Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Will Gay Marriage be put to the people?

Will Gay Marriage be put to the people?

I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of  same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen  if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:

click for source

click for source

Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people.  Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.

It could be  bit more spice into the pot for September 14  but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players  want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former  because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise  be consigned to the dustbin of history…

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Cheers Comrades

wedding rings animated

Advertisements

67 Comments

  1. damage says:

    Iain
    This is a very interesting issue.
    As I understand the law re referenda and plebiscite, the government is required to fund argument in both camps equally and the media are required to have a balanced and fair approach to both sides in so far as time and advertising space is concerned.
    The requirement would mean that even the most mean spirited arguments would need to be aired, printed and reported FAIRLY. It has already prompted the gay lobby to go ion the front foot this morning demanding that politicians (on whom they can lean politically) make this decision and not the people (on whom they cannot lean politically) their main argument is that unkind things will be said about gay marriage.
    The frightening issue is that they are suggesting that it is a “fundamental human right” to be able to marry “the person you love”.
    So look out Marisa Tomei, because I will have you in the human rights commission for not marrying me.

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    The problem with a plebiscite would be how to word one. What yes/no question would they ask? I support the rights of same sex couples to ‘marry’ but I believe it should be under a new and separate Act. So if the question were to be “Do you support a change to the existing Marriage Act to include same sex couples”, I would answer “NO”. Which suggests I oppose gays getting married when I don’t.

    But if they just asked “Do you support the rights of same sex couples to be legally married”, I would answer “YES”. And then the government might see that as a green light to change the existing Act, when it’s not.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Ray that would definitely be the problem because like you I would be happy to endorse the creation of a separate legal instrument to cover same sex couples but I would not be able to endorse a change to the marriage act to accommodate homosexuals. In any event it seems that Tony Abbott is not so keen on running a plebiscite that will distract from the major issues of the election.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Damage
    Marissa?

    Join the waiting list buddy 🙂

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Abbott doesn’t get to set the rules, Iain. I agree that a plebiscite is a dumb idea though.

    As for Marisa, it’s a bit sad when a 48-year old feels it’s necessary to get around town in her underwear. She’s very attractive but maybe the top bit is designed to divert attention away from those god-awful knees.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, you changed the pic.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    I’m not so concerned about knees Ray

  8. damage says:

    The men in Bright worry about the knees Iain.

    We either have gays allowed to marry, or we don’t. A separate act is in my opinion not what should happen. The idea of having one rule or set of rules for one group and another for other groups is by definition discriminatory. Imagine if we had workplace legislation for ATSI people and another for WASPs? Imagine a set of road rules for woman and another for men?
    Either gay people are allowed to marry under the current legislation or we continue to say that they cannot marry other people of the same gender.
    I’m of the opinion that the end result of this is going to be that the churches, especially the RCC will no longer recognise the legal validity of the act and they will no longer marry people in the form of the act and that people who wish to marry will have to go to a registry office as they do in a number of European countries.
    And I would be happy with that.

  9. damage says:

    thanks for the images too Iain. Simply sensational. One of the worlds 5 best.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Who are your other four Damage

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    We have separate Acts to cover a whole range of different groups of people like children, the disabled, pensioners, war veterans, aborigines, immigrants … the list goes on. Introducing a separate Same Sex Marriage Act would simply give homosexual people more rights than they presently have, while at the same time preserving the existing Act. I think you’re using the “it’s discriminatory” argument falsely – you are opposed to gay marriage (period), right? That’s how you’ve argued previously.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Damage as the comments from Ray and I suggest there are lots of people who feel that recognition of homosexual unions is desirable and a plebiscite that asks such a question is more likely to succeed than one that wants the current act amended.

  13. damage says:

    I think you are misunderstanding.
    There are a number of whole acts that do that Ray, you’re right, but there is not a separate workplace relations act for woman and another one for men. There isn’t a tax act for whites and another for blacks. There isn’t a separate immigration act for Europe and another for Asia.
    In many acts there are definitions of who is and who is not covered by that act and this is an argument primarily on the definitions per the act. As defined now there is a restriction on marriage to be between 2 people of age and of different gender. To suggest that gay people don’t deserve the same right under the same act as the rest of society is the core of the issue. Having a separate act simply makes any argument of discrimination more prominent. Either we allow them to marry under the current act or we don’t, but a separate act is completely out of the question.

  14. damage says:

    I would not argue that point at all Iain. However, if i was gay I doubt i would cop that kind of discrimination and i know of no gay group or activist who would condone that approach.
    Yes Ray I am against gay marriage, but only because I support the current definition of what a marriage is.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Damage
    The problem for your argument is that it assumes that there is no differences between heterosexual and homosexual liaisons which is somewhat at odds with the reason for gender and sexual reproduction.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    What kind of driving licence do you have Damage? assuming that its only endorsed for a car would you feel discriminated against because the governments requires a different licence to drive a Bus?

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    I am against gay marriage

    As I thought. And (as I thought) you’re using the “it’s discriminatory to have a separate Act” argument to …. well, to continue YOUR discrimination against gays being married.

    You oppose gay marriage – full stop – yet you hypocritically suggest that a separate Act to allow that would discriminate against them!?! LMAO.

    Tell me, do you just take these ludicrous, self-pwning positions for the sake of an argument? No one could credibly claim your position holds any ground whatsoever.

  18. damage says:

    Ian.
    Notwithstanding that it is a state rather than a federal act, there is only one act covering both bus and car in my state(and all other vehicles on the road)…………which is my point. In fact I wouldn’t need a different licence UNDER THE SAME ACT to drive a bus. I simply need to have the current licence endorsed. That is, that the definition of “drive” is the same for the bus and the car under the act.
    The question you should ask is….Would it be fair to ask me to be subject to another act in order to drive the same vehicle simply because I was gay or left handed or Italian or female or a tradesman etc etc?

    Ray
    What ever…..
    The current marriage act does not discriminate against gay people. They are seen exactly the same way under the law as you and I are. They are allowed to marry anyone who agrees to marry them so long as they are of the opposite gender. There is no difference.
    To create a seperate act would change that. What would happen is that you would need to prove you were gay in order to marry another man. I don’t see what a person’s sexuality has to do with their legal status. Your act would make it relevent.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Huh? Now you’ve gone right off the planet. No, no one would have to “prove they were gay” to be married under a same sex Marriage Act (even you could use it). There is no sexual habit test for the current hetero Act either and plenty of gays/bi-sexuals have married the opposite sex (for their own reasons). Why don’t you just give up, damage?

  20. damage says:

    Ray.
    Why do we need a seperate act then?
    If there were 2 acts then what is to stop hetrosexuals getting married under the newer one?
    All I am saying is that far from being a compromise, a seperat act merely perpetuates the idea that society discriminates against gays. Read any article by any gay person or pro gay marriage activist and you will see that they want equality under the current law and not a seperate law. I for one see that point. I’m not in favour of them getting equality under the current law, but only because I am against the redefinition of marriage.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Yeah, I know that *some* gay activists (including a well-known hetero blogger) use that “it’s still discrimination” argument to insist the only true equality is to change the existing Marriage Act. But they’re wrong in my opinion. A separate Act, provided it confers equal rights, is equal to the existing Act.

    But I repeat, you are just using that argument to support your total opposition to gay marriage be it by change to the current Act or under a separate one.

    And there would be nothing stopping a hetero to get married under the separate Act, provided it was to the same sexx. Why they’d want to do that I’m not sure but that’d be their choice. Sounds like you’re against free choice too.

  22. damage says:

    It was once illegal for people of colour to go to school in some US states. Then some of thos estates changed the law and said it was OK but they had to have their own schools. It was called segregation. Giving them the same right under a seperate system. That’s what a seperate act says. Segerated marriage.
    Not going to argue for that.

  23. damage says:

    Sounds like you’re for segregation. Still.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Ah yes, they (and he) use that argument too. You’re only agreeing with him now (the bloke you despise) because it sort of suits your anti-gay marriage stance.

    Look, it’s a poor analogy. Blacks were still denied access to white schools. But a separate same-sex Marriage Act does not deny gays access to hetero marriages … if that’s what they want. A segregated marriage? Um, all marriages are separate … unless you believe in polygamy.

  25. damage says:

    I have not read what “HE” says on this matter for ages.
    “I” however don’t believe in segregation. You’re arguing for it in this case. It’s not an uncommon argument and you may be right about it being a possibility in a referendum, but let’s call it what it is.
    What next. A seperate marriage law for different religions? A seperate one for the colourds? You can’t be partly segregationist Ray.
    We should have ONE marriage ACT it needs to be federal and it needs to define a marriage as between a man and a woman.
    Anything else is no compromise.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    Let’s get this straight, damage. You are the one wanting to “segregate” gays, not me. You are the one who would deny them the same rights as heteros – ie to marry their partners. Keep arguing with yourself mate, but I’m done listening to your nonsense.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    I agree with you damage that there is no need to change the marriage act, however there is no doubt that as a society we also need to satisfy the desires of the homosexual subculture that they can have some recognition for their relationships. Frankly I don’t see how you can object to some sort of civil partnership arrangement.

  28. damage says:

    I don’t Iain.

    The idea of civil union – for all people gay or straight – is fine, but Ray used the word “marry” and an act that seperately enshrines marriage for a different group is not a compromise. It discriminates against gay couples because is says not only are you now welcome to marry under the same act as us, but you have to marry under a seperate one. Presumably the unions in both carry the same weight and status under all other laws, so why seperate acts?
    The examples used above show that we would never contemplate segeregating other acts so we should not segeregate marriage.
    Your driving analogy is a good one. I extend it to ask should we have a seperate drivers licence for the blind?
    I believe that marriage is – at its heart and core – a procreative union. It is the core unit of the family which is the core unit of our community. By and large the overwealming majority of marriages are entered in to to produce children and create/extend family. Most heterosexual relationships are fertile by definition and all homosexual relationships are infertile by definition. Therefore gay marriage does not fulfil the fundamental requirement of the idea of the union. To produce children and to propogate family.
    I agree that not all men and women can, do or will produce children and i am quite happy to conceed that plenty of heterosexual couples are infertile. But the vast vast vast majority are not.
    Give all relationships the same place under the law if you like, but leave marriage alone. It’s about family. Being gay is an infertile existance. Accept it and move on.

  29. damage says:

    Sorry Iain I didn’t get to the other 4.
    In no particular order and these are all in their hay days.

    Jan Fonda
    Megan Gale
    Ashley Judd
    Natalie Wood

    I’m an older chap now, but if i were a younger chap now i would be giving Megan Fox a bloody good bothering.
    In fact I can see me in front of the human rights commission arguing that all of them are breaching my fundamental human right to marry the one I love.
    Of course that’s the next act Ray will want passed. A segregated law to allow me to marry all 5.

    I suppose I could be turned on this subject. Marriage acts for every occasion sounds like a briliant plan.

  30. GD says:

    damage reckons:

    Give all relationships the same place under the law if you like, but leave marriage alone. It’s about family. Being gay is an infertile existance. Accept it and move on.

    My sentiments exactly.

  31. GD says:

    Given this slippery slope, we’ll soon have ‘breeders’ and ‘non-breeders’, along with the polygamous marriages of breeders, non-breeders and ‘I’m just here for the sex’.

    Pandora’s Box, so to speak, and one that is better left unopened.

    Leave the sanctity of heterosexual marriage alone.

    Homosexuals, I refuse to call them ‘gay, already have equal legal rights in all aspects.

    Leave the sanctity of heterosexual marriage alone.

  32. Richard Ryan says:

    ‘non-breeders’? will cut down on abortions.

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    Leave the sanctity of heterosexual marriage alone

    So you’d support a separate Act to cover same sex marriages then, GD? That’d leave “the sanctity” alone, wouldn’t it? (Just put your response under the door overnight, as per usual, and I’ll read it tomorrow morning)

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    Is the Pope a Catholic?

  35. damage says:

    No he’s an Argentine?

    Which one of your segregated marriage acts would he be able to marry under?

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    Whichever one he chooses, although isn’t he sworn to celibacy? Maybe he’ll just continue the great tradition of RC priests getting their jollies, um, elsewhere.

  37. damage says:

    But you made the point earlier that sex has nothing to do with the act.
    Ergo his celibacy isn’t relevent.
    I’m concerned that you believe that “tradition” to be great. I would have thought it sad and shameful myself. Each to his own though.

    I have some questions. I won’t overwealm you with all at once so pleas just answer and I’ll ask the next.

    If I marry my mate Bob under the new act, can I still be married to Sue under the current one?

  38. damage says:

    married sorry.

  39. Ray Dixon says:

    If I marry my mate Bob under the new act, can I still be married to Sue under the current one?

    I would presume the legislation would be worded to prevent that, dumbage, and you’d have to divorce Sue before you could marry your boyfriend, I reckon. Or you could just keep your homosexual affair with Bob your little secret.

  40. damage says:

    Nice little homophobe deflect Ray. I stated clearly that Bob and I are just mates, and I thought you said it wasn’t about our sexuality.

    Bob and I simply want to buy a house and if we’re married it’s easier to get a loan.

    It appears that what I have to do to abide by one act requires us to take action persuant to another. Seems a bit of double handeling to me.

    Ok so my gay Kiwi friends Trent and Trent get married in Aukland and, like 15% of the rest of their fine land’s people, they want to come here to live.
    Under which act do we recognise their marriage in Australia?

  41. Ray Dixon says:

    Well you’re mighty confused about bank loans too, by the sound of it.

    As for Trent & Trent, what’s your point?

  42. damage says:

    What’s your answer?

  43. Ray Dixon says:

    What’s your question? When are Trent & Trent migrating here, before or after a Same Sex Bill comes in? You need to be more specific, clearer and coherent when you speak. I know it’s hard for you but give it a try.

  44. damage says:

    You’re being obtuse because you realise your argument has been dismantled. You know that we’re examining your own proposition that there will be 2 segregated groups of married people depending on their sexuality. Therefore it’s quite clear that the question regards them comint ot Australia after the law is changed.
    I will accept your obtuseness as giving up. You have attempted insults and even homophobic insults to draw attention away from the weak argument so it is quite clear you’re not comfortable discussing your point.
    Thanks for the discussion – or lack of it – I think I have made my point.

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    For God’s sake man, you’ve had two bad days in a row now. And you’re about 5 laps behind.

    So I suggest you quit … and go to bed.

  46. Simon says:

    I’m not directly quoting anyone here but, “The ability to procreate together” as a prerequisite for being allowed to marry is a poor clause. It also rides in the face that traditionally this was a theoretical and untested skill until some time after the marriage had be consummated, hopefully after nine months.

    I’m swayed by some recent Conservative comments that Marriage is about a life-long commitment (or attempt of) whereas a Civil Union doesn’t quite have that Ring about it. Ultimately any damage to marriage has already been done once divorce became more freely available. But we don’t see too many people arguing that that particular form of life-sentence should be reinstituted.

    I think Australia could continue to live quite happily without having to be forced to follow the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand’s example. It would be like when someone visits a country like Saudi Arabia and they have to respect their certain laws and practices.

  47. GD says:

    Simon reckons:

    I’m not directly quoting anyone here but, “The ability to procreate together” as a prerequisite for being allowed to marry is a poor clause. It also rides in the face that traditionally this was a theoretical and untested skill until some time after the marriage had be consummated, hopefully after nine months.

    Simon, the point of marriage in those times was to produce an offspring. Obviously marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman, not two men, two women or two men and their dog.

  48. Richard Ryan says:

    GD’s best friend a dog—woof-woof.

  49. damage says:

    If those are bad days then you better hope that there are no good ones ahead because you’ve been forced to use insults and squirming and victory claiming just to keep in the game. You have not answered the questions Ray.
    If there are two separate acts and one does not recognize the other, then would a couple from another jurisdiction who’s gay marriage is not recognized under the current act, be recognized under your segregated one?
    If they don’t recognize one another then what’s to stop a person, married under one, from getting married under the other as well?
    If the two acts do recognize one another then why have two?
    An interesting question asked by a US supreme court judge.

    “If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?”
    The point being that if it is a fundamental right then wouldn’t it be a restriction of that fundamental right to stop a woman marrying her brother? Wouldn’t it be a restriction of a fundamental right to prevent a married man marrying another woman, or another man for that matter?

    I would add another question. If marriage is a fundamental right then why have 2 acts of parliament to define it?

    I look forward to your arguments on these matters.

  50. Ray Dixon says:

    You have not answered the questions Ray

    Because you word them so badly and ambiguously. And they’re so convoluted – like the one you just asked. Let’s face it, you’re just posing hypothetical scenarios to suit your strong opposition to same sexes having a right to be legally married to each other.

    Look, I’m not a strong advocate for gay marriage either, and I think you know that from previous discussions here. I think a lot of the gay marriage campaign is politically-motivated and especially by the Greens who see this as shoring up support from the gay community.

    But it’s not going away anytime soon. Ergo, my position is that the best solution is to offer to enact a separate (but equal) law to enshrine gay relationships in a marriage, if that’s what they truly desire. I actually believe most gay people don’t want to get married anyway, but that’s another matter. The fact that they reject that notion (of a separate Act) on the clearly erroneous grounds of “discrimination” (how is it discriminatory to offer them an equal right?) suggests strongly to me that the push for gay marriage is more about spite than anything else. I.E.: It’s more about tearing down conventions and entrenched institutions like marriage. It’s about changing accepted norms to suit a minority, which is wrong.

    So anyway, short answer to your silly questions:

    Of course the two separate Acts would be cross referenced with provisions that a person can only be married under one Act. That’s a no-brainer and your sub-question of “If the two acts do recognize one another then why have two?” has already been answered – to give equal rights.

  51. damage says:

    But if all you want to do is to give equal rights then why not simply allow them to marry under the same act? Surely?

    You had your chance to name another area of the law where seperate acts exist to allow equal rights and you couldn’t.
    To be fair, I can’t think of one either. But I’m not trying to suggest that that is what we need to do.

    I agree that most gay couple probably don’t wish to marry, but they believe – wrongly – that they deserve the RIGHT to.
    If you are intent on offering them equal rights then creating another act does nothing for that end.

    I’m with the judge.

    A far more astute legal mind than either of ours.

    Marriage is not a fundamental right. It can’t be. It is a restricted right. Like driving a car, owning land or being in parliament. We have dozens of restricted rights and we don’t even bat an eye to them. Neither do the greens. Or gays.
    For those who agree that marriage is a right that should be respected equally, there is no way that segregation can be agreed to.
    All I have said is that it’s no compromise. Noting you have said suggests otherwise.

  52. Ray Dixon says:

    why not simply allow them to marry under the same act?

    But you’re not advocating that either, are you? You say it’s all or nothing but only because you argue for the give-them-“nothing” position. You’re simply borrowing their argument against a separate Act to suit your total opposition.

    And I did name half a dozen or so groups of people where we have separate laws to cover their needs and/or circumstance, such as aborigines, war veterans, the disabled, etc. The list is endless.

    Having a separate same-sex marriage Act would merely reflect the clear distinctions in the relationships each governs. And it would counter the ‘slippery slope’ argument that you quoted … because it does not tinker with the existing model, it merely replicates it (with one major distinction, of course).

    I reckon we’re done here and, if you keep going, it’ll only be in circles.

  53. damage says:

    We don’t have a seperate marriage act, property act, or any other act for veterans, aborigines or the disabled. That’s simply wrong. There are no 2 identical acts for any 2 seperate groups.
    Seperate acts for sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers and multiples? Why not? Good for one, good for all. IF it’s a right that is.

    I gues you’re right. You’ve never changed your mind because you lost an argument before.

  54. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, you want to claim “victory”? Unbelievable. But not unexpected. Okay, one more comment from me and then you can do your ‘victory’ lap, beating your chest (while the audience laughs at you):

    We don’t have a seperate marriage act, property act, or any other act for veterans, aborigines or the disabled

    We certainly do have separate Acts to cover their separate needs. Veterans don’t claim “discrimination” because their benefits fall under a different Act to old age pensioners, do they? And aborigines don’t claim “discrimination” because they get Abstudy not Austudy. In both cases the recipients are accessing the same thing – government welfare/assistance. So your point is moot – what difference does it make if homosexuals have a separate Marriage Act? It makes none, because under the Act they would be getting exactly what they asked for.

    Now let’s cut to the bottom line here: Your use of this “segregation/discrimination by two Acts” argument is entirely disingenuous. You are a self-admitted anti-gay marriage advocate and you would deny homosexuals ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be legally married. My suggestion of a separate Act at least meets them half way, if not all the way.

    I suggest you just be honest and stop hiding behind the arguments of those you actually oppose. Be honest and admit you’re …. well, unlike some people we know, I won’t call you a “bigot”. I actually don’t think you are – I think you have perhaps deep-seated religious objections to gay marriage and, as I suggest, you should just be honest and admit that.

    Now, can we agree to disagree on that? I’m not deeply religious and I see this as more of a social/legal issue. But go on, do your false ‘victory’ lap if you like – perhaps you should do a handstand a-la Akermanis? I won’t be responding to you any further on this.

  55. damage says:

    It’s not about me Ray so I won’t comment on the rant.

    It is possible for a person to be both a veteran and an old age pansioner. Wow! I bet that blew you away.
    SO exactly what legislation are you talking about there?
    Are you suggesting that the Veterans Affairs act is exactly the same as the (not sure of the name) Act except for the definitions of who they effect?
    Name a single instance of two acts that are identical except that one defines its reason differently than the other?

    If marriage is a fundamental right then you can’t restrict it. At all.
    If that’s true then you MUST make it all or nothing and you cannot have an us and them set of acts. That’s segregation by any definition.

    I’m glad you won’t respond any further. You’re getting too angry. Best have a lie down.

  56. damage says:

    I’ll guarantee 2 things and pretty much guarantee a third.
    1) Your last sentence is BS.
    2) There will be no second act. Gay people – as they should – will object to the notion that their unions (what ever they get called) deserve to be considered so unworthy that they get a second marriage act. The only alternative might be to have a civil union act that allows both gay and straight people to declare a life long intention that isn’t a marriage, but all of the gay activists I have read won’t have any part of a second act of any nature. It’s all or nothing for them and I see their point clearly.
    3) As you said. Gay people are mot interested in marriage. They just want to have weddings and dress up and be the centre of attention.

    Enjoy the vlium and the lie down.
    I’ll do the handstand because your argument will never fly while my arse points to the ground so you might have a chance.

    Oh and I am not religious either.

  57. GD says:

    There will be no second act. Gay people – as they should – will object to the notion that their unions (whatever they get called) deserve to be considered so unworthy that they get a second marriage act.

    You’ve got that right damage. As usual Ray is out of the loop. To wit, his insistence that Rudd would once again lead the Labor Party. The rest of his predictions have all come to naught, and all he’s got remaining is to criticise me personally when I hit too hard at his ideology, ie Islamic/refugee apologist.

    Pathetic really when a grown man can’t admit that he has guessed it wrong, and is continuing to guess it wrong by supporting a government intent on flooding Australia with all and sundry from the Middle East, with nary a security or health check.

    It’s not us who should worry, it’s the marriage challenged gays who should be worried. Not only won’t they be able to be married, they won’t be able to live and breathe if Gillard’s continuing policy of ‘all and sundry’ continues from the land of Sharia.

  58. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t have an “ideology” on politics, GD. I’m not an “Islamic/refugee apologist”. And I don’t support the Gillard government. Good to see you here during normal hours though.

  59. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, and I didn’t “predict” there will be a separate Same Sex Marriage Act, GD, I only suggested it would be preferable to changing the existing Act. Obviously it won’t happen anytime soon as the protagonists reject that notion because they want to change the definition of Marriage as we know it. Ironically, by agreeing with them that a separate Act is not the way to go, you are only ensuring that they’ll get their way a la New Zealand. And sooner rather than later.

  60. damage says:

    My first guarantee? Tick.

    I do agree that there will probably be a change to the act. I predict that it will lead to others that we wouldn’t now argue should occur.

  61. Ray Dixon says:

    What part of this don’t you understand?:

    I won’t be responding

    to you

    any further on this

    I haven’t. And I won’t.

  62. GD says:

    damage reckoned:

    Gay people are not interested in marriage. They just want to have weddings and dress up and be the centre of attention.

    A bit strong, damage, but having worked for years in the theatre I’d say that’s pretty much the case. It’s the leftist heterosexual activists who are pushing this agenda. These leftist activists couldn’t care less about Robert and Robert being married, or Sylvia and Sylvia. What they want is a devolution of the family unit. Despite what they say, polygamy isn’t far away. The eventual outcome is the control of children by the state, devoid of parental control.

    from Chapter 2 of ‘Brave New World’

    * At the end of the room a loud speaker projected from the wall. The Director walked up to it and pressed a switch.

    “… all wear green,” said a soft but very distinct voice, beginning in the middle of a sentence, “and Delta Children wear khaki.
    *
    * Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.”
    *
    “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m really awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able …”

    And such will be the result of the devolution of marriage, the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge. Beware, be aware, these leftist ideologues could lead us down a path best not travelled.

    Witness their support for late term abortion.

  63. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes …. and then we’ll start eating the old. The world is doomed.

  64. GD says:

    Yes …. and then we’ll start eating the old. The world is doomed.

    geez, I hope not..

    then again there could be an upside..

    everyone else would have to eat my shorts…

  65. damage says:

    Guarantee #1 x 2.

  66. Ray Dixon says:

    Still having trouble reading, eh?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: