Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox · Rules Collapse  


 
Add Reply
New Topic
New Poll

 A ‘YES’ VOTE WON’T RESOLVE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Bear
 Posted: Sep 11 2017, 01:34 PM
Quote


Silver


Group: Active Member
Posts: 1995
Member No.: 79
Joined: 7-August 13

Status: Offline
Rep: 7 pts






A ‘YES’ VOTE WON’T RESOLVE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

user posted image

Same-sex marriage supporters are under the impression that if marriage is legally redefined, the issue will be resolved and done entirely. Nice thought, but sadly, not the case.

Mark Latham cuts right to the chase with this, stating a ‘same-sex marriage ‘Yes’ vote will open a can of worms’. This is not in any way a slight on the LGBTI community. What Latham is demonstrating is that the legislative workings behind the definition of marriage will not stop if marriage is redefined – they will be unleashed:

If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.

Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.

One would logically expect the new legislation to read:

“Marriage is a union between:

a) A man and a woman; or

b) Two gay men; or

c) Two lesbian women.”

But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.

The real kicker here is the major contradiction between what the ‘Yes’ campaign is advocating, and what the drafted legislation from Bill Shorten and the like actually proposes:

He [Bill Shorten] sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality . . . That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.

But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?

This is no small matter.



Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F.



I mean, what does the legalisation of polyamorous, skoliosexual and twospirit marriage involve?

Latham isn’t saying this to mock the trans community. Instead, it has real consequences in areas including – importantly – the education of our children. He explains:

I’m also worried about the way in which marriage between any “two people” legitimises the notion of gender fluidity.



Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system.

They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.

With a majority of parents saying they don’t want radical queer theory in the school curriculum via Safe Schools, why would we want it in the Marriage Act?

Marriage equality has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The other side are trying to convince Australians that there are no consequences to changing the definition of marriage, and will do anything they can to stop Australians hearing about the impact a change will have on them and their families.

Even Mark Latham, a supporter of same-sex marriage, realises it is too dangerous to write a blank cheque for freedom.

Without clarification on exactly what we will be voting, it is best to vote ‘No’, not just for the sake of marriage, but for the sake of the rights of ALL Australians:

Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories.

My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it.

I won’t be.

As we have reiterated before, there is far more at stake in this vote than just marriage. The consequences of redefining an integral part of our society and its function will be borne by everyone – regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage. It is not a ‘No’ vote to deny anybody rights – it is a vote to say ‘No’ to allowing legislation to run wild, and run right over the freedom of all Australians.


http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/a_yes_vote_won_t_resolve_same_sex_marriage?utm_campaign=170908_digest&utm_medium=email&utm_source=marriage

It would seem that both TB and Shorten don't fully understand the marriage act, which doesn't surprise me...

This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.

But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?

This is no small matter.


Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F.


I must be getting old me not understand all of the above 'genders'. http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_don_t_know.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.com/blink.gif http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/Smiley_winknod.gif
..............

Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system.

They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.
http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_don_t_know.gif

--------------------
Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason.

~José Maria de Eça de Queiroz,

We live in a world in which politics has replaced philosophy. ~Martin L. Gross, A Call for Revolution, 1993

"Stupid people are like glow sticks: I wanna snap em and shake the shit outta them till the light comes on."
PM
^
scepo
 Posted: Sep 11 2017, 03:42 PM
Quote


Supremo Poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 15936
Member No.: 3
Joined: 21-July 11

Status: Offline
Rep: 65 pts






But this is exactly what the activists have had in mind right from the start.

They were never open and honest about their agenda. They suck the gullible public in by claiming it is about love, and that it is about equality. It is about neither.

But what it is really about is destroying marriage, and following on to destroy the rest of the values that society has maintained for centuries.

How the hell can there possibly be 247 other gender/sexual categories? http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_don_t_know.gif

This is how stupid these so called progressive activists have become.

I suspect that mother nature had a very good reason for evolving or creating us with just 2 genders. Not 247 or more.

--------------------
Everybody is Willing:
Some are willing to work, the rest are willing to let them!

The older I get, the better I was.
PM
^
Phillip J.
 Posted: Sep 11 2017, 04:22 PM
Quote


Platinum


Group: Active Member
Posts: 3910
Member No.: 16
Joined: 17-January 12

Status: Offline
Rep: 32 pts






This whole new approach to "marriage" is, to put it bluntly, total bullshit! http://fairdinkumnewschat.b1.jcink.com/uploads/fairdinkumnewschat/smiley_IMHO.png

--------------------
Live as if the world were as it should be, to show how it could be.
If what we do doesn't matter, then the only thing that matters is what we do.
PMEmail
^
charka
 Posted: Sep 11 2017, 04:32 PM
Quote


Supremo Poster


Group: Active Member
Posts: 20111
Member No.: 11
Joined: 20-December 11

Status: Online
Rep: 48 pts






yes it is rubbish people in australia are doing it tough and this time water rubbish goes on look at the cash wasted for hurt feelings
PMEmail
^
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Share this topic:
« Next Oldest | Social Issues | Next Newest »

Topic Options
Add Reply
New Topic
New Poll