Australians Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Marriage, Clearing Path for Legalization

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just want to clarify something and I failed to write this yesterday.
At the heart of conservatism is respect for tradition and order. The philosophy isn’t interested in change for the sake of change as liberals or Marxists do. Change only happens if it’s actually needed and to avert disaster. Even though the names I listed are seen as ‘fiscally conservative’, they aren’t. I believe conservatism doesn’t endorse building up debt because that would disrupt order and violate traditional values like self-responsibility and accountability. Passing of debt to future generations isn’t responsible.
It doesn’t actually hold the position the state shouldn’t own property, just that property rights exist.
The names I listed are neoliberals, they despise tradition and the only interest they have is maximising profits, which includes the government privatizing as much as possible. Their fiscal policies are not motivated by respect for tradition and order.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
I just wish the state would realize that they were not discriminating Because of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
If the State (The People) can’t see that men can’t become women and vice vsera, then they will never make that distinction let alone judge anything else rightly.

The whole thing is built on fallacies and loaded questions. It’s not ‘same sex marriage’ according to them it’s ‘marriage equality’ which is a total fallacy as well as a loaded question because you can’t recognize something equally without first defining it and it presupposes that we are unjustly discriminating. Such a definition is totally arbitrary, without any meaning or reason. They have given themselves over to a debase mind, and as such, they will not follow reason, only passions, and blindly following passions always has terrible consequences.

So glad there are other faithful Catholics like yourself Joe1, keep up the good fight. 🙂

God Bless You
 
Last edited:
This is no surprise. They are arguing bills in parliament atm
  • once those are decided, SSM will be made legal.
Unfortunately unless we Aussie Catholics are Priests, we will be unable to refuse wedding services in SSM cases.

SSA aimed ads have already started appearing on tv.

Less then 24 hrs since the yes was announced
 
Yes joe, and because we Aussies love our sport , these ads are being aimed at that demographic.

But many young guys are against SSM. It’s going to backfire in membership.

For example, my footy team won the grand final this year. They got a huge fb following during the lead up in the finals. They posted how they were supporting, financially and physically, a SSM group.
They were kept very busy removing all negative team supporter fb comments. And lost quite a slice of financial membership
 
Joe1 said:
They were refusing to bake a cake because it celebrated an act (not an attraction) that is a sin.
Click to expand...
The State can’t easily accept that premise because it has endorsed SSM by supporting it as a good thing, equivalent to marriage. Thus, the State needs to make a further allowance, and it will be reluctant to do so.
 
josh987654321 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Oh yes, every fascist regime legalized gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Every fascist regime despised their ancestors and sought new contradictory heights. The very argument despises all your ancestors, the very founders and builders of our western nations and the freedoms we have enjoyed in the west. Pride, arrogance and debauchery is what this is and as such, these nations will all fall whoever embraces this.
Click to expand...
I call poppycock on that. The most notable Fascist regimes I can think of; Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Showa Japan and Franco’s Spain, were all obsessed with their ancestors. Yes, the Nazis were a bit of an outlier in that they didn’t hold that much value in their Traditionalists, that is the Lutheran and Catholic traditionalists, and leaped over them to invoke the Nordic spirit, with all its Pagan and Early Medieval overtones of lineage and blood. For Fascist Italy there was the obsession with Rome; (the Fascist symbol itself is Roman in origin), so again, there’s this looking back. Japan was similar, invoking the warrior ethic of Medieval Japan. As to Spain, well I doubt even you can deny that Franco and the Traditionalists were soul mates, and good many Traditionalists still pine for the days of Franco’s reign.

So no, Fascists didn’t deny the past, didn’t discredit the ancestors of that society (though I’d argue in many cases they misrepresented their predecessors or picked out historical values that had no place in the modern world). Fascists were traditionalists, which really, when you review the history of the Spanish Civil War, Nazism or Italian Fascism, is little surprise, as they were all at their core fundamentally anti-Communist. Now if you said the Communists rejected their history, I’d agree with you. Communists were fundamentally Materalists and Utilitarians who believed many of the traditional aspects of society to have been built specifically to suppress the lower classes. But to say Fascists did the same is to fundamentally misunderstand what fascism was, where it came from and what its intentions were.

When the Nazis were gleefully putting on productions of Der Ring des Nibelungen, when the Japanese military leaders were trying to install 20th century Japanese with Medievalist notions of honor, sacrifice and conquest, when Franco was waging a war of Falangist supremacy, and Mussolini was erecting those odd neo-Roman monuments, they weren’t rejecting their nations’ past, they were trying to embrace and invoke them, to make the citizens of those nations believe they were returning to some past glorious age.
 
Mostly the rural and more traditional Aussies, and surprisingly, many are non believers.

There was a young guy interviewed last night, he said

What they do behind closed doors is their business, but it’s not right to bring their practices into the public.

That kind of encapsulates the politically correct way they are responding.
 
Rau watch ABC. Wedding cake bakers, many running businesses from home, mums making income, are not going to legally be able to refuse.

Same with other services.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Rau watch ABC. Wedding cake bakers, many running businesses from home, mums making income, are not going to legally be able to refuse.

Same with other services.
Click to expand...
Yes Rose, that’s what I have been saying, and I have provided the rationale for the position I expect the State to take.
 
It looks like the Ontario Human Rights commission recognizes that with:

Sexual orientation
“Sexual orientation” is not specifically defined in the Code. However, the OHRC
recognizes that sexual orientation is more than simply a “status” that an individual
possesses; it is an immutable personal characteristic that forms part of an individual’s
core identity. Sexual orientation encompasses the range of human sexuality from
gay and lesbian to bisexual and heterosexual orientations, **including intimate **
emotional and romantic attachments and relationships. It is most commonly gay
and lesbian people who make claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. However, the protection of the Code extends to all individuals who
are denied equal treatment because of sexual orientation. The Code also prohibits
discrimination because of gender identity, such as that faced by transsexual,
transgender and intersex persons. These protections are extended on the basis
of sex rather than sexual orientation, and are discussed in the OHRC’s Policy on
discrimination and harassment because of gender identity.

So apparently based on this piece of a document from the OHRC I can’t draw a distinction between orientation and act?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
SSA aimed ads have already started appearing on tv.
Click to expand...
TV programs presenting same sex sexual relationships as good have been with us for years.

TV commercials incorporating (depicting) persons in same sex relationships have been with us for quite some time now, though mostly in more subtle ways. It’s reasonable to expect a greater focus (presumably as per the adverts to which you refer) now that the State has enlarged the institution of marriage to incorporate same sex relationships.
 
Joe1 said:
So apparently based on this piece of a document from the OHRC I can’t draw a distinction between orientation and act?
Click to expand...
As to the assessment of discrimination, that’s right and court cases have relied on exactly the idea that the attraction and the entitlement to marry (where legal) are different aspects of the same thing.
 
Rau said:
As to the assessment of discrimination, that’s right and court cases have relied on exactly the idea that the attraction and the entitlement to marry (where legal) are different aspects of the same thing.
Click to expand...
😵😵😵😵 Well I guess that plan is finished. It sucks that I can’t bypass these anti-Catholic laws
 
Last edited:
josh9876543211h Joe1
Joe1:
I just wish the state would realize that they were not discriminating Because of sexual orientation.
If the State (The People) can’t see that men can’t become women and vice vsera, then they will never make that distinction let alone judge anything else rightly.

The whole thing is built on fallacies and loaded questions. It’s not ‘same sex marriage’ according to them it’s ‘marriage equality’ which is a total fallacy as well as a loaded question because you can’t recognize something equally without first defining it and it presupposes that we are unjustly discriminating. Such a definition is totally arbitrary and without any meaning or reason. They have given themselves over to a debase mind, and as such, they will not follow reason, only passions, and blindly following passions always has terrible consequences.

You’re right…marriage has never been about equality…it’s always been about the union of a man and a woman…not only have they changed the definition of what marriage is…but by calling it “marriage equality” they have labeled anyone who disagrees with them as bigoted…homophobic…bible bashers etc… and no doubt the government will now side with them…Catholics and other Christians will need to be especially vigilant that their religious freedoms aren’t eroded away…Christians may find themselves under physical and or vocal persecution by voicing their beliefs in the future
 
niceatheist said:
to make the citizens of those nations believe they were returning to some past glorious age.
Click to expand...
And that past glorious age had the same common denominator that the communists envisaged of a future glorious age, and that’s atheism and paganism. Their identities surrounded things like a superior race or a supreme earthly leader, both Nazism and Communism were opposed to one another, but both were fascist regimes and both jettisoned Christianity which underpinned both societies.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
You don’t know much about Franco I see
Click to expand...
I know enough about fascism.

What happened to Asher’s bakery is just a small taste of the fascism this Gender Theory and much wider agenda is after. First they have to take over the Schools as the Nazi’s and Communist’s did, but this time with Gender Theory indoctrination, which they are currently in the process of doing.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
So apparently based on this piece of a document from the OHRC I can’t draw a distinction between orientation and act?
Click to expand...
Yup, and neither can the Church, which places us and the Church outside the law.

Fortunately it will not last though, the whole thing is built on a lie and will inevitably come crashing down, we can see this already happening with those like California putting two men on a child’s birth certificate and other such nonsense.

I just hope people can wake up sooner rather then later and that we don’t have to suffer too much.

God Bless You.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top