Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite

[Rorschach]

[Outlaw Yogi]

Really... born that way.... homosexual myth I'm afraid Yogi, sucked you in have they?

There is no homosexual gene.

Both nature and nurture mould us physically and mentally.

As for poofy kids becoming poofy adults... really... I suppose you know a lot eh?
I've known a few... a couple have chosen a homosexual lifestyle, most though have turned out to be heterosexual even though they exhibit effeminate behaviours even now.

No you've been sucked in by the latent queers in your church.
The only characters pushing the 'Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice' are churches.
The same churches that'll tell you schizophrenia is caused by smoking cannabis.
Typically such characters publicly deny being gay, then loiter at public toilets in secluded parks on week nights and are church youth group leaders on weekends.

I never claimed their is or was a "homosexual gene".
I have specifically stated numerous times, that homosexuality, like schizophrenia, epilepsy and haemophilia is caused by a defective gene. And the defective gene is a mutation caused by inbreeding.

That's why homosexuality, schizophrenia, epilepsy and haemophilia often overlap - meaning the same individuals often suffer from more than one of these conditions. And the reason being, they have a common cause - inbreeding.

So let me guess Rawsack. You hang out at the local anonymous gay haunt on Wednesday night and are a scout leader on Friday evening?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Correct. That's why those with abnormal sexual orientation express such behaviour from such a young age.

I'm not sure that we can say that's definitely the case.

Well I can and will.

A little boy can have feminine traits and grow up to be heterosexual.

No, he grows up to be a closet gay.

Young boys who have been sexually abused can grow up to be homosexual

No, young boys who are sexually abused grow up to be paedophiles. The abuse goes full circle, so the victim becomes a perpetrator.
If the victim is heterosexual he'll grow up to abuse girls. If he's homosexual he'll grow up to abuse boys.
Homosexual boys are often targeted because the paedophile recognises both the victim's sexuality and vulnerability.

- so homosexuality hasn't really been defined as being genetic or environmental.

It has actually. And has been known for a long time, regarding the genetic mutation.
Long before we could trace genealogy factors like inherited diseases - eg European Royals being gay and haemophiliac, or ancient Roman Royals being gay, schizophrenic and/or epileptic - homosexuality passing from generation to generation through infected bloodlines has been common knowledge.
Thus the biblical warning; "The sins of the father will be revisited on the son for seven generations" [a reference to incest] and why Jews are so obsessed with their genealogy - expected to know and name their ancestors for at least seven generations.

In modern times, post 1970s it is possible to define alternate sexuality as 'Environmental also' due to the food chain being contaminated with soy based phyto-estrogen. On top of that it's been found that human's pharmacutical contamination of the oceans is causing Polar bears to become hermaphrodite/intersex. If these substances can cause gender abnormalities in one type of mammal it can do it to any mammal, us included.

Yes morally it's abnormal

Morality is subjective, debatable and subject to a plethora of interpretaions.
For example in the Christian West suicide is a sin, but in historical Japan it was honourable.

- but take that away and it's just base sexual activity - acceptable in animals, but not humans.

No, not acceptable in animals. Animals will use sexual mounting as a display of dominance, but they victimise and kill their homosexual individuals just like they do to any diseased/weakened individual. It's natures way of keeping the species strong.

I used to have a lot of birds and was surprised at how many males paired up.

I get groups of male King parrots together, and then the females will all be with one male.
The group of males are not mating, they're grouping for company because they're not chosen by the females to own the harem.

[One thing I have noticed about a lot of gay males is their almond shape eyes.

Never noticed anything about eyes, but have noticed that both homosexual and schizophrenic males often have falseto voices.

Perhaps that might be as a result of a faulty gene, but how do you explain why people who have been in heterosexual relationships for most of their adult life suddenly switch to same gender relationships?

It's not sudden. They've been closet gays all their life trying to be accepted as normal. Then they have a crisis or lifestyle change and come out.

It's a mystery.

I digress. To me it's no mystery. Just a load of latent poofs scared of being victimised for their abnormality.

[Rorschach]

[Rorschach]

Meanwhile back to reality...

‘Green-Left’ stifling democracy with threats, tantrums on plebiscite

The Australian
12:00AM September 19, 2016
Jennifer Oriel
Columnist

In the gay marriage debate, the Labor Party and Greens want to ­silence public reason to impose their will on citizens.

They believe the state should rule the citizen, not the reverse. They regard the will of the people as a threat to their power. Thus, they seek to deny the Australian people the opportunity to engage in public reason on the question that forms the foundation of a healthy society: what is the meaning of marriage and family?

The proposed plebiscite is an opportunity for the Australian people to revitalise democracy by engaging in a process of public reason as we consider the meaning of marriage and family in the 21st century. It is a positive opportunity to learn from each other and challenge ourselves as we exercise reason, logic, free thought and speech to question the most fundamental social institution of society.

Gay and bisexual people should not be held captive in the centre of the marriage debate because it does not begin with the question of homosexuality. It begins with defining marriage and family and the role of the state and church authority in relation to each.

A part of the reason that the marriage debate is so angry is that the Green-Left is hostile to the exercise of public reason. Like children who throw tantrums because they lack verbal fluency, Green-Left politicians must learn to use their words. It is possible that they do not know how to discuss the question of gay marriage because they are uneducated in the philosophy of marriage, family and society. An intelligent person would take that ignorance as an opportunity to learn.

But the Green-Left’s ignorance is equalled only by its arrogance. Its activists learn only to confirm their worldview. In the classroom of the Green-Left, the citizen learns what to think, not how to think. The mind is stunted, vital questions wither on the branch, the world contracts, the citizen is hollowed out and over time, democracy begins to die. In the classroom of the Green-Left, the lights go out on enlightenment.

We renew our faith in enlightenment and human reason by affirming that democracy begins with the citizen, not the state. It is built by each generation anew on the foundations that preserve its perpetuity: the secular separation of state from church authority, universal law, political liberty, formal equality, freedom of speech and public reason.

The degradation of the foundations of democracy by the 21st century Left has no parallel in Western history. The hard Left attacks democracy using rhetorical and political tools born of a profoundly anti-democratic impulse. They seek to quash a free people’s vote on the meaning of marriage ­— the plebiscite endorsed in the federal election ­— by enforcing rule from above.

They replace public reason with emotionalism, objectivity with bigotry, freedom of speech with the mobbing of those who dissent from the Left party line.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson supports the plebiscite because he believes in free speech and democracy. Last week on Twitter, he was subjected to abhorrent abuse by Left activists who took their cue from Labor leader Bill Shorten and Greens leader Richard di Natale to accuse plebiscite advocates of hypothetically killing children. They smeared Wilson as a “disgrace to humanity” and a threat to gay youth.

But consider who poses the real threat — the politician who puts Australians’ right to free speech and democracy before his personal yearning for gay marriage, or Left activists who respond with tweets like: “F..k you hard”. The ­violent bigotry of the anti-democratic Left emerged once more when gay marriage activists forced the censorship of a group hoping to discuss the proposed plebiscite in relation to Christian ideas about marriage. Not content with targeting gay politicians who dissent from the Left party line, activists allegedly threatened violence against hotel staff for agreeing to host the small Christian group meeting. As reported by David Crowe in The Weekend Australian, the Accor Hotels group was so concerned about the threatening calls by gay marriage activists that it cancelled the function. The silencing of Christians by Left activists represents a gross violation of the human rights to freedom of thought and speech, freedom of movement and assembly.

The Left was once a constructive force for public reason powered by free thought and speech, objective scholarly inquiry, logic and the art of rhetoric. But in the 21st century, the Left has become what it once fought; a stifling orthodoxy of irrational establishment conformists who dominate by means of oppression and rule from above without reason.

It is the embodiment of a negation. It negates freedom. It negates universal law. It negates the scientific method by replacing reason with subjective emotion and political correctness in scholarly inquiry, public debate and jurisprudence. It negates secularism by denying the separation of powers between state and church authority, seeking instead the expansion of state power over the church.

And in the most self-annihilating doctrine of the modern Left, its members have negated formal equality by erecting a regime of codified minority supremacy. Having dispensed with liberalism and formal equality, the Left is now turning on democracy. The marriage debate has exposed the fundamentally anti-democratic constitution of the Green-Left.

Public reason is the marrow of democracy. The process of political deliberation and debate infuse democracy with meaning by encouraging the free flow of ideas towards resolution in informed choice by the majority. The majority of Australians have chosen a plebiscite to resolve the question of marriage reform.

In ancient Greece, the birth of democracy by public reason was held in contrast to politics by divination. The idea that the citizen should create and re-create the state by actively engaging in public reason is the constitution of progressive democracy. Rule from above by appeal to divination — religious or ideological — marks the end of democracy as an enlightenment project.

The proposed marriage plebiscite is the idea of democracy made manifest. Let the people speak — and be heard.

[mantra]

I never claimed their is or was a "homosexual gene".
I have specifically stated numerous times, that homosexuality, like schizophrenia, epilepsy and haemophilia is caused by a defective gene. And the defective gene is a mutation caused by inbreeding.

I agree that a defective gene can cause all sorts of problems, but it isn't just caused by inbreeding. All sorts of toxins can affect genes, although they usually cause mutations. Epilepsy can also be caused by a head injury. I believe that marijuana today - perhaps not the old natural bush weed of yesteryear, can cause schizophrenia and other types of mental illnesses simply because it's had all sorts of toxins added to it over the last couple of decades for maximum effect. It has become mutated.

Sorry mantra there are studies that disprove your theory.

Males who weren't predisposed towards being gay and choose to sleep with other males, do so I believe because they like the sex.

Anyway as far as gay marriage is concerned - the plebiscite is a waste of money. Australia is a conservative country and regardless of this decision needing to be the people's choice - the result will be a resounding no. That is obvious.

[Neferti]

Anyway as far as gay marriage is concerned - the plebiscite is a waste of money. Australia is a conservative country and regardless of this decision needing to be the people's choice - the result will be a resounding no. That is obvious.

The plebiscite was "promised" by the Government. This allows ALL Australians to vote one way or the other. Not just the Politicians, who most Aussies distrust anyway.

IF the plebiscite shows that a majority of us care less, then the Government can go ahead and introduce the legislation or whatever.

Most people (including homosexuals and lesbians) care less about getting married. As do most young people these days. They get the same legal rights and only those who wish to make a scene want a Church Wedding with ALL the trimmings .... and unless you are a Church goer, and have been for years, you can't just get married in Church anyway.

The whole thing is a NONSENSE. Boring to the point of people deciding to vote NO because they are sick to death of it, not because they care one way or the other. Push people too far and get the shit back in your face ....

[Rorschach]

With respect, we can agree to disagree on Marriage Act
Julian Porteous
The Australian

In the present context of a possible plebiscite on changing the Marriage Act, increasingly we are being confronted with the proposition that to express disagreement with, or offer criticism of, certain positions on human sexuality is to be hateful. Those who dare simply to state that marriage is a relationship of lifelong sexual fidelity between a man and a woman, and no more, are labelled as haters.

This mentality involves a deeply flawed logic.

To say that a particular behaviour or action is not good for society or is morally wrong is not to promote hatred towards those who engage in such behaviour.

In philosophy, and indeed in law, there is an absolutely crucial distinction between people and their actions, or people and beliefs. We can fundamentally respect people, and the dignity of all human beings, while being critical of their actions or beliefs. To say that stealing is morally wrong does not inescapably mean that you are inciting hatred towards all thieves. To say that lying is morally wrong does not mean that you are inciting hatred towards all those who lie.

To incite hatred towards a person or group is to intentionally seek to demean a person or group by claiming they are worth less than other human beings or deserve less respect because of an attribute they have.

To hate, one needs to genuinely intend to demean the worth of others. This involves criticising who the person is instead of simply criticising what they do. The Catholic Church, and indeed all Christians, absolutely reject any behaviour, speech or actions that incite hatred. Criticism of particular actions or behaviour does not constitute incitement of hatred towards the person. Being critical of actions or beliefs is not in itself being critical of the person. This understanding is a fundamental presupposition of democratic government. Democracy requires disagreement in order to flourish; it requires that a range of views can be put forward in a respectful way that are critical of the beliefs or actions of others.

If expressing criticism of others’ beliefs or actions in itself is claimed to be inciting hatred then democracy would no longer be possible.

Christianity has always understood this distinction in its own approach when it speaks of condemning the sin while loving the sinner. Criticising particular types of actions, no matter how many times a person performs them, does not mean in any way that you are condemning the person.

Christianity first made the revolutionary claim that all human beings were equal in dignity, because they were made in the image and likeness of God, and that they retained this dignity despite how they acted. Of course, by acting rightly, they more closely embody this dignity. This was a radical claim in the ancient world that had not been made previously. No matter whether they were slave or free, woman or man, rich or poor, all were equal in dignity in the sight of God.

Those who accuse others of being haters simply for expressing criticism of a particular view of human sexuality are in reality promoting hate themselves. They are expressing hatred of anything that is critical of their point of view. They readily use tags and labels to accuse people of attitudes that they do not in fact have. They are unwilling to allow anyone who disagrees with them the opportunity to express their beliefs.

Christianity, on the other hand, is about presenting the truth in love. Love has been and always will be the way of Christianity. No one who authentically follows the teaching of Christ can hate. This is fundamentally incompatible with the way of love.

Love is not about an emotional feeling that simply accepts whatever actions people choose — it concerns seeking the good of the other in relation to the truth of the human person.

One cannot therefore love without proclaiming the truth and encouraging others to live according to the truth regardless of whether it will prove uncomfortable or inconvenient for some.

The Christian simply seeks to present what they believe is the truth in love. They do this for the good of the individual and society as a whole. It is crucial for democracy that we reject the notion that disagreement with or criticism of beliefs or actions constitutes hate.

Julian Porteous is the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart.

Some sense at last....

[Rorschach]

I note it didn't come from the LW progressive homosexual agenda side.

[Rorschach]

Well remember when we were promised not everyone would have to go along with same-sex marriage. Florists, Marriage celebrants, churches etc... well the same sex legal eagles are now pushing to NO EXEMPTIONS...