You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[Galaxiom]

The special right they want is for Women to be able to marry women.

I don't have that right so that becomes something special for the Lesbians.

Your argument is nonsensical. You have the right to marry a woman. That same right is all the lesbian women are asking to have.

Since same sex couples cannot marry it is clear that heterosexual couples have had what you consider "special rights" since time immemorial.

Any law that limits rights based on sex is undeniably discriminatory.

 

[RainLover]

I didn't say that Glaxiom did post#60

Brian

Not to worry Brian. It won't kill me.

BTW The other day some guy called me a Galah. As if that is going to hurt me.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

It is late and I intend to log off ASAP.

There are a few Laws that have come into being that affect only certain people.

A good example is the laws passed for the aboriginal people. For example Aboriginals have the right to vote but do not have to if they don't want to. All other Australian citizens must vote. This still applies to people who are extremely sick. There are various others for good reason.

However this Homosexual community want special laws passed just for them. They currently have the same rights as I do, but to them this is not good enough. This is the sticking point of this argument. Because they have the same laws I feel that they have the same rights. What they want is special consideration at great cost to create special laws that only affect them.

If we put it to the vote, "Should we pass and fund special laws for the Homosexual community". I very much doubt that those laws would grow legs. We have not even seen any draft Legislation as yet. How can we say we agree when we don't know what we would be agreeing to?

As I have said before. These are new laws especially for one community. It does not create one bit of equality.

Anyone can through conscience not vote - giving their reason afterwards can they not? Are you sure aboriginies dont have to register, and follow the same process. Also really sick people dont have to vote either.

Theres a hint of truth in what you say - but not a great deal of it.

PS - I called you a Galah - because you referred to otehrs as "ducks" and yourself as an eagle. Noone was hurt by this.

This thread didnt seem to start well grounded in facts - and has continued that way.

 

[Galaxiom]

Isn't Galah the God of Islamb?

 

[RainLover]

Anyone can through conscience not vote - giving their reason afterwards can they not? Are you sure aboriginies dont have to register, and follow the same process. Also really sick people dont have to vote either.

Theres a hint of truth in what you say - but not a great deal of it.

PS - I called you a Galah - because you referred to otehrs as "ducks" and yourself as an eagle. Noone was hurt by this.

This thread didnt seem to start well grounded in facts - and has continued that way.

Hello Anthony

Let's try and address my off the cuff comments. I didn't realise my opinions here had to be tested to such a degree, but I will have a go.

This is a good site that does not go over board.
http://australianpolitics.com/voting/electoral-system/compulsory-voting

You have half researched the subject with this "Anyone can through conscience not vote - giving their reason afterwards can they not?” But alas this is not correct. Voting is compulsory. This is for the fit and able, the elderly and those who are really sick. Also with Aboriginals they must vote.

I wish I knew where this came from. "There is a hint of truth in what you say” It is not often in the water cooler that I am told that my posts are anything but extreme. Anyway it gives you something to talk about.

Final point is the Galah. Surely you could have come up with something better than that. What about Turkey. Anyway it does not make a difference to me. I have been called better than that on many occasions.

There is one thing you could call me which I would take offense at. And that is to be called one of those bludging mongrels who demand that tax payers fund their cause. Today it is marriage laws, next week parenting, then in no particular order full access to IVF program, a change to the education program. The rewrite of children's books to force their life style down the throats of my children and my children's children.

Today it is taking Fred Flintstones gay old time off him, tomorrow who knows.

 

[Galaxiom]

Today it is marriage laws, next week parenting, then in no particular order full access to IVF program, a change to the education program. The rewrite of children's books to force their life style down the throats of my children and my children's children.

Don't bother trying to understand Rain. Your prejudices are so entrenched that it isn't plausible for you to look at this issue objectively.

Opportunities for parenting are already being opened up for same sex couples.

The only philosophies being pushed down anyone's throats are the bigoted attitudes of those who (knowingly or unknowingly) are based on the prejudices of the ancient, ignorant men who wrote the archaic texts that form the basis of the Abrahamic religions.

According to their deluded "insights", homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the God manufactured by the Hebrews and exalted in turn by Jews, Christians and Moslems alike.

Ultimately humanity will be able to fully comprehend the irrelevance of individual sexual preference once the abominable concept of this pathetic deeply prejudiced monster completes it inevitable journey to oblivion.

You will die with your prejudices intact but you will die none the less and more enlightened people will take your place. There is nothing you can do about it.

People like you expose the stupidity of such prejudices and hasten the change. Thankyou for your contribution to moving forwards.

 

[RainLover]

Galaxiom,

Normally you write well, but not so good tonight. If you started the first sentence with "Rain" I would have realised from the onset that this was aimed at me.

You say "Your prejudices are so entrenched that it isn't plausible for you to look at this issue objectively."

You are quite entitled to think this and to post it here. But it is merely an opinion. Where does it take us?

Nowhere. I could say something in reply then you then me. So let me finish this by saying that I don't agree with minority groups jumping up and down to extort money out of the Government to promote their cause. And this is not a popular cause.

If it were then they would have what they want decades ago. So bottom line is that I am on the side of the majority not the minority like you are.

The only philosophies being pushed down anyone's throats are the bigoted attitudes of those who (knowingly or unknowingly) are based on the prejudices of the ancient, ignorant men who wrote the archaic texts that form the basis of the Abrahamic religions.

According to their deluded "insights", homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the God manufactured by the Hebrews and exalted in turn by Jews, Christians and Moslems alike.

Ultimately humanity will be able to fully comprehend the irrelevance of individual sexual preference once the abominable concept of this pathetic deeply prejudiced monster completes it inevitable journey to oblivion.

What did you actually have in mind when you wrote this. It has nothing to do with today's debate on legalising Gay Marriage.

I don't want to involve Religion. It simply creates bad feelings.

Finally you and I agree about something. We will die. Knowing when is a bit difficult to say. And yes there will be others with different philosophies who will take our place. If there is just one legacy I could leave behind it would be respect for the family unit.

 

[RainLover]

All

If I haven't got back to you about my Homosexual feelings then please say so and I shall reply. There has just been too many saying the same thing, but if you want my reply to your statement I will do so.

PS. There is a point you could nail me on here if you want to. But I doubt that an American will spot it.

 

[Galaxiom]

If there is just one legacy I could leave behind it would be respect for the family unit.

And that depends on what we define as a family unit. Like it or not you have stuck with the model promoted by religion.

Wasn't it Paul Keating who defined a family as "anything more than two poofs and a cocker spaniel"?

 

[Vassago]

And that depends on what we define as a family unit. Like it or not you have stuck with the model promoted by religion.

Wasn't it Paul Keating who defined a family as "anything more than two poofs and a cocker spaniel"?

I think that is one of the biggest issues with definitions. Some people want to hold on to archaic definitions of marriage and family, while others realize words change over time. Definitions change over time. This has always been the case. I believe that this (these) definition in the 21st century is an example of one that needs to change.

One example non-supporters of gay adoptions or child raising always give me is that it will promote or force their lifestyle on the children. The last time I checked, most, if not damn near 99% of gay or lesbian people were raised in homes with heterosexual parents. Looks like sexual orientation wasn't pushed there. So much for that theory.

 

[Fifty2One]

Just double checked my post and I did say "financial and legal advantages and privileges " which would cover the question of health decisions, visitations, insurance, etc.

Hope people making the decision read what is written over the enterance of the building on their way to work...

Partially agreed! But there are other issues involved than financial ones. What about health decisions? What about visitations in hospitals? Insurance benefits only given to married partners?

 

[Brianwarnock]

The problem with that argument is that prejudiced people could say that yes heterosexuals don't push their lifestyle onto others but homosexuals do, not that there is any proof of this in a family unit situation as that has not been tested, but I suppose the militancy we have seen in other areas can worry people and vast silent majority don't get heard.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Whilst the family unit of a man, woman and children might be the one promoted by religion, it is also the logical and natural one for the continuation of the species. Galaxiom's anti religious rants do not help his cause.

Please note that I have not excluded any other form of family unit.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Whilst the family unit of a man, woman and children might be the one promoted by religion, it is also the logical and natural one for the continuation of the species. Galaxiom's anti religious rants do not help his cause.

Please note that I have not excluded any other form of family unit.

Brian

I don't think we have a problem with species continuation. There are enough orphans without parents in the world already. The population of the world continues to grow and people continue to live longer lives thanks to medical advances. What happens when the world becomes, if it's not already, overpopulated?

 

[Brianwarnock]

I don't think we have a problem with species continuation. There are enough orphans without parents in the world already. The population of the world continues to grow and people continue to live longer lives thanks to medical advances. What happens when the world becomes, if it's not already, overpopulated?

That is a totally different discussion than what represents a normal family unit.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

That is a totally different discussion than what represents a normal family unit.

Brian

The reason why we have equal rights is to protect from what is considered "normal" by society. Popular opinion doesn't trump equal rights. Example: Girl in my high school was raised pagan. Strongly Christian teacher doesn't approve and demands she remove her circle pentacle from around her neck. She refuses and is sent to the office where she is suspended for refusing to remove it. The family fights and wins under freedom of religion and religious expression. The school cannot take away her right to religious expression, even if it's not popular opinion at the school, and cannot make rules restricting her religion specifically.

 

[Brianwarnock]

So yet more red herrings are dragged into the discussion.

It would appear that you and Galaxiom consider anything that is not the norm is wrong, or to put it another way everything has to be the norm. I on the other hand believe that there is not only the norm but other perfectly valid and natural forms of behaviour and of family units.

Please note that I have not excluded any other form of family unit.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

So yet more red herrings are dragged into the discussion.

It would appear that you and Galaxiom consider anything that is not the norm is wrong, or to put it another way everything has to be the norm. I on the other hand believe that there is not only the norm but other perfectly valid and natural forms of behaviour and of family units.

I think I actually agreed with you. I'm far from and the last person who could consider anything that is not the "norm" to be wrong. I don't think Galaxiom said something that is not the "norm" is wrong either.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You are correct in that he did not use those words , but he did seem to object to my saying some things were the norm and by implication or statement others were not, thus I assumed that he believes everything is the norm.
These discussions are fraught with problems when not conducted face to face where turn of phrase can be challenged and explained more readily.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

Whilst the family unit of a man, woman and children might be the one promoted by religion, it is also the logical and natural one for the continuation of the species. Galaxiom's anti religious rants do not help his cause.

Please note that I have not excluded any other form of family unit.

Brian

Brian is correct. Without propagation in 100 years or so the earth will be void of people.

A family, any family starts with a boy and a girl.