You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[RainLover]

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.

Vassago,

You like all those who have an anti disciplinarian attitude attempt to justify their position by employing obscure diversions to the subject at heart. The introduction of "Definitions", has as much to do with this discussion as is the size of the hole in your ear.

The simple fact is that Lesbians and Homosexuals have no case for special consideration to marry.

They have the same rights as any other single person in their community. And that is to go about their affairs in peace.

If they believe that they have the need and the right to have special legislation considered for the marriage of one Male to another Male or Female to Female then let it be seen. All they have done so far is to rant and rave and otherwise disrupt the normal business of the day to as many people as they can.

Please show me the proposed legislation so I can see exactly what they want. If there is nothing like that then then there must some sort of proposal. No organisation seeks to have laws changes without a written proposal.

One last thing, and most importantly if we give them their special request, will they stop there.

Does it stop at marriage or do they have something else that they want.

 

[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.



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

Hello Anthony

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.





[/SIZE][/FONT]

You were trying to point out that aboriginies had a right that other Australians did not have? Werent you? - the opportunity of not voting. You have totally about faced on this and now say the must vote as must everyone else. So you have refuted your original point ?!

In addition as usual it is only you who half presents the facts I cant tell if its because you are genuinely ignorant of them, or if you only half present them because the full facts don't fit you agenda. Anyway you certainly can choose to not vote on matter of conscience see section 31.

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/files/2010-eb-compulsory-voting.pdf

Being sufficiently sick is also an acceptable reason.
see section 33

So aboriginies can choose not to vote for certain reasons like everyone else can? Which isn't quite the inequality of how you first seemed to want to present the situation.

I dontr know the facts of the matter on the special status of aboriginies votes - but certainly the other facts you presented as context on the matter - weren't so good. Is there a special status - you certainly seemed to suggest there was one?

My half researched info or experience of this at least didn't miss the other contextual and simple facts that yours repeatedly did?

Glad to help - however I fear that facts are of no use to you when forming your opinions.

PS - Yes a turkey would work on the bird theme too - come to think of it - so would tit It was you that started the bird name thing btw, so crying fowl would seem a little cheep!?

 

[Vassago]

Vassago,

You like all those who have an anti disciplinarian attitude attempt to justify their position by employing obscure diversions to the subject at heart. The introduction of "Definitions", has as much to do with this discussion as is the size of the hole in your ear.

The simple fact is that Lesbians and Homosexuals have no case for special consideration to marry.

They have the same rights as any other single person in their community. And that is to go about their affairs in peace.

If they believe that they have the need and the right to have special legislation considered for the marriage of one Male to another Male or Female to Female then let it be seen. All they have done so far is to rant and rave and otherwise disrupt the normal business of the day to as many people as they can.

Please show me the proposed legislation so I can see exactly what they want. If there is nothing like that then then there must some sort of proposal. No organisation seeks to have laws changes without a written proposal.

One last thing, and most importantly if we give them their special request, will they stop there.

Does it stop at marriage or do they have something else that they want.

I think you are missing the point. They don't want special legislation. On the contrary, they want special legislation that was passed defining marriage in the 90s to be revoked. The sad thing is, this law, DOMA, was passed only two decades ago. This isn't some archaic definition of marriage we are talking about here that the federal government is recognizing, it's a law that certain overly religious groups in the US passed out of ignorance.

 

[Vassago]

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.

So, you believe that if we legally recognize gay marriage, everyone will suddenly want to marry the same sex and we will have no more procreation? This seems illogical. That would imply the people opposed to same-sex marriages are secretly wanting to do so themselves.

We already have a problem with propagation in the world. In today's world, the ones who are procreating seem to lean more on the less educated side of things since more and more men and women are getting married to their careers or at least putting off having kids to focus on work. Soon enough, everyone will be too stupid to know the consequences of this anyway.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Oh I doubt that it was out of ignorance, i suspect they knew exactly what they were doing, try prejudice.

Brian

 

[RainLover]

You were trying to point out that aboriginies had a right that other Australians did not have? Werent you? - the opportunity of not voting. You have totally about faced on this and now say the must vote as must everyone else. So you have refuted your original point ?!

You are correct. I was of the understanding that Aboriginals did not have to vote. The did however have the right should they wish to. I think my reasoning was in part due to their isolation at times. But you have gone the extra mile and found I was wrong, and I have to agree with you. I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. What more can I say.

In addition as usual it is only you who half presents the facts I cant tell if its because you are genuinely ignorant of them, or if you only half present them because the full facts don't fit you agenda. Anyway you certainly can choose to not vote on matter of conscience see section 31.

How am I presenting half of the facts. Please give me a straight forward example.

To be registered as a non voter one cannot simply say "I am a Consciencestic objector". There is more to it than that. It may require permission from the Courts.

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publ...ory-voting.pdf

Being sufficiently sick is also an acceptable reason.
see section 33

You are becoming silly here. A person on an operating table or giving birth should be acceptable. But the commission does not make it easy for you.

So aboriginies can choose not to vote for certain reasons like everyone else can? Which isn't quite the inequality of how you first seemed to want to present the situation.

I believe the object was to point out that some laws were written specifically for just some people. If I had of brought up Blind People and their dogs I would have achieved the same objective.

I dontr know the facts of the matter on the special status of aboriginies votes - but certainly the other facts you presented as context on the matter - weren't so good. Is there a special status - you certainly seemed to suggest there was one?

I must look into them further. I think there is something missing.

My half researched info or experience of this at least didn't miss the other contextual and simple facts that yours repeatedly did?

I don't see the point you raise here. But I do remember that when I used Half I was acknowledging that you did do some research. A lot of people do not go to the extent that you do.

Glad to help - however I fear that facts are of no use to you when forming your opinions.

PS - Yes a turkey would work on the bird theme too - come to think of it - so would tit

It was you that started the bird name thing btw, so crying fowl would seem a little cheep!?

Very Good, but please don't crow about this. I have heard a song with tit willow in it but I don't know what a tit is. But it is not important.

 

[RainLover]

I think you are missing the point. They don't want special legislation. On the contrary, they want special legislation that was passed defining marriage in the 90s to be revoked. The sad thing is, this law, DOMA, was passed only two decades ago. This isn't some archaic definition of marriage we are talking about here that the federal government is recognizing, it's a law that certain overly religious groups in the US passed out of ignorance.

You are Right. I have no knowledge of this Special Legislation from the 90's

This p....s me off.

If people are calling me ignorant because I have no knowledge of American laws then this just goes to show how bigoted they are.

How on earth could one expect me to know.

There must be more to this.

 

[Vassago]

Oh I doubt that it was out of ignorance, i suspect they knew exactly what they were doing, try prejudice.

Brian

There isn't much difference from where I stand. It is a prejudice, but it's fed to them through ignorance. Ignorance of society and an archaic religious upbringing that hasn't yet entered the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

 

[Vassago]

You are Right. I have no knowledge of this Special Legislation from the 90's

This p....s me off.

If people are calling me ignorant because I have no knowledge of American laws then this just goes to show how bigoted they are.

How on earth could one expect me to know.

There must be more to this.

Who called you ignorant?

 

[RainLover]

So, you believe that if we legally recognize gay marriage, everyone will suddenly want to marry the same sex and we will have no more procreation? This seems illogical. That would imply the people opposed to same-sex marriages are secretly wanting to do so themselves.

We already have a problem with propagation in the world. In today's world, the ones who are procreating seem to lean more on the less educated side of things since more and more men and women are getting married to their careers or at least putting off having kids to focus on work. Soon enough, everyone will be too stupid to know the consequences of this anyway.

So, you believe that if we legally recognize gay marriage, everyone will suddenly want to marry the same sex and we will have no more procreation?

Vassago, You certainly can be creative. How did you reach that conclusion. It is of course way off the track.

 

[RainLover]

Who called you ignorant?

Did I get that wrong. Was it something else like extremist.

Is it important? If so I will have a look tomorrow. Or should I say later today.

 

[Vassago]

So, you believe that if we legally recognize gay marriage, everyone will suddenly want to marry the same sex and we will have no more procreation?

Vassago, You certainly can be creative. How did you reach that conclusion. It is of course way off the track.

I'll take that as a compliment.

I came to that conclusion to establish how invalid that argument is. People have been having children with or without marriage for centuries. Marriage is a legal contract sometimes associated with a religious act. Nothing more. It has nothing directly to do with having kids. If someone is gay, they likely won't be procreating any time soon anyway unless they use a surrogate, which happens often enough. Why would that have anything to do with legal marriage?

Sure, if people stopped reproducing, we would all die out. What does that have to do with anything? Why would that happen?

 

[Vassago]

Did I get that wrong. Was it something else like extremist.

Is it important? If so I will have a look tomorrow. Or should I say later today.

You must have. I called the lawmakers ignorant, but in no way did I mention you.

 

[RainLover]

You must have. I called the lawmakers ignorant, but in no way did I mention you.

I did a scan of the thread and to my surprise I did not get as big a bagging as I thought. Maybe I am paranoid.

Brian was on the receivership of most of the insults and I was surprised to see who did it to him.

No you did not have a go at me.

It is interesting going back over the whole thing again. The defence of the Gays is not as strong as what I thought. This type of defence usually come from the younger set. But in this case they do not care that much.

But I do. I am tired of seeing these minority groups demanding their rights. If a white Australian was to say something about it he is in deep poo.

But I don't care. I can handle that.

I will sign off tonight with a wish for free speech. What is free speech? Let's not go there.

 

[RainLover]

You were trying to point out that aboriginies had a right that other Australians did not have? Werent you? - the opportunity of not voting. You have totally about faced on this and now say the must vote as must everyone else. So you have refuted your original point ?!

I believe I was pointing out that there is some legislation that does apply differently to some groups in the community.

Aboriginal Voting is simply one that came to mind.

To make things complicated State and Federal Laws can be different.

This link shows in part some of the problems.

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/indigenous_vote/aborigin.htm

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

You were trying to point out that aboriginies had a right that other Australians did not have? Werent you? - the opportunity of not voting. You have totally about faced on this and now say the must vote as must everyone else. So you have refuted your original point ?!

You are correct. I was of the understanding that Aboriginals did not have to vote. The did however have the right should they wish to. I think my reasoning was in part due to their isolation at times. But you have gone the extra mile and found I was wrong, and I have to agree with you. I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. What more can I say.

In addition as usual it is only you who half presents the facts I cant tell if its because you are genuinely ignorant of them, or if you only half present them because the full facts don't fit you agenda. Anyway you certainly can choose to not vote on matter of conscience see section 31.

How am I presenting half of the facts. Please give me a straight forward example.

To be registered as a non voter one cannot simply say "I am a Consciencestic objector". There is more to it than that. It may require permission from the Courts.

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publ...ory-voting.pdf

Being sufficiently sick is also an acceptable reason.
see section 33

You are becoming silly here. A person on an operating table or giving birth should be acceptable. But the commission does not make it easy for you.

So aboriginies can choose not to vote for certain reasons like everyone else can? Which isn't quite the inequality of how you first seemed to want to present the situation.

I believe the object was to point out that some laws were written specifically for just some people. If I had of brought up Blind People and their dogs I would have achieved the same objective.

I dontr know the facts of the matter on the special status of aboriginies votes - but certainly the other facts you presented as context on the matter - weren't so good. Is there a special status - you certainly seemed to suggest there was one?

I must look into them further. I think there is something missing.

My half researched info or experience of this at least didn't miss the other contextual and simple facts that yours repeatedly did?

I don't see the point you raise here. But I do remember that when I used Half I was acknowledging that you did do some research. A lot of people do not go to the extent that you do.

Glad to help - however I fear that facts are of no use to you when forming your opinions.

PS - Yes a turkey would work on the bird theme too - come to think of it - so would tit

It was you that started the bird name thing btw, so crying fowl would seem a little cheep!?

Very Good, but please don't crow about this. I have heard a song with tit willow in it but I don't know what a tit is. But it is not important.

I am glad we now agree. Yes you could have presented the special case as sick or religiuos, but you didnt you chose aboriginies.


You actually denied sick and religiuos existed as a special case to further emphasise the special status of aboriginies. I am glad we have it all sorted now.


Happy Easter!

We moved on from Aussie birds to British ones - amongst them there are Great tits. Aussies have boobys dont they?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I believe I was pointing out that there is some legislation that does apply differently to some groups in the community.

Aboriginal Voting is simply one that came to mind.

To make things complicated State and Federal Laws can be different.

This link shows in part some of the problems.

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/indigenous_vote/aborigin.htm

Australia did use to have special legislation for balck people. It favoured whites you could have used those examples!

 

[RainLover]

Sometimes I don't know where I am with you Guys. I do feel as though it is a case of Dammed if I do or Dammed if I don't.

I do not like special consideration been given to a minority just because it is fashionable or that group screams louder than the others.

I particularly disagree with spending millions upon millions of Dollars, so that one small group can feel all warm and fuzzy about getting married.

If a Law was passed to allow a man to marry another man it would be different to the current legislation sanctifying heterosexual unions. It would require acceptance of the general population. I doubt if enough politicians would be prepared to take the risk of loosing votes.

Gay marriage would not be recognised in most other countries. Countries that are strong Catholics would not recognise them. Neither would the Middle Eastern Countries. In Iran you would simply be executed on the spot.

I am having problems thinking of a country that would accept these people let alone acknowledge their marriage.

Some Countries may say you are welcome etc, but when it comes down to the Law of the land it is the local law that will prevail.

The Homosexual and Lesbian community are kidding themselves if they think they can have any real gain that a civil union would not provide.

If you have sympathy for these people then fine. But please acknowledge the fact that this law is for the benefit of a few. It is costly and does nothing for the benefit of the community as a whole. This will only create another division within your country.

 

[RainLover]

Australia did use to have special legislation for balck people. It favoured whites you could have used those examples!

We still do have special Laws for the Aboriginals. Although these days they are meant to help them.

Unfortunately all it does is creates disunity.

Someone once said that if you have a problem and you throw money at it all you end up with is a bigger problem.

 

[Vassago]

I think I've covered that it's not a special law they want, but a stupid law revoked.