This Government sux just like the last government did.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by doomsday surprise, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. doomsday surprise

    doomsday surprise Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    El Dorado
  2. Clawhammer

    Clawhammer Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,307
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Gone Fishin'
    Sure is a waste...I thought "marriage" was a religious ceremony.... what's the Govt got to do with it?
     
  3. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Marriage is the union of a Man and a Woman, simple as that. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or even on your front lawn for that matter, but if you want to become "Married" under the law as it currently stands and under the meaning of the word as it denotes then you'd better have opposing sexual organs.
    I am all for equal rights, I just do not understand why a same sex couple would want to call themselves "Married" when every connotation of the word is identified with the union of a man and a woman. GAL's fought the hard fight for years to be recognised in their own right both socially and under law but now they seem to be wanting to envelope themselves in the very thing they themselves have been rallying against for the last 5 or 6 decades.

    Call it Gayrriage or something else, anything but Marriage and I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. The fact is tho that Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. You don't call a Car a Bullfrog do you ?
    You don't call a Gay or Lesbian a straight person either.
     
  4. Byron

    Byron Guest

    I would like to give a standing ovation to mr Abbott for taking on the rabid left.

    He is a true modern day St George.
     
  5. Byron

    Byron Guest

    Unfortunately its only the leftist socialist/ communist govts that have a tendency to force traditional churches to change their millennia old holy rites to what they want.

    Call it their war against Christianity.
     
  6. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    And who's dollars are being used to enact these Law's ? I doubt Rattenbury or the Greens are paying for it out of their own pockets or that the Legislative assembly of the ACT is doing it for free either.
     
  7. trew

    trew Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbern
    And you want the government to stop two people of the same sex from claiming they are married right ?
     
  8. Golightly

    Golightly Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Newcastle

    Sounds About Right..
    The slow transition of wealth from poor to rich
     
  9. Tacrezod

    Tacrezod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Do the pro GM camp propose to force the local vicar to marry a gay couple in church under threat of prosecution in a criminal court, or am I missing something?

    If so, I would quite look forward to the spectacle of a court case shining a light on the differences between law and statute, and church, state and freemen.
     
  10. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    3,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    Definitions of words evolve with human consciousness. Many words have new meanings at time goes on. Just ask Gillard about the word misogyny. Why do people get all bent out of shape because two citizens who love one another ask to be treated with the same respect and to receive the same legal safeguards afforded to opposite sex couples who marry?

    Seriously, the history of the church is rivers of blood, persecution, child molestation and sexism, why do we regard their rituals as "sacred", and what mandate does the government have to tell someone who their legally recognised life partner can or cannot be? With the number of husbands out there who punch their wives teeth down their throat, the acrimonious divorces, the cheating and the lying I don't see that "marriage" is anything more than a legal convenience anyway. There is nothing particularly sacred about it.
     
  11. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    No, I want the same sex couple to be as happy as anyone else, to have the same rights under law, To be afforded the same respect as an Hetero couple. I just don't want their union to be called "Marriage". The Government does not have to stop two people of the same sex from claiming they are Married as the law stands at the moment in this country. It is the GAL movement who are seeking the same recognition as a Married Hetero couple and who are seeking to change the definition of Marriage as it stands both by definition of the word and under the law.

    My personal view is that a minority should not dictate the overhaul of a majority held understanding of a singular word nor the value that the relationships that word holds, both under law and the social authority it conveys. Marriage as a social convention for centuries has conveyed the union of a Man and a Woman. As I stated earlier call it anything else and I will back it all the way, but for GAL's to seek equality via "Marriage" is a tad absurd in my book and seeks to undermine the social convention just for the sake of it, it not only offsides the traditional values of Marriage for the hetero majority (even those outside of the church) but it also seeks to portray GAL's as a special subset of law for which an exception must be made.

    Do we need to re-write all marriage certificates post GAL marriage to include Husband/Wife/Undecided for example ?

    And I'm not having a go here really, I just do not think that the proponents of this have really thought through all of the complexities involved let alone what values the millions of people have placed upon the sanctity of Marriage for generations past. From what I know of a Marriage ceremony it nearly always ends in Husband and Wife, Why would a G or L relationship want that ?

    Sure, pass laws that institute the right of a partner to have equal rights under law that a Married partner has for a G or L relationship I absolutely agree with that, but recognise it for what is, shit even celebrate it for all I care in religious houses of the community that choose to recognise such a union.

    But by all understanding, and all social conventions it is not a Marriage, so don't call it one.
     
  12. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    I might also ask why the definition of Gay has changed as well ? Marriage as well also falls outside of the churches grasp over the ages and is a globally recognised union between a man and a woman. Faggot , poofter, leso, feltcher, harlot, pro, all these words change and have different connotations. Marriage tho seems to have stayed the course.

    Equating Marriage with the Church is a strawman argument though as a majority of people in the west marry outside the church. They still do so as a man and a woman though. I also do not see any evidence to separate the violence of a Man and Woman from a Man and Man, Woman and Woman. The point still remains though that Marriage is universally recognised as between a Man and a Woman. You can throw whatever statistics against it, Rail against the machine, object and whatever else.

    Marriage for whatever its value is is still universally recognised as a union between a Man and a Woman.

    Why would any Gay or Lesbian want to identify with that connotation ?
     
  13. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    3,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    I don't know, but it seems to be very important to that community. like any group of people that have been historically persecuted, bullied and marginalised by church and state I presume that they want to see the day when that particular form of sexism is put behind us and the community at large finally stops rejecting nature and accepts that for many people same sex partnerships are mandated by their nature just the same as other people's nature mandates opposite sex partners. It is indeed sexism. Ironic that Gillard said that she "would call out sexism whenever she sees it" but did not do so in the case of gay couples who suffer from it their whole adult lives. So if a man and a woman marry and choose not to have sex are they married?
     
  14. Tacrezod

    Tacrezod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So to lets consider the oft quoted "argumentum ad absurdum" that if marriage can be between a man and a man, why can't it be be between a woman and three women, or between a man and a horse?
     
  15. trew

    trew Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbern

    Well according to your libertarian principles, what you personally want them to call their union is pretty irrelevant - if they want to call it a marriage what right do you have to stop them ?
     
  16. AngloSaxon

    AngloSaxon Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney
    ^ trew there are libertarian principles AND there are the cultural and religious principles that people also want to live under and cherish.
     
  17. trew

    trew Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbern
    Name for those who espouse both is hypocrites.
     
  18. danman49

    danman49 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,033
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Adelaide
    From what I understand when you get married you suddenly find that what was yours is hers but what was hers is still hers, then, if you happen to want to become "unmarried" you get to pay a lot of money, that you probably no longer have, to try and get some of what was once yours and is now hers back.

    So why shouldn't the "hers" of a gay partnership have the same advantages over the "hims" of said partnerships? And is it really fair that only male, males who choose to bed female, females get all the fun of giving their life's work to their not quite so forever and ever partners?

    By the way I stayed defacto, which leads to a much more equitable separation of assets!
     
  19. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    a

    You do raise some great points RnT. And without the typical hype that is often predisposed towards this sort of discussion. Too often any form of disagreement is met with a blanket wipe-out of any opinion that is associated with GAL Marriage and it is seen as a right wing opinion full stop.

    I am fairly right wing in most of my views but have family members who are openly gay, I don't care what their sexual orientation is, I really couldn't give two shits whether Jo or Joe gets him or her off in personal life. At the same time though I do not see any gain in adjusting the majority view of what Marriage is in order to placate a minority despite a vocal squeaky wheel. Marriage is still what it is.
    Marriage in every society on earth in every religion and in every community worldwide is still seen as a union between a Man and a Woman.

    Any form of discrimination, sexism, misogyny, etc Is much more likely to be found in a reinforced belief rather than any overt medium.
     
  20. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    They are the ones choosing to call it and recognise it under the chosen law. Not me. The vast majority see it for something else, I just happen to agree with the majority.
     

Share This Page