australian senator resighs over gay marriage lead to bestiality remark

[Grace51]

about time!



i am not for gay marriage.

neither am i condone homosexual lifestyle.

but i am glad he received consequences for comparing gays to perverts.

he asked for it in my opinion and i hope other Christians who does this kind thing will receive similiar consequences too.

enough is enough!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tiality-comments/story-fn59niix-1226477232022

 

[Born to Watch]

So he stated?
If we allow homosexuals to marry, then possibly we could accept polygamy then he suggested possibly interspecial marriages at some stage.
Well it is possible isnt it.
How is that comparing homosexuals to anyone.

Its just a question, I make no statement of right or wrong

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So he stated?
If we allow homosexuals to marry, then possibly we could accept polygamy then he suggested possibly interspecial marriages at some stage.
Well it is possible isnt it.
How is that comparing homosexuals to anyone.

Its just a question, I make no statement of right or wrong

Is gay marriage a prerequisite for polygamy or bestiality? I would suggest that it isn't, so why mention them in the same breath if not to imply some sort of comparison or link? The senator even said "The next step....." which surely even you can see implies one thing leading to another.

 

[Rusticus]

I would just like to point out that the statement contained in the topic of this thread is misleading:
The senator did not resign from the senate - he is still a senator. He was dismissed by Tony Abbott from the position as parliamentary secretary to Tony Abbott.

 

[Grace51]

I would just like to point out that the statement contained in the topic of this thread is misleading:
The senator did not resign from the senate - he is still a senator. He was dismissed by Tony Abbott from the position as parliamentary secretary to Tony Abbott.

when i read your first sentence, i thought you meant my statement that he should not compare gays to perverts is misleading.

it turns out you were talking talking about his punishment.

ok i got the fact wrong.

 

[Born to Watch]

Is gay marriage a prerequisite for polygamy or bestiality? I would suggest that it isn't, so why mention them in the same breath if not to imply some sort of comparison or link? The senator even said "The next step....." which surely even you can see implies one thing leading to another.

I didnt see the comparison or link, hence my question.
If we can corrupt marriage, why cant it be corrupted to interspecial relationships? The next step could well be, why cant it be the next step
Its a question

 

[Rusticus]

The really odd thing about the whole same-sex marriage debate in Australia is that government agencies like Centrelink, ATO, etc. use the term "partnered" for persons who are deemed to "cohabit", regardless of the sex (or sexual orientation) of the partners. Partnered persons are treated different to single persons by these government agencies.

This really means that same-sex relationships already have some legal standing, regardless of what the parliament might debate and/or vote.

 

[Grace51]

The really odd thing about the whole same-sex marriage debate in Australia is that government agencies like Centrelink, ATO, etc. use the term "partnered" for persons who are deemed to "cohabit", regardless of the sex (or sexual orientation) of the partners. Partnered persons are treated different to single persons by these government agencies.

This really means that same-sex relationships already have some legal standing, regardless of what the parliament might debate and/or vote.

but do they enjoy the exact same right as married couple though?

while i am against gay marriage (thanks to born to watch reminders again and again), i am for civil union and for those in civil union to enjoy the exact same privilege as a married couple

it is about human rights!

sinners have rights to live and breathe just like we Christians do!

 

[Grace51]

I didnt see the comparison or link, hence my question.
If we can corrupt marriage, why cant it be corrupted to interspecial relationships? The next step could well be, why cant it be the next step
Its a question

how about this, if we allow homosexual continue to have sex, then does it mean we have legalize child predators violating children too?

please!

 

[Rusticus]

but do they enjoy the exact same right as married couple though?

while i am against gay marriage (thanks to born to watch reminders again and again), i am for civil union and for those in civil union to enjoy the exact same privilege as a married couple

it is about human rights!

sinners have rights to live and breathe just like we Christians do!

Of course they do not enjoy (or endure) exactly the same rights. My purpose for mentioning this was to point out the double standards the majority of our elected representatives seem to be comfortable with.

As far as the senator in question is concerned, he did say some other very silly things before this. I would be surprised if he makes it again onto the Liberals' senate ticket when his term expires.

I think the way forward would be for the government to get out of the "marriage business" altogether.
There could be some civil union (although we would need to find a better word) for everyone, which would be a recognition by the state that two people (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, etc) are now an "economic unit". This would be issued by the registry office.
Anyone wishing to get "married" could afterwards do this in a church, mosque, temple, witches coven, atheists circle, or whatever.
There would need to be a legal safeguard that this "marriage" can only be celebrated if the two people can produce the appropriate proof that they've done their thing at the registry office before.

 

[Born to Watch]

how about this, if we allow homosexual continue to have sex, then does it mean we have legalize child predators violating children too?

please!

What? What has this to do with homosexuality and child predators being legalised. Thats drawing a long bow.

The issue is if marriage is not just between men and women then why cant it be a marriage to a tree, if somebody wants.
Marriage will have no definition or value anymore. Why not a 6 month marriage

"child predators violating children" what has that to do with redefining marriage???

 

[Born to Watch]

but do they enjoy the exact same right as married couple though?

while i am against gay marriage (thanks to born to watch reminders again and again), i am for civil union and for those in civil union to enjoy the exact same privilege as a married couple

it is about human rights!

sinners have rights to live and breathe just like we Christians do!

You dont have to be against gay marriage because of me, by all means support it. As Christians we can be divided in opinions, thats ok.

My position is valid because I have some textual support, I dont deny your position if you think it ok for same sex couples to marry.

If you think that the world can adopt marriage and Christians should not exclude the world, suggesting homosexual marriage is acceptable in secular society. I wont deny your right to believe that.
I disagree with society redefining marriage to suit itself or individuals.

Believe what you want, its just my understanding

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What? What has this to do with homosexuality and child predators being legalised. Thats drawing a long bow.

The issue is if marriage is not just between men and women then why cant it be a marriage to a tree, if somebody wants.
Marriage will have no definition or value anymore. Why not a 6 month marriage

"child predators violating children" what has that to do with redefining marriage???

"If we allow a man and a woman to get 'married' then eventually gay people will want to get married, then a man and his lemon tree will want to get married too. That's why we shouldn't allow heterosexual marriage; it's a slippery slope toward animal and plant marriage".

 

[Keachian]

State marriage should be between two or more consenting adults, and religious organisations (including Churches) shouldn't deal out state marriages.

 

[TheDag]

The really odd thing about the whole same-sex marriage debate in Australia is that government agencies like Centrelink, ATO, etc. use the term "partnered" for persons who are deemed to "cohabit", regardless of the sex (or sexual orientation) of the partners. Partnered persons are treated different to single persons by these government agencies.

This really means that same-sex relationships already have some legal standing, regardless of what the parliament might debate and/or vote.

be careful saying that some people want to keep denying that fact!!!!

 

[Grace51]

You dont have to be against gay marriage because of me, by all means support it. As Christians we can be divided in opinions, thats ok.

My position is valid because I have some textual support, I dont deny your position if you think it ok for same sex couples to marry.

If you think that the world can adopt marriage and Christians should not exclude the world, suggesting homosexual marriage is acceptable in secular society. I wont deny your right to believe that.
I disagree with society redefining marriage to suit itself or individuals.

Believe what you want, its just my understanding

that is not what meant

i only take a position because i think it is the position God takes.

and you showed me that with that website

have you considered taking it as a compliment?

 

[TheDag]

but do they enjoy the exact same right as married couple though?

while i am against gay marriage (thanks to born to watch reminders again and again), i am for civil union and for those in civil union to enjoy the exact same privilege as a married couple

it is about human rights!

sinners have rights to live and breathe just like we Christians do!

ok then tell us what they don't get that married couples get please. Tell us what they don't get that de-facto couples get please. The way you have phrased it is that you are against human rights as civil union is different to marriage. So by claiming you are against gay marriage is denying human rights unless you can answer my questions above.

 

[TheDag]

Is gay marriage a prerequisite for polygamy or bestiality? I would suggest that it isn't, so why mention them in the same breath if not to imply some sort of comparison or link? The senator even said "The next step....." which surely even you can see implies one thing leading to another.

yes he said the next step was polygamy. he then said there are people who would want to enter into beastiality. he never said beastiality was the next step according to the link in the OP. So unless Hansard says he did call beastiality the next step then we should assume he never did since there is no proof.
As I stated previously in other threads the main argument for gay marriage is the same argument for incest and polygamy yet people seem to be against that for some reason. I can't figure it out.

As a side note I know people who would marry their pets if allowed. They wouldn't actually want to have sex with them though.

 

[Rusticus]

be careful saying that some people want to keep denying that fact!!!!

PLEASE EXPLAIN!
(seriously though .... please elaborate what you mean)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As I stated previously in other threads the main argument for gay marriage is the same argument for incest and polygamy yet people seem to be against that for some reason. I can't figure it out.

That would make perfect sense if these were one-sided issues. But they're not. It doesn't matter if the main argument in favour of them is the same. What makes them different is the arguments against them. And those are not the same.