue, which is whether gay marriage should be allowed, NOT whether homosexuality itself is acceptable.

Although I would note that Simbo is quite capable of speaking for himself and, unlike many straight commenters here, he never calls anyone names, makes thoughtful contributions, and only gives me grief when I pan musicals he likes.

Thanks for the name calling DMD. Par for the course.

Yes, Dave, I will call you a bigot. That being said, I would die for your right to express your bigotry just as I can express my non-bigotry. I still reserve the right to call you a bigot though.

So it IS ok to disagree with gay marriage then?

Gay marriage is an issue open for debate.

Saying you disapprove of someone’s lifestyle simply because they’re harmlessly homosexual is pretty much just bigotry.

I’ll ask all parties to be respectful of other commenters here from now on.

Ever been to Mooseheads, Big Dave? On that note, I should add that I, a straight guy, have been in Cube, chatted to by a few blokes, said I’m straight somewhere along the line and there was no problem…just a continuation of a good conversation.

Yes, Dave, I will call you a bigot. That being said, I would die for your right to express your bigotry just as I can express my non-bigotry. I still reserve the right to call you a bigot though.

I would argue that there is no such thing as a ‘right’, instead a set of rules with which society arms itself against anarchy. Across this are the beliefs and opinions of those within society. Fortunately, we live in a country where we have decided to protect the beliefs and opinions of the individuals, provided we don’t enforce them on others. Thus, all of our opinions are valid. And at present, we haven’t decided that gay marriage is in our best interests.

Statements such “aren’t worthy of the same rights” and “bigot” are your words, not mine. The dictionary defines bigot as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”. I have specifically said that I have no problem with gay people. It seems to me that you, DMD, are the real bigot here, based on your accusations against BigDave and I, simply because our opinion differs from yours.

I know this is difficult in a world where popular opion is ‘accept everything mindlessly’, but try to think with me on this.

There’s that word again, bigot. Ahh well, if that’s the best you can do, I can live with that.
You are being very unrealistic DMD. We aren’t allowed to have bars just for straight people are we?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Is that happening on this thread DMD? Or did BigDave say he disagrees with gay marriage, and now he’s getting called names?

Hmmm.

He’s being called a bigot because he seems to think that certain people aren’t worthy of the same rights as others because of their sexual preference. You are also a bigot. I’m not screaming this at you, but that is what your beliefs on this matter define you as.

BigDave was also the one that brought the word ‘homophobe’ into the conversation.

Careful VY, we’re not allowed to speak the truth! Totally agree with you 100% about marriage.

VY ^

Is that happening on this thread DMD? Or did BigDave say he disagrees with gay marriage, and now he’s getting called names?

Hmmm.

BigDave said :

You know what I think is hilarious about you guys simbo? It’s the fact that you just can’t stand it when others disagree or disapprove of your lifestyles. It irks the hell out of you!! All you can do is resort to petty name calling and hope it shocks or shames us. It doesn’t.

If someone called you names for being straight and refused you the right to marry a woman, would you not at least be a little offended? What if someone waited for you to come out of a straight bar, followed you and beat the crap out of you because you preferred to sleep with women in your own bed in your own house? How exactly would you feel?

Okay…that’s a little unrealistic, why don’t I use a different hypothesis. How would you feel if someone of another color approached you and shouted ‘f-kin aussie convict dog, you lost Gallipoli because your grandfathers couldn’t fight for sh-t and your women all want us because you can’t get it up’ – then proceeded to toss an Australian flag on the ground, p-ssed on it then set it on fire. I know I’d be pretty annoyed by that, I’d probably call them a racist scumbag.

You need to understand that any form of bigotry is going to stir emotion and bring out angered words. If you are going to continue to be one, you’d better get used to it.

BigDave speaks the truth. Call me whatever you like, but I think gay marriage is wrong. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t dislike gay people because of their sexual orientation (in fact I don’t specifically dislike gay people at all), but I think marriage is something special between a man and a woman, and needs to stay that way.

You know what I think is hilarious about you guys simbo? It’s the fact that you just can’t stand it when others disagree or disapprove of your lifestyles. It irks the hell out of you!! All you can do is resort to petty name calling and hope it shocks or shames us. It doesn’t.

If gay people want to get married then let them. I couldn’t care less what gets people off in the privacy of their own homes as long as it doesn’t involve hard drugs, children or animals of any kind (including fish and reptiles) and it isn’t made compulsory for the rest of us.

That said, I’ve got to say though that even if someone offered me a chauffeur driven ride to the rally I still wouldn’t have gone simply because like the majority of the ‘straight’ population, it doesn’t impact me so I just don’t care. People who attend rallies are generally either really into the issue at hand or are just out shopping and stop out of curiosity.

You know what they say about, “Be careful what you wish for ’cause you just might get it”….

*guffaw chortle snort*

Then news comes through that de facto couples will soon be governed by the same compulsory financial mores on breakup as a married couple. Next thing people will hark after the freedom to be truly de facto …

hey, the gay chubby dating google ad! now THAT made me laugh!

onya google! keep the good ads coming…

Loquaciousness said :

Aurelius – it was either that or the overthrowing of our evil Capitalist overlords. Or the execution of the Western Bourgeoisie. Or an end to the Marxist regime …. or something ….

You know, if you think about it, that sounds just as silly as the ‘dilution of our social foundations’ theory.

Aurelius – it was either that or the overthrowing of our evil Capitalist overlords. Or the execution of the Western Bourgeoisie. Or an end to the Marxist regime …. or something ….

Loquaciousness,
I think he wanted the downfall of the Roman Empire
I say NEVER!

Further to Aurelius’ comment – Passy has not only failed to tell us why we should be supporting the movement, but also what it is that the movement is ultimately requesting.

Passy – could you please explain exactly what the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality *wanted*? Was it the ability to have gay and transgender marriages sanctified by a religious ceremony? Or a request for the government to recognise gay and transgender couples as legal spouses? Or something else? I’m sure that, as a (presumably) organised movement, they have written down somewhere exactly what the goal is.

Deadmandrinking said :

jakez said :

Deadmandrinking said :

As a member of the Liberal Party, I feel your pain.

Wow…you mean there’s still ‘good liberals’ about? That warms my chest a little. (Can you guy’s come back please??? I ain’t voting for you, but I’d rather have those kinds of liberals in state and federal parliaments than our current breed.)

It warms my heart to know that one day I’ll have your respect but not your vote… 😉

jakez said :

Deadmandrinking said :

As a member of the Liberal Party, I feel your pain.

Wow…you mean there’s still ‘good liberals’ about? That warms my chest a little. (Can you guy’s come back please??? I ain’t voting for you, but I’d rather have those kinds of liberals in state and federal parliaments than our current breed.)

Deadmandrinking said :

If it still bothers you, then I must ask…does society really to peek in and see what’s going on behind closed doors? That kind of compromises the basic liberal party/conservative idea, doesn’t it? It will never cease to p*ss me off how the Liberals can be so opposed to gay marriage, yet have a founding philosophy that preaches less intrusion on the individual from the state.

Hypocrites, bigots and douchebags…is this the society we want to preserve?

As a member of the Liberal Party, I feel your pain.

BigDave said :

Who gives a flying f**k about gay marriage? I certainly don’t. And I don’t like that word “homophobia” either. A phobia is a fear. I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them. And before you all jump up and shout “bigot” and “narrow minded”, may I remind you that it’s my opinion and I’m damn well entitled to it.

Of course you’re entitled to be a bigot. People with homosexual leanings should also have a right to express how they feel. What better way than marriage? Since we allow you bigots to have Alan Jones on air…oh…oh, wait, this could be interesting…

DawnDrifter said :

warms the heart that this ‘day of action’ was a failure… its a good sign that only about 60 people turned out to support the dilution of our social foundations… the other 340,000k stayed at home and correctly ignored it

Can you please explain to me how allowing two consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their own home without hurting or compromising the rights and safety of any other living being is going to cause our society to collapse? I fail to see how, in this day and age, the insistence that everyone follow the basic male/female family unit is beneficial. We’re overpopulated.

People are not going to turn gay simply because gay MARRIAGE is legal. It is now easier than ever to have a same-sex relationship in Australia…so why would allowing Gay marriage suddenly cause this almighty collapse. A lot of straight couples don’t get married…

If it still bothers you, then I must ask…does society really to peek in and see what’s going on behind closed doors? That kind of compromises the basic liberal party/conservative idea, doesn’t it? It will never cease to p*ss me off how the Liberals can be so opposed to gay marriage, yet have a founding philosophy that preaches less intrusion on the individual from the state.

Hypocrites, bigots and douchebags…is this the society we want to preserve?

/end rant

Oh, and if you still must keep an eye on what goes on in people’s bedroom…type ‘amateur couples’ in Google. Add ‘gay’ if that’s your primary concern.

warms the heart that this ‘day of action’ was a failure… its a good sign that only about 60 people turned out to support the dilution of our social foundations… the other 340,000k stayed at home and correctly ignored it

I note that nowhere in Passy’s original rant, nor this one, has he addressed the question of why annyone should support this movement.

A very good point…

I find it interesting that the rally wasn’t even covered by the ABC. When even the “gay BC” doesn’t cover it then it’s time to start worrying . . .

I note that nowhere in Passy’s original rant, nor this one, has he addressed the question of why annyone should support this movement.

I do not oppose gay marriage, however it is not something I care too deeply about.

What annoys me about this is that these events seem to be more about persuading people into supporting such groups as the Socialist Alternative and Resistance – as you can tell from the anti-capitalist rant by Passy, and the video posted by Jonathan. I bet a large portion of people who support marriage equality don’t want any part of these groups, so if you really care about this issue stop pushing them in parallel to the cause.

The ‘poor’ turnout at the rally is a reflection of the GLBTI community in canberra, we are more likely to write submissions than attend demonstrations. As someone who is actively involved in GLBTI lobbying as well, I would estimate that many members of the community are, especially in the ACT, feeling battle weary after years of ‘action’ (whatever form of action we choose to take). I have no doubt whatsoever that further change will happen in the future/in my lifetime, and I am grateful for the changes that have happened to date in recent years.

Fair enough.
I did mention that marriage has a history of tradition also, which was in reference to the topic you bring up. Christianity has played a major role in marriage for a long time, and that is what I meant. I’m not saying I disagree with you having your opinion, or even your way. I actually wouldn’t mind seeing gay marriage legalised, as I know a few people that are quite eager for this very occurrence. I was merely expressing that a majority of those I am aquainted with and myself do not seek marriage as a statement of equal rights.
And just on that note, shouldn’t the reason homosexual marriage is legalised be because homosexual partnerships want that union, not because of a political statement?
I’m all for gay marriage! I really am. I just feel that it should be for the right reason, and so far, I haven’t seen much of that.

Marriage is NOT a Christian institution – they existed well before there was Christianity, and they’ve gone on completely separate from Christianity. Falling into that nonsense means you’re already playing someone else’s game. It is possible to have a view on morality and society that doesn’t involve a guy on a cross, ya know.

And Big Dave, damn right you’re entitled to your opinion. Just as I’m entitled to my opinion that you’re an idiot. A Homophobic idiot. If you said “I don’t like Muslims” or “Jews” or “women” or “people with red hair” or whatever, you may get why I have that opinion.

Look, I don’t really care if people want to get behind gay marriage or not. All I’m really asking is, if it doesn’t affect you one way or the other, then just don’t oppose us. K?

Or perhaps they view marriage in the same way that a lot of “straight” people do.
Perhaps they look at events like this rally and see it merely as a fight for those that are, and always have been, ostracised by christianity to engage in a legally binding christian union that would really be a contradiction of the church’s beliefs, and therefore maybe their own.

Who wants to commit “eternally” to someone under the banner of those that seek to oppress and isolate them? It makes perfect sense to me that a large number of this “social group” would be indifferent or opposed to such a rally, because it doesn’t actually fight for something that

1.) they want (potentially)
2.) is supportive of their views (in regards to the religion and tradition behind it)
3.) makes a goddamn difference in their lives, when they have issues like gaybashing, open discrimination etc. to deal with
4.) provides them with equal rights

To be perfectly honest, and speaking as a member of this “social group”, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender don’t actually have too much too worry about in regards to gay marriage. The fact that it is an unlawful act to marry one of the same sex, a lot of the gay community has actually come to the realisation that they shouldn’t be striving for marriage and settling down etc., and can therefore actually focus on their relationships to make them happy, healthy and committed.

Marriage is, as has often been said, a Christian and “straight” ceremony that those of the gay community do not belong (as much as that sounds as though I am supporting homosexual exclusion, I really am not). Civil Unions are legal in several places all over the world, and realistically that is the most suited ceremony of committed partnership to those of the “gay community”.

It is, however an issue that a lot of homosexual and transgender people are behind and want to support. perhaps you could attempt to get more word out, as (and I could be mistaken here) I don’t recall hearing anything about this particular event, and therefore I don’t believe any of my close circle did either. If you want to get support, you need to advertise as best you can. Proper advertising costs a lot of money, of course, but maybe tell anyone you know who’s a blabbermouth? anyone who is very involved in “gay” pride, rights etc.? Cube nightclub is an obvious one. Youth Centres? Even try and find spots on notice boards at local shops. And perhaps as a last minute drive you could take out an add of relative affordability in a city (or even national, depending on the event) newspaper.

You will find that most members of the “gay community” are very strong and proud individuals. As some of the others have said, I don’t think fear of hostile homophobics is your issue here, it’s more to do with where the actual “group” is at mentally. Attempt to appeal to those who show an interest in your cause, because even though we have all been looking at a sexuality group in this thread, what needs to be recognised is that the “gay community” is as vast and varied as the rest of society. You will only find a select group of them interested, especially in the ACT, I believe.

Who gives a flying f**k about gay marriage? I certainly don’t. And I don’t like that word “homophobia” either. A phobia is a fear. I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them. And before you all jump up and shout “bigot” and “narrow minded”, may I remind you that it’s my opinion and I’m damn well entitled to it.

Headbonius said :

Passy wrote “Perhaps this is because they feel powerless against the forces of homophobia.” as an observation on the poor turnout at the rally.

Here is an alternate view – perhaps they just couldn’t give a shit, like me.

Maybe it’s because they were nursing a hangover, like me?

I am all for gays marrying lesbians.

Melinar, I’ve been meaning to ask… which show is the ep ref from your xnick for?

(bows…)

boom tish…

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

“Perhaps this is because they feel powerless against the forces of homophobia.”

Bhah! Bollocks.

This subject means very little to many people and to those that it does – I think they are slowly walking away from you not making eye contact or any sudden movements.

Alchemy, now that’s a story of the government controlling society….

Passy wrote “Perhaps this is because they feel powerless against the forces of homophobia.” as an observation on the poor turnout at the rally.

Here is an alternate view – perhaps they just couldn’t give a shit, like me.

The speaker said she is relying on Generation Y to get activist on the issue! Anyone know enough Gen Yers keen on anything beyond their own trip up the corporate ladder to build up critical mass on this issue?

*there is now way I’m playing the ball on this thread* – pun intended hehe.

Passy – can you clarify what you expected the turnout to be ?

I’d not be surprised if your numbers were bolstered by the Deb Foskey rentacrowd usuals either.

P.S. Tonight is S04E04.

Yeah sure,

Just remember to play the ball and not the man.

Boy is it getting us some interesting googleads of the sort we’ve never had before….

JB – Do you seriously want us to comment on this thread ?

Also – when the Chief Minister was unable to enact Gay Marriage, it seems unlikely that a rally will achieve it.

Good on you for standing up for what you believe in though.

Well, yeah, in my case it’s definately a dislike of socialists and their random rants.

Look, I understand socialism is all very sexy and exciting, and it’s a lovely way to meet other enthusiastic young activists at afterparties, but when you’re a 34 year old home-owner (as I am), I’d rather meet people who’s idea of foreplay isn’t to tell me about the fundamental wrongness of capitalism…

Perhaps it was just fear of long-winded rants about capitalism, christianity and Roman history?

Video from the event is now up on the CanberraVotes.com website:
http://www.canberravotes.com/2008/08/canberra-civil-unions-rally-02-august-2008/

Or maybe not all gays and lesbians identify themselves solely by the sexuality?

Or perhaps gays and lesbians, being in large part higher income earners (if for no other reason than they usually don’t have to cover the costs of children), aren’t so keen on pseudo marxist “National Days of Action”?

No lets blame it on fear and oppression.