" Married " this word is from thousand years ago, that time no email, no mobile phone, no human right.
Now is 2012, we got email, we got mobile phone, we also got human right.
So, wake up and think clearly, we are not living in the past, if two human really in true love and want spend life time, we should allow to married. Pls don't live in the thousand years past.
The science against human homosexuality is the evolution of mankind. The evidence has evolved over millions of years. Homosexuality cannot support reproduction. Heterosexuality supports and promotes reproduction, that continued evolution of a species. Eye colour, skin colour does not determine, reproductive capacity. Homosexuality is the antithesis of the origin of a species.
@wcb67 Why do you mean by "science against homosexuality"? Are you saying homosexuality does not exist? Or are you simply saying homosexuality would not be naturally selected?
@wcb67 Oh, and skin colour can influence reproductive capacity, since different pigments affect radiation absorption and reflection. The radiation exposure in Africa favoured darker skin; as humans moved to colder areas, they were not penalised for having lighter skin.
That homosexuality exists within the population demonstrates it has evolved like every other trait. You cannot pick and choose which traits were part of evolution. Homosexuality may not be conducive to reproduction, but that doesn't make it unnatural. Homosexuality effects sexuality, a trait which varies like all others. Homosexuality does not destroy a man's reproductive ability, it effects who he is sexually attracted to. Homosexuality does not threaten the species because it does not expand.
correct,i read online a study on homosexual relationships,including a country that legalised gay marriage,they found that homosexuals are 8 times more likely to divorce before the marriage is 20 years old,that they are very promiscuous and this has a detrimental effect on children
Still don't understand why homosexuals even want to get married. The structure and definition of the term marriage has discriminated against homosexuals for thousands of years, and so why would homosexuals ever want to have anything to do with it? If I was homosexual then I'd want my own special term for it...as I'd view the term 'marriage' to not be good enough.
@vagumera Marriage has discriminated against women, and minorities for thousands of years. We do not want separate but equal, the same principle used to segregate blacks in the United States. This is inequality, anything less than legal equality is inequality- we want one law for all. The law no longer creates special rules for people based on the way they were born. Simply because a person is born a certain way doesn't mean they should be disadvantaged or segregated for the rest of their life.
Interesting how the homosexuals on this blog start to abuse me. They are prejudiced against normal people and believe that their disgusting practices are "normal" and should be practiced by all. I find it insulting and against common decency, that these obvisouly ill individuals have the audacity to criticise mainstream people who lead normal, as nature intended, heterosexual llifestyles.
@wcb67 LOL you are SO funny. Funny, because for a person who has such a passionate view on homosexuals, you are so ignorant and uninformed. Maybe you should educate yourself before you make ridiculous remarks, that make yourself look like a ignorant bigot. I guess that's what you are I guess, and you obviously where that badge with pride, so I'm not going to disprove all your incorrect points, because lets face it, you'll only believe what you want to believe, not the facts.
@SumRandom88 Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals. I just hope that a cure can be found one day. What I object to, is the constant whinging from homosexual minorities surrounding marriage. Can't they get it through their ill minds, that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Secondly, the homosexual mardi gras is all about sex, perversion and poltiics. Everybody is over homosexuals. Please please find acure to this terrible disease!
@wcb67 Homosexuality is no more a disease than is a different skin colour or eye colour. If you believe marriage is between a man an a woman, you are not obliged to marry somebody of the same sex. You haven't explained who gave you the authority to regulate the legal affairs of two consenting adults, or why you feel you have to meddle with something that doesn't involve or effect your own legal affairs.
@patrickwright1 You have not explained to me, how two members of the same sex can feel intimately attracted to each other. While your at it, explain how moral and biological wrong can be made into a legal right?
It's not my business to explain to you how two members of the same sex feel intimately attracted to one another, just as you need not explain what causes two the opposite sex to feel similar attraction. Put simply it is a combination of biology that operates no differently from heterosexual attraction. This is the consensus of the APA, American Psychiatric Association, AMA and every major medical association. They also confirm that homosexuality is not a biological wrong, just a difference.
@patrickwright1 "...biology that operates no differently from heterosexual attraction." You are kidding, right? It operates VERY differently. Stop trying to make an unnatural act, a natural act.
I am not referring to the act per se, but sexual attraction, which indeed operates no differently to heterosexual attraction, apart from who the attraction is towards. Homosexuality is no different or more unnatural than other variations in human traits, such as differences in eye or skin colour. Again, do you have peer reviewed evidence to refute the consensus of every major medical association that homosexuality is a perfectly natural biological variation, and that it should not be suppressed?
@patrickwright1 You know, your comments on homosexuality being normal are most offensive and grossly incorrect. If homosexuality was to prevail in lieu of heterosexuality, the world would come to an expedited conclusion. Homosexuality is not normal, it is sick, perverse and against the norms of nature. One does not need medical "opinion", one only needs to peruse evolution to know that heterosexuality is essential for procreation and, survival of a species.
Grossly incorrect, according to who? Are you saying that you are more credible than the vast bulk of peer reviewed scientific evidence? Homosexuality is not a choice, but a difference that affects a limited number of people- it cannot expand to become the majority sexuality. Homosexuality is a mere variation of a human trait, no different than a variation of eye or skin colour. Diversity, not homogeny is the norm in nature- it would be more abnormal and unnatural if everything was the same.
@patrickwright1 One does not need a science degree to know that homosexuality is not only wrong but unnatural. The fact that homosexuality is 'practiced' by a minority, is direct evidence that homosexuality tendences and practices are unnatural. True, diversity is part of nature ( ie nature will always find a way) but homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the cause of procreation but rather, commences a regression of human character and existence.
My point about diversity was that just because one is a minority doesn't make one unnatural. Is a minority race or eye colour unnatural? We're not talking about a synthetic component of a human being, but a variation of sexuality- sexuality being an entity every human possesses. How can a minority with an unvarying population "commence a regression of human character and existence when most humans procreate? Does non-procreative heterosexual sex "strengthen or further the cause of procreation?"
@patrickwright1 You compare eye colour and race to homosexuality? you are very offensive! You are portraying homosexuality as being perfectly normal. Well, it is not. It is abnormal, demented and filthy. The sooner a cure is found, the better. Homosexuality is against the laws of nature. There are many reasons, why heterosexuals "don't" have children. there is one reason why homo's "can't" have children.
What "laws of nature" are these of which you speak? Nature has no plans, it is only orderly because things that can survive do, and things that can't survive don't.
Why is homosexuality so confronting for you? What do you have to fear from people loving eachother?
@CanadianPolybius Correct. Homosexuality cant survive, if the sickness prevailed and everyone became a homo, then humanity would die. Charles Darwin wrote about natural selection, I suggest you read it. Homosexuality is against natural selection ( a law of nature).I am deeply disturbed how people expect in immoral act to be made legal. I am atheist but homosexuality is the antithesis of life ( and decency).
You have failed to show what distinguishes between one part of the body- eye colour or race, to another part of the body- homosexuality. Diversity, not homogeny is normal in nature, so it's perfectly natural and normal for not everybody to have the same sexuality. The onus is on you to explain why you consider it normal that every trait is diverse, except for sexuality which cannot be diverse like every other trait. Infertile and older people cannot have children as much as gay people cannot.
@patrickwright1 I have explained and the onus is not on me to explain anything. The onus is on the homosexuals to rid themselves of this scourge and follow the course set by nature over millions of years. Infertile and older people are incapable of procreation because of natural selection. Homosexuals cant have children because of obvious reasons.
Homosexuality is not separate from the evolutionary process just because you don't like it. Again, you've failed to explain why diversity in every part of the body is to be considered normal, except for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a variation, no different from infertility, which is part of the process of natural selection. More importantly, every major medical association confirms that homosexuality is not a choice can cannot be 'changed- no different to infertility or age.
@patrickwright1 Again, you have an incredible bias in favour of an abnormal behaviour. As I have said, evolution, that is the origin and development of species. If homosexuality is normal, the life could not and would not exists. Charles Darwins theory of natural selection is proof of diversity and proof that homosexuality is the means for extinction of a species.
Again, homogeny is unnatural and abnormal. It would be absurd if sexuality was the single trait that didn't have any variations.The word 'normal' doesn't mean a trait shared by the majority, it refers to any human trait and it's variations. Like any other human trait, human sexuality varies. Homosexuality is not a means of extinction when it is confined to less than ten percent of the population. You have presented no evidence to show how a species could become extinct because of homosexuality.
@patrickwright1 Ok, now you are cracking jokes regarding your silly comment... "You have presented no evidence to show how a species could become extinct because of homosexuality" Speak to your parents, they should have educated you in the ways of nature or better still, ask a 5 year old.
@wcb67 Of course, if a species no longer has children, then they risk being extinct. That is not a possibility because rates of homosexuality do not vary substantially. So, what I am asking you is not how a species becomes extinct through any infertility- that's obvious, but how you know that there is a possibility that homosexuality can expand throughout the population. That is an unfounded statement which not a shred of peer reviewed, credible evidence supports.
@wcb67 The act of homosexuality is not unnatural considering it is the normal and natural extension of a person's innate sexual attraction. Sexuality suppression is unhealthy, and indeed quite unnatural.
@wcb67 And please, explain what is immoral about homosexuality? Who does it harm? The vast bulk of evidence demonstrates suppression of sexuality leads to depression, self abuse and suicide.
@wcb67 It would be exponentially more unnatural to suppress sexuality, which leads to depression, self abuse and suicide- particularly when a person becomes convinced that they are only capable of a 'filthy' or 'disgusting' sexual attraction. Again, how is homosexuality any less natural than a variation in human traits such as eye or skin colour, and upon what credible empirical basis do you have to claim that it is any different from these traits?
@patrickwright1 "...any less natural" you are kidding and offensive. Tell me, how is the act of sodomy natural? Tell me, can homosexuals procreate via sodomy? The attitude of homosexuals in portraying there disgusting acts as 'natural' is as absurd as it offensive, The empirical evidence has been around for millions of years. Two members of the same sex cannot procreate.
If you think only natural sex is procreative, and condemn sex that is not procreative, you are then also condemning sex for pleasure where procreation is intentionally prevented- which includes contraception, sex between the infertile, sex between the old etc. Are these also disgusting acts? Non-procreative gay sex is no less unnatural, as per your definition, than non-procreative heterosexual sex. As for procreation, science has ensured that parenthood is not tethered to procreative ability.
@wcb67 O, and one more thing, I, as a heterosexual person, find it extremely insulting and against common decency, that an ignorant bigot such as yourself dare say such insulting things about another human being, and have the audacity to claim yourself as normal.
@SumRandom88 I am heterosexual. So by your comment, heterosexuals are not normal? What next...you wanna make homosexuality compulsory? You idiot, pull your head in.
@wcb67 LOL, are you sure you're not a comedian, because you really are hilarious. I didn't even refer to your sexuality, I really don't care if you are straight, gay, bi, trans, whatever, so I'm not sure where you got that, but your hateful, ignorant and bigoted attitude you have towards other humans is not normal, hence why I typed those words.
No, there's no need to make anything compulsory, heteros and homos were born that way, there is no need to force anyone to being something they're not.
when aids was discovered,it was wrongly called the "gay virus" because people thought that gays only caught it. this,as we all know,is wrong,hetrosexual people can get aids as well. but the HPV virus is scaring the shit out of doctors in the US because it causes anal cancer and throat cancer,and statistically which section of the community are contracting these diseases? have a guess.....
@wcb67 There is no rational reason to consider homosexuality immoral- it neither effects anybody nor harms those involved. It is far more dangerous to suppress homosexuality, which leads to self abuse, depression and suicide. Homosexuality is not a disease, every major medical association has repudiated this claim, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has made it clear it is a normal human variation, not an illness. Please prevent credible, peer reviewed evidence.
Mr. Rudd clarly states that he wants to get rid of the discrimination within work forces etc. But I believe the only way too get rid of discrimanatory acts within work places we need not to discriminate against those that may be gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. We need to make ONE rule for all not one rule for one half of Australia and another for the other half... I CAN SEE WHY your NO LONGER PM!
If there was an Australian Politician who came out and said, 'If you elect us, we'll change the marriage act and let gays marry' - he'd get elected the next day. He'd certainly cause a shitstorm in Parliment, but he would be a burnt and cruxified as a martyr.
Homophobia is a stupid word like Xenophobia. Nobody is afraid of Homosexuals. Maybe people should study Cultural Marxism and they might know where the push for all sorts of movements stems from.
There is a great countrymen called "Minority Rule: Rise Of Political Correctness"
/watch?v=tz8pzG02oxU that talks about this stuff. Worth watching.
this absolutely disgraceful! Why should I care what he thinks if I want to marry my boyfriend? It's basically saying that I would not get married to the girl I love because there is some group of people who don't like the idea. How is that relevant? How can someone's view of life, attitude actually affect another person's life and actually prevent him/her of doing smth that is their private matter that has no effects on any other person and yet his view which is irrelevant is key factor-insanity
@wcb67 to explain my laughter. you presume that homosexual people started calling themselves gay and call themselves gay even now. it wasn't even gay people who started calling themselves gay. and "immorals" are you stupid or what. lololol
@awesomoh4000 Absolute garbage! Gay is now the generic term for male homosexuals and is globally utilised. Yes, immorals, it is the only word to describe a filthy and disgusting group of people. A cure will be found one day.
@wcb67 hmmmm. im pretty sure most people will agree with what im about to say. i didn't think people like you actually existed, either you are a truly disgusting person who i have nothing more to say to or you are a succussful troll.
@BoDHunt3r - Yep, and all the better for it if it meant that I could have had that attitude if I was straight. The good part of all this is that your opinion is irrelevant to everyone bar yourself and is also an opinion that will die with you and a lot of the current generation. By the 2030's I would like to think that homophobia will be talked about in a [albeit weak] past tense...
@DaBennoCode Uh, that 'opinion' happens to be the majority of Australians which is why even labor is against gay marriage. And there is no such thing as 'homophobia'. Straight people aren't scared of queers, we just don't wont them trying to twist the definition of marriage. Troll.
@jcw3032 Only for people such as yourself who like imposing their antiquated religious views on people to control what they do. Also I suppose it would be absolutely poisonous for people with no understanding that this is a SECULAR FUCKING COUNTRY.
@jman945x True we have no state religion, which is a good thing. But that dosent change the fact that over 70% of the population are christian. Hence the reason why even socialist labor is against gay marriage.
@jman945x A better question to ask: Why should their stance be considered unacceptable? God made adam and eve, not adam and steve. Some people these days seemed to have it mixed up.
@jman945x Perhaps, but when you take into account the vast majority of the population believing in god and this nation being founded on christian principals, just maybe they factor that into their thinking when forming policy.
@jcw3032 Might I see some evidence supporting this 'vast majority', or are you just throwing about unsubstanciated clams? Can you seriously not grasp the concept of a separation of church and state? Not all christians are as fundamentalist as you are, you certainly don't see the Anglican church going around saying who can and cannot marry. If you want to vomit your extremist right-wing views all over the internet, don't act like you have substancial religious backing please.
@jman945x Do some research smart one. At least 70% of Australians believe in God, go look that up. I support the notion of separation of church and state, but what the majority of people believe affects government policy. Labor would support gay marriage if even a slight majority supported it. But Its ok, stay ignorant. Keep your left-wing socialist views to yourself, I cant be bothered arguing with you.
@jcw3032 A quick Google search will show that a poll conducted by Galaxy research from 2009 - 2011 shows that 62% of Australians support marriage equality. It also showed that 53% of Christians believe in it as well. That's more than a 'slight majority' chief. If you can't be bothered arguing for your beliefs, don't publish them.
@jman945x *sigh* Like i said before; if that were representative of the whole population, labor would support gay marriage all the way. Which is, of course, not the case.
@jcw3032 i don't think you fully understand the "Secular", you contradict your own logic anyway considering that more than 60% of Australians support gay marriage.
@Gui07 Thats a misconception. Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't automatically make them a right wing, xtian or religious nut. It may simply be because they believe it is that way and shouldnt change.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Why do they still maintain that this is not "personal" but "policy". POLICY???? Bite my arse Rudd. A coward like you deserved to be thrown over. Gillard hasn't cut it, but she's got more balls than you!
Labor or Liberal's don't support gay marriage, and I don't think they will for a long time, simply because it's an easy way to get votes.
And to the people thinking of voting Green's, you're basically voting for Labor...
I guess you would be better off voting for an independent or a minority party such as the Democrats although I'm not sure on their view of same sex marriage.
im not all for hommosexuality, i think gay sex is wrong and unnatural but thts just me, i also beleive that everyone deserves love cause what it all comes down to is love and every1 deserves it, and its wrong to tell two people that they cant be with each other, as immoral as i think gay sex is i think denying somebody to marry the person they love is even more immoral.
now that is open mindedness people, seeing it from both sides not just the politicaly correct side so fuck u. LMFAO XD
We are going to be looking back on this in 50 years time and thinking how ridiculous Howard's, Rudd's, Gillard's and Abbott's views on this issue were. It's just the same as the discrimination interracial couples faced in the past, and which we (the Western world at least) no longer have a problem with. It is so sad that Australian policy continues to discriminate against 10% of the population.
If i was a Prime Minister a (Dictator) i would line up every gay in Australia against a wall and shoot the bastards, they are nothing but the filth of our people
Watching various videos of (almost all) Australia's most prominent politicians unanimously aligned against gay marriage shows one thing - the Australian Christian Lobby has it's talons in pretty deep. It's depressing. When will an Australian leader with the balls to STAND UP emerge and champion the majority's cause?
I'm a recent convert to the idea of gay marriage, which at least shows that the idea of a public debate is one worth having - first time in my life I've ever really felt that about any issue in Australia. I used to believe that marriage was between a man and woman, but I'm a heterosexual man who is in a de facto marriage, with children, who has no intention of tying the legal knot. If two individuals of any sex want to get legally married, I don't see how that infringes on anybody else's rights.
The LEGAL definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. So why would a lezzo or faggot couple want to subscribe to that institution that shows everything that they are opposite too?
Perhaps do a 180 and the view could be for married couples that we don't want same-sex couple ruining our legal recognition as a relationship?
At least conservatives can see both sides of the coin, when you people on the left won't even move an inch cus you're 'progressive'. Whats worse?
I can't wait for the census this year. the only thing i hope for is that the atheist, agnostic, homosexual, and pro-homosexual rights groups are completely honest about their religious stances. the anti-gay-marriage groups in Australia have no answers other than "because we said so" or "it's in the Marriage Act *cough*Bible*cough*" to the question of "why can't gay and lesbian people have the same rights as everyone else?"
Not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination . It sends a strong message that same-sex relationships are lesser in value than heterosexual relationships . There is no substitute for equality. Nothing but full equality will do
politicains can't change a words definition. Oxford def is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife". same sex marriage is not marriage because it is not the the definition of marriage is NO MATTER how much you want it to change. You can't just go around changing any word you like just to make it fit the way you want. Just deal with it same sex marriage is a lie and can not be marriage.
So gays don't have the right to get married because... it would mean changing the definition of a word? Right. Changing word definitions is impossible! It NEVER happens.
Anybody else notice that some definitions of "marriage" aren't exclusive to the marriage between only a man and a woman? Seems as though the meaning has (never?) changed, therefore, it'd be nice if the half-assed reasons against same-sex marriage ended. Hmmmmmm?
I'm sick of politicians, because their self interest almost always comes before national interest. Imagine if humanity were free of government. Imagine the freedom. This politician does not care, he really does not care.
I love that only a few bigots in the audience clap when Rudd shoots down gay marriage. Clearly a majority of Australians support marriage equality. The government is here to support and adhere to the needs and views of the masses, just do your job.
So basically their whole argument lies on the fact that the definition of marriage is between and a man and a woman. Genuine question is that are definitions unable to be updated?
@callum12321232 You Ignorant Fool! "Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom; 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them; A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species"
The proble, with legalising gay marriage is that is is defined in the Australian Constitution as a ceremony between a man and a woman. To legalise gay marriage you have to either call it something other an the term "Marriage" or literally re-write the Constitution, which is above the Prime Minister's authority.
@Anon371 Actually that's not true, it was assumed in the original writing of the Constitution that the definition from the Bible would stick. The Marriage Act however, defines marriage as between a man and the woman. Our constitution actually has no definition of marriage.
@InMyLifetime2010 My point is that the Prime Minister has to go the Supreme Court to change the Marriage Act because it is above his authority to change a definition that correlates with the Constitution's definition. If the Constitution says that the Bible's definition must stay than the Marriage Act must match it by default. They're not going to tell the public this however, otherwise they'll harass them to change it, which the PM has no authority to do.
@Anon371 Oh my goodness did you not listen to anything I said? When the Westminster system was set up in Australia, it was assumed all CONVENTIONS would pass down to Australia. Also, no one could have possibly perceived that gay people would be allowed to live, let alone get married so they did not bother to define it in the constitution. The Supreme Court is a STATE court why would the PM go there?! And no court has the power to control govt legislation. It's called the Separation of Powers!
The HIGH COURT is the highest court in the land. The marriage act is LEGISLATION which ANY government may AMEND themselves. I'm sorry but I'm a politial sciences student and it angers me when I see this total ignorance about our political and legal system. The government has every power to change the marriage act and I'm still laughing that people ACTUALLY THINK that the Supreme Court has ANYTHING to do with Federal govt. Please go back to year 10.
look one cannot argue with the proponents of gay marriage but k rudd and the labor party are not the enemy it's the ACL keep the labor goverment conservative on such issues. show the goverment that the ACL (australian christian lobby group) show the government that the ACL does not represent you and you will have a much greater chance of being heard
I think the real issue lies in surrogacy and the legal minefield that it would create and not so much 'gay relationships'. I personally have no problem with gay people being 'married'. But, if someone wants to have a child, i think it would lead to ethical and legal minefields not only from the surrogate but also the other gay partner who hasn't shared his/her genes, and for the child who has an identity problem with regard to connection to a biological parent.
2:36 ''we must remove the discrimination'' (of gays)
Really Kevin? So removing discrimination means NOT allowing gays the same marriage rights as heterosexuals?
No matter how you twist it sir, it's blatant bigotry. You can't get out of it. If we're equal, we get the same rights. If we're not equal (and NO ONE has said that) then we don't.
His argument is based purely on rhetoric! What a weak argument, using the definition of the word. Words are defined by the way we use them, not the other way around! If this weren't the case, then dictionaries would never change; but they do. Ok kevin, we get it, the legal definition is between a man and a woman, we already knew that, and that is what we are protesting. That is what we want
@morningstomper123 If you look up the etymological root of the word "marriage", you will find it comes from the latin word "matrimonium" which literally means "state of motherhood" because of the association of marriage with parenthood.Parenthood arises only from the marriage of a man and a woman so naturally marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. So technically gay marriage is an oxymoron. Whats wrong with just making a new word for gay couples? Why change this1?
@mattd259 So the purpose of getting married is to procreate? What about infertile couples, or couples that are too old to have kids? What about people who just don't want children? Are we going to 'ban' these people from getting married, or are you just prejudiced against gay people only? Look, whats the problem, just because it doesn't fit your archaic definition of marriage doesn't mean it should be illegal. There are no victims. Making a seperate name for gay marriage would be segregation.
@morningstomper123 I never suggested we make it illegal or ban anyone. Im only suggesting that hetero marriage is unique and should be identified as unique;thus the distinguishment in terms. The marriage of a man and a woman is unique fundamentally because of the ability of a family to be born FROM (not in spite of) the marriage, as a manifestation of their unity.Ther is also the physiological and affctive complemetarity of the genders which makes hetero marriage and the family distinguishable.
@mattd259 If someones actions don't negatively impact your life or the lives of others, then you don't get a say in whether they can do it or not. Do you understand? It is not complecated. If you don't want to call gay marriage "marriage", then what do you want to call it? What about a nice derogatory word like "abomination"? It is marriage, calling it anything else would stigmatize gay people and create problems for them, legal issues not excluded. Now THAT is wrong. are you a churchie?
@morningstomper123 It not a crime to distinguish between two things that are different. Im not trying to stop people from doing what they think will make them happy. I havent suggested that we obstruct anybodys actions of anyone. Im just saying that putting the two in the same genus would be wrong, because they arent the same in essence. What do you suggest we define marriage as?
@mattd259 The union through love of two free people of consenting age. Or something like that, I am no expert with language. However, I don't see how "man and woman" makes it any more logical. I also can't see how it could possibly devalue the marriage brand. i can't see the real problems, just the percieved ones. "oh no it doesn't fit the old definition". Pffft, let them marry, and live your life, and be happy.
@morningstomper123 To me the love between a man and woman stems from a natural, affective, sexual and physiological complementarity. His masculinity and her feminimity.And their marriage is the ultimate, lifelong union of the two. Out of their love, comes the ultimate manifestation of their unity,a child of their flesh and blood. Thus comes a family which not only keeps the species going, but is largely the building block of society. This is why marriage has always been considered a sacred thing
@morningstomper123 (continued) Gay people have the ability to forge the strongest relationships between each other, but i'm sorry, you cant call their union a marriage in the same sense as between a man and a woman. Its just not the same. That's why i dont think it should be called a marriage, because they are just so fundamentally different. That sounded a bit harsh, I'm sorry if i have offended you, i dont mean to.
@morningstomper123 About infertile and old couples, they can still be called marriages because by its own merit, their marriage should be able to produce offspring, but it is just obstructed by some impairment (disease or whatever). Despite the obstruction, though, the potential is still there.Its like the difference between a car with a faulty engine,a normal car, and a stool. The faulty engine car is still a car also, though it is not the same as a stool, evn though they are both motionless
@putademuerde1 That's just disrespectful. You dont have to agree with what people do, but you still owe them the respect that is due to all human beings.
The thing about people who don't want Gay marriage is we live in a secular country, and our constitution explicitly forbids the creation of a law based on religious teachings. There is no secular reason for not allowing Gay people to get married, so because of this there is no reason for Australia to not allow it.
Anyone who disagrees should be immediately disqualified from the debate.
@2edsajdmsa I guess if you can't win an argument, you have to 'disqualify' your opposition, right? Is there a secular reason for not allowing a father to marry his son?
@hpd929 My argument is that Gay marriage hurts no one, therefore it shouldn't be outlawed. Stopping the rights of 2 individuals to marry because you don't like it is not enough mate.
I'm actually going to go further. I'm consistent on this issue, something a lot of Gay marriage supporters are not. I think if a Father and Son wish to get married, they should be allowed. For the same reasons. They hurt no one, its consenting and it would mean a lot to them.
@2edsajdmsa Law has always arisen from a religious basis, so to exclude those who maintain the religious basis of marriage as being between a man and woman would be hypocritical and like it or not the constitution of Australia states that marriage is between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others....that is the way it is.
I expect gays would have a lot less resistance if they were not chasing gay marriage. If they wanted a "civil union" I expect the resistance would drop considerably.
I am unsure of the factual support to the comment indicating The Constitution was altered. The only mention of marriage within the Constitution is under section 51 , an area that pertains specifically to the powers allocated to Parliament in relation to the creation and alteration of Legislation.
You should reference the Marriage Act, which has not been altered to include or exclude a certain gender since 1961, the year it was created.
douche-bag!
TheATHEISTNOW 5 days ago
Good ol' Kev has "ruddered" around the question again.
dust11inc 1 week ago
" Married " this word is from thousand years ago, that time no email, no mobile phone, no human right.
Now is 2012, we got email, we got mobile phone, we also got human right.
So, wake up and think clearly, we are not living in the past, if two human really in true love and want spend life time, we should allow to married. Pls don't live in the thousand years past.
veganchan 1 week ago
I think its time 2 change the definition of "marriage" in the dictionary...
We need a resolution...Heck the whole world needs a new resolution. -__-
jojo4titudo 2 weeks ago 2
Onya ruddy!!
joeynator99 3 weeks ago
Intolerant dimwit, that Rudd. Why don't you just go to China and stay there, Kevin? That's a country that shares your bigotry.
Wilbtube 1 month ago
At 1:37, did he just flip everyone off ghetto style?
ParanoidGallows 1 month ago 3
The science against human homosexuality is the evolution of mankind. The evidence has evolved over millions of years. Homosexuality cannot support reproduction. Heterosexuality supports and promotes reproduction, that continued evolution of a species. Eye colour, skin colour does not determine, reproductive capacity. Homosexuality is the antithesis of the origin of a species.
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 Why do you mean by "science against homosexuality"? Are you saying homosexuality does not exist? Or are you simply saying homosexuality would not be naturally selected?
Rarae192 2 months ago
@wcb67 Oh, and skin colour can influence reproductive capacity, since different pigments affect radiation absorption and reflection. The radiation exposure in Africa favoured darker skin; as humans moved to colder areas, they were not penalised for having lighter skin.
Rarae192 2 months ago
That homosexuality exists within the population demonstrates it has evolved like every other trait. You cannot pick and choose which traits were part of evolution. Homosexuality may not be conducive to reproduction, but that doesn't make it unnatural. Homosexuality effects sexuality, a trait which varies like all others. Homosexuality does not destroy a man's reproductive ability, it effects who he is sexually attracted to. Homosexuality does not threaten the species because it does not expand.
patrickwright1 3 weeks ago
@wcb67
correct,i read online a study on homosexual relationships,including a country that legalised gay marriage,they found that homosexuals are 8 times more likely to divorce before the marriage is 20 years old,that they are very promiscuous and this has a detrimental effect on children
heathirving 6 days ago
Thumbs up for the snarky blue-shirted hipster in the audience!
PorridgeStall 2 months ago
I thought Rudd was gay? He looks like a gay paedo.
angus1000001 2 months ago
you stoopid homophobes..get real.
713nova 2 months ago
Still don't understand why homosexuals even want to get married. The structure and definition of the term marriage has discriminated against homosexuals for thousands of years, and so why would homosexuals ever want to have anything to do with it? If I was homosexual then I'd want my own special term for it...as I'd view the term 'marriage' to not be good enough.
vagumera 2 months ago
@vagumera Marriage has discriminated against women, and minorities for thousands of years. We do not want separate but equal, the same principle used to segregate blacks in the United States. This is inequality, anything less than legal equality is inequality- we want one law for all. The law no longer creates special rules for people based on the way they were born. Simply because a person is born a certain way doesn't mean they should be disadvantaged or segregated for the rest of their life.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
Interesting how the homosexuals on this blog start to abuse me. They are prejudiced against normal people and believe that their disgusting practices are "normal" and should be practiced by all. I find it insulting and against common decency, that these obvisouly ill individuals have the audacity to criticise mainstream people who lead normal, as nature intended, heterosexual llifestyles.
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 LOL you are SO funny. Funny, because for a person who has such a passionate view on homosexuals, you are so ignorant and uninformed. Maybe you should educate yourself before you make ridiculous remarks, that make yourself look like a ignorant bigot. I guess that's what you are I guess, and you obviously where that badge with pride, so I'm not going to disprove all your incorrect points, because lets face it, you'll only believe what you want to believe, not the facts.
SumRandom88 2 months ago
@SumRandom88 Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals. I just hope that a cure can be found one day. What I object to, is the constant whinging from homosexual minorities surrounding marriage. Can't they get it through their ill minds, that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Secondly, the homosexual mardi gras is all about sex, perversion and poltiics. Everybody is over homosexuals. Please please find acure to this terrible disease!
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 I hope you're trolling because everybody who hasn't been living under a rock knows that homosexuality isn't a disease.
hacksign000 2 months ago
@wcb67 Homosexuality is no more a disease than is a different skin colour or eye colour. If you believe marriage is between a man an a woman, you are not obliged to marry somebody of the same sex. You haven't explained who gave you the authority to regulate the legal affairs of two consenting adults, or why you feel you have to meddle with something that doesn't involve or effect your own legal affairs.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 You have not explained to me, how two members of the same sex can feel intimately attracted to each other. While your at it, explain how moral and biological wrong can be made into a legal right?
wcb67 2 months ago
It's not my business to explain to you how two members of the same sex feel intimately attracted to one another, just as you need not explain what causes two the opposite sex to feel similar attraction. Put simply it is a combination of biology that operates no differently from heterosexual attraction. This is the consensus of the APA, American Psychiatric Association, AMA and every major medical association. They also confirm that homosexuality is not a biological wrong, just a difference.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 "...biology that operates no differently from heterosexual attraction." You are kidding, right? It operates VERY differently. Stop trying to make an unnatural act, a natural act.
wcb67 2 months ago
I am not referring to the act per se, but sexual attraction, which indeed operates no differently to heterosexual attraction, apart from who the attraction is towards. Homosexuality is no different or more unnatural than other variations in human traits, such as differences in eye or skin colour. Again, do you have peer reviewed evidence to refute the consensus of every major medical association that homosexuality is a perfectly natural biological variation, and that it should not be suppressed?
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 You know, your comments on homosexuality being normal are most offensive and grossly incorrect. If homosexuality was to prevail in lieu of heterosexuality, the world would come to an expedited conclusion. Homosexuality is not normal, it is sick, perverse and against the norms of nature. One does not need medical "opinion", one only needs to peruse evolution to know that heterosexuality is essential for procreation and, survival of a species.
wcb67 2 months ago
Grossly incorrect, according to who? Are you saying that you are more credible than the vast bulk of peer reviewed scientific evidence? Homosexuality is not a choice, but a difference that affects a limited number of people- it cannot expand to become the majority sexuality. Homosexuality is a mere variation of a human trait, no different than a variation of eye or skin colour. Diversity, not homogeny is the norm in nature- it would be more abnormal and unnatural if everything was the same.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 One does not need a science degree to know that homosexuality is not only wrong but unnatural. The fact that homosexuality is 'practiced' by a minority, is direct evidence that homosexuality tendences and practices are unnatural. True, diversity is part of nature ( ie nature will always find a way) but homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the cause of procreation but rather, commences a regression of human character and existence.
wcb67 2 months ago
My point about diversity was that just because one is a minority doesn't make one unnatural. Is a minority race or eye colour unnatural? We're not talking about a synthetic component of a human being, but a variation of sexuality- sexuality being an entity every human possesses. How can a minority with an unvarying population "commence a regression of human character and existence when most humans procreate? Does non-procreative heterosexual sex "strengthen or further the cause of procreation?"
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 You compare eye colour and race to homosexuality? you are very offensive! You are portraying homosexuality as being perfectly normal. Well, it is not. It is abnormal, demented and filthy. The sooner a cure is found, the better. Homosexuality is against the laws of nature. There are many reasons, why heterosexuals "don't" have children. there is one reason why homo's "can't" have children.
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67
What "laws of nature" are these of which you speak? Nature has no plans, it is only orderly because things that can survive do, and things that can't survive don't.
Why is homosexuality so confronting for you? What do you have to fear from people loving eachother?
CanadianPolybius 2 months ago
@CanadianPolybius Correct. Homosexuality cant survive, if the sickness prevailed and everyone became a homo, then humanity would die. Charles Darwin wrote about natural selection, I suggest you read it. Homosexuality is against natural selection ( a law of nature).I am deeply disturbed how people expect in immoral act to be made legal. I am atheist but homosexuality is the antithesis of life ( and decency).
wcb67 2 months ago
You have failed to show what distinguishes between one part of the body- eye colour or race, to another part of the body- homosexuality. Diversity, not homogeny is normal in nature, so it's perfectly natural and normal for not everybody to have the same sexuality. The onus is on you to explain why you consider it normal that every trait is diverse, except for sexuality which cannot be diverse like every other trait. Infertile and older people cannot have children as much as gay people cannot.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 I have explained and the onus is not on me to explain anything. The onus is on the homosexuals to rid themselves of this scourge and follow the course set by nature over millions of years. Infertile and older people are incapable of procreation because of natural selection. Homosexuals cant have children because of obvious reasons.
wcb67 2 months ago
Homosexuality is not separate from the evolutionary process just because you don't like it. Again, you've failed to explain why diversity in every part of the body is to be considered normal, except for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a variation, no different from infertility, which is part of the process of natural selection. More importantly, every major medical association confirms that homosexuality is not a choice can cannot be 'changed- no different to infertility or age.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 Again, you have an incredible bias in favour of an abnormal behaviour. As I have said, evolution, that is the origin and development of species. If homosexuality is normal, the life could not and would not exists. Charles Darwins theory of natural selection is proof of diversity and proof that homosexuality is the means for extinction of a species.
wcb67 2 months ago
Again, homogeny is unnatural and abnormal. It would be absurd if sexuality was the single trait that didn't have any variations.The word 'normal' doesn't mean a trait shared by the majority, it refers to any human trait and it's variations. Like any other human trait, human sexuality varies. Homosexuality is not a means of extinction when it is confined to less than ten percent of the population. You have presented no evidence to show how a species could become extinct because of homosexuality.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 Ok, now you are cracking jokes regarding your silly comment... "You have presented no evidence to show how a species could become extinct because of homosexuality" Speak to your parents, they should have educated you in the ways of nature or better still, ask a 5 year old.
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 Of course, if a species no longer has children, then they risk being extinct. That is not a possibility because rates of homosexuality do not vary substantially. So, what I am asking you is not how a species becomes extinct through any infertility- that's obvious, but how you know that there is a possibility that homosexuality can expand throughout the population. That is an unfounded statement which not a shred of peer reviewed, credible evidence supports.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@wcb67 The act of homosexuality is not unnatural considering it is the normal and natural extension of a person's innate sexual attraction. Sexuality suppression is unhealthy, and indeed quite unnatural.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@wcb67 And please, explain what is immoral about homosexuality? Who does it harm? The vast bulk of evidence demonstrates suppression of sexuality leads to depression, self abuse and suicide.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 It is a filthy disgusting act which is the antithesis of natural human behaviour. I think you found the cure !
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 It would be exponentially more unnatural to suppress sexuality, which leads to depression, self abuse and suicide- particularly when a person becomes convinced that they are only capable of a 'filthy' or 'disgusting' sexual attraction. Again, how is homosexuality any less natural than a variation in human traits such as eye or skin colour, and upon what credible empirical basis do you have to claim that it is any different from these traits?
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 "...any less natural" you are kidding and offensive. Tell me, how is the act of sodomy natural? Tell me, can homosexuals procreate via sodomy? The attitude of homosexuals in portraying there disgusting acts as 'natural' is as absurd as it offensive, The empirical evidence has been around for millions of years. Two members of the same sex cannot procreate.
wcb67 2 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you think only natural sex is procreative, and condemn sex that is not procreative, you are then also condemning sex for pleasure where procreation is intentionally prevented- which includes contraception, sex between the infertile, sex between the old etc. Are these also disgusting acts? Non-procreative gay sex is no less unnatural, as per your definition, than non-procreative heterosexual sex. As for procreation, science has ensured that parenthood is not tethered to procreative ability.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@wcb67 O, and one more thing, I, as a heterosexual person, find it extremely insulting and against common decency, that an ignorant bigot such as yourself dare say such insulting things about another human being, and have the audacity to claim yourself as normal.
SumRandom88 2 months ago
@SumRandom88 I am heterosexual. So by your comment, heterosexuals are not normal? What next...you wanna make homosexuality compulsory? You idiot, pull your head in.
wcb67 2 months ago
@wcb67 LOL, are you sure you're not a comedian, because you really are hilarious. I didn't even refer to your sexuality, I really don't care if you are straight, gay, bi, trans, whatever, so I'm not sure where you got that, but your hateful, ignorant and bigoted attitude you have towards other humans is not normal, hence why I typed those words.
No, there's no need to make anything compulsory, heteros and homos were born that way, there is no need to force anyone to being something they're not.
SumRandom88 2 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@wcb67
when aids was discovered,it was wrongly called the "gay virus" because people thought that gays only caught it. this,as we all know,is wrong,hetrosexual people can get aids as well. but the HPV virus is scaring the shit out of doctors in the US because it causes anal cancer and throat cancer,and statistically which section of the community are contracting these diseases? have a guess.....
heathirving 6 days ago
I am atheist. Homosexuality is immoral and more importantl;y, a disease, which a cure, can hopefully be found.
wcb67 3 months ago
@wcb67 There is no rational reason to consider homosexuality immoral- it neither effects anybody nor harms those involved. It is far more dangerous to suppress homosexuality, which leads to self abuse, depression and suicide. Homosexuality is not a disease, every major medical association has repudiated this claim, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has made it clear it is a normal human variation, not an illness. Please prevent credible, peer reviewed evidence.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
Mr. Rudd clarly states that he wants to get rid of the discrimination within work forces etc. But I believe the only way too get rid of discrimanatory acts within work places we need not to discriminate against those that may be gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. We need to make ONE rule for all not one rule for one half of Australia and another for the other half... I CAN SEE WHY your NO LONGER PM!
30jjlocke 3 months ago
If there was an Australian Politician who came out and said, 'If you elect us, we'll change the marriage act and let gays marry' - he'd get elected the next day. He'd certainly cause a shitstorm in Parliment, but he would be a burnt and cruxified as a martyr.
LordAkira 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homophobia is a stupid word like Xenophobia. Nobody is afraid of Homosexuals. Maybe people should study Cultural Marxism and they might know where the push for all sorts of movements stems from.
There is a great countrymen called "Minority Rule: Rise Of Political Correctness"
/watch?v=tz8pzG02oxU that talks about this stuff. Worth watching.
CatherineDeLancret 3 months ago
this absolutely disgraceful! Why should I care what he thinks if I want to marry my boyfriend? It's basically saying that I would not get married to the girl I love because there is some group of people who don't like the idea. How is that relevant? How can someone's view of life, attitude actually affect another person's life and actually prevent him/her of doing smth that is their private matter that has no effects on any other person and yet his view which is irrelevant is key factor-insanity
lukosius1221 3 months ago
GAY means happy and joyous. The homosexuals have bastardised this word. Homosexuals should be referred to as homosexuals or 'immorals'.
wcb67 3 months ago
@wcb67 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
awesomoh4000 3 months ago
@wcb67 to explain my laughter. you presume that homosexual people started calling themselves gay and call themselves gay even now. it wasn't even gay people who started calling themselves gay. and "immorals" are you stupid or what. lololol
awesomoh4000 3 months ago
@awesomoh4000 Absolute garbage! Gay is now the generic term for male homosexuals and is globally utilised. Yes, immorals, it is the only word to describe a filthy and disgusting group of people. A cure will be found one day.
wcb67 3 months ago
@wcb67 hmmmm. im pretty sure most people will agree with what im about to say. i didn't think people like you actually existed, either you are a truly disgusting person who i have nothing more to say to or you are a succussful troll.
awesomoh4000 3 months ago
2:00 fucking faggot
BoDHunt3r 3 months ago
@BoDHunt3r - your homophobic bigotry is soooooooo 1950s!!! Get a new act!
DaBennoCode 3 months ago
@DaBennoCode i bet your a fag yourself
BoDHunt3r 3 months ago
@BoDHunt3r - Yep, and all the better for it if it meant that I could have had that attitude if I was straight. The good part of all this is that your opinion is irrelevant to everyone bar yourself and is also an opinion that will die with you and a lot of the current generation. By the 2030's I would like to think that homophobia will be talked about in a [albeit weak] past tense...
DaBennoCode 3 months ago
@DaBennoCode wow man i dont be talking to a fag over the internet so please dont reply anymore. Read the definition of marriage again please.
BoDHunt3r 3 months ago
@BoDHunt3r - is my "sinful choice" contagious now? You bible bashers crack me up...
DaBennoCode 3 months ago
@DaBennoCode Uh, that 'opinion' happens to be the majority of Australians which is why even labor is against gay marriage. And there is no such thing as 'homophobia'. Straight people aren't scared of queers, we just don't wont them trying to twist the definition of marriage. Troll.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 Whatever helps you sleep at night... ;)
DaBennoCode 3 months ago
Oh well at least Rudd did get some things right. Legalizing gay marriage will be a curse on this nation.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 Only for people such as yourself who like imposing their antiquated religious views on people to control what they do. Also I suppose it would be absolutely poisonous for people with no understanding that this is a SECULAR FUCKING COUNTRY.
jman945x 3 months ago
@jman945x True we have no state religion, which is a good thing. But that dosent change the fact that over 70% of the population are christian. Hence the reason why even socialist labor is against gay marriage.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 How does that make their stance acceptable?
jman945x 3 months ago
@jman945x A better question to ask: Why should their stance be considered unacceptable? God made adam and eve, not adam and steve. Some people these days seemed to have it mixed up.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 The whole point of my comment was that noone in politics should give the slightest fuck what god made.
jman945x 3 months ago
@jman945x Perhaps, but when you take into account the vast majority of the population believing in god and this nation being founded on christian principals, just maybe they factor that into their thinking when forming policy.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 Might I see some evidence supporting this 'vast majority', or are you just throwing about unsubstanciated clams? Can you seriously not grasp the concept of a separation of church and state? Not all christians are as fundamentalist as you are, you certainly don't see the Anglican church going around saying who can and cannot marry. If you want to vomit your extremist right-wing views all over the internet, don't act like you have substancial religious backing please.
jman945x 3 months ago
@jman945x Do some research smart one. At least 70% of Australians believe in God, go look that up. I support the notion of separation of church and state, but what the majority of people believe affects government policy. Labor would support gay marriage if even a slight majority supported it. But Its ok, stay ignorant. Keep your left-wing socialist views to yourself, I cant be bothered arguing with you.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 A quick Google search will show that a poll conducted by Galaxy research from 2009 - 2011 shows that 62% of Australians support marriage equality. It also showed that 53% of Christians believe in it as well. That's more than a 'slight majority' chief. If you can't be bothered arguing for your beliefs, don't publish them.
jman945x 3 months ago
@jman945x *sigh* Like i said before; if that were representative of the whole population, labor would support gay marriage all the way. Which is, of course, not the case.
jcw3032 3 months ago
@jcw3032 i don't think you fully understand the "Secular", you contradict your own logic anyway considering that more than 60% of Australians support gay marriage.
XepicmeauX 3 months ago
labour in australia is rightwing? oõ
Gui07 4 months ago
@Gui07 Thats a misconception. Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't automatically make them a right wing, xtian or religious nut. It may simply be because they believe it is that way and shouldnt change.
BushidoRei 4 months ago
@Gui07
Both of the major parties have been leaning towards the right recently.
CanadianPolybius 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Answer the question you christian twit.............
Resenbrink 4 months ago
"Just because" again...
jacobcake 4 months ago
if your not for gay marriage then don't marry a gay! simple.easy.fixed.
TVfanaticRAMY 4 months ago
what a fucking cop out.. Listing policy when asked for opinion.. Little shitty midget! Can we get rid of that ginger bitch too!
vleonc1 4 months ago
Why do they still maintain that this is not "personal" but "policy". POLICY???? Bite my arse Rudd. A coward like you deserved to be thrown over. Gillard hasn't cut it, but she's got more balls than you!
andrewinbrisbane 4 months ago
is the whole audience full of fags?
toocool2beat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toocool2beat go fuck yourself idiot
vleonc1 4 months ago
Labor or Liberal's don't support gay marriage, and I don't think they will for a long time, simply because it's an easy way to get votes.
And to the people thinking of voting Green's, you're basically voting for Labor...
I guess you would be better off voting for an independent or a minority party such as the Democrats although I'm not sure on their view of same sex marriage.
Parag0n 5 months ago
Appealing to definitions in law is ridiculous. Laws can change, definitions can change. So what Rudd is saying is that no law can change.
dbes02 5 months ago
im not all for hommosexuality, i think gay sex is wrong and unnatural but thts just me, i also beleive that everyone deserves love cause what it all comes down to is love and every1 deserves it, and its wrong to tell two people that they cant be with each other, as immoral as i think gay sex is i think denying somebody to marry the person they love is even more immoral.
now that is open mindedness people, seeing it from both sides not just the politicaly correct side so fuck u. LMFAO XD
3Slim3Shady3 5 months ago
We are going to be looking back on this in 50 years time and thinking how ridiculous Howard's, Rudd's, Gillard's and Abbott's views on this issue were. It's just the same as the discrimination interracial couples faced in the past, and which we (the Western world at least) no longer have a problem with. It is so sad that Australian policy continues to discriminate against 10% of the population.
essie073 5 months ago
@essie073 I TOTALLY AGREE!!! and I'm sure it's more than 10%? maybe even 15%
TVfanaticRAMY 4 months ago
If i was a Prime Minister a (Dictator) i would line up every gay in Australia against a wall and shoot the bastards, they are nothing but the filth of our people
TheVictor2512 6 months ago
Watching various videos of (almost all) Australia's most prominent politicians unanimously aligned against gay marriage shows one thing - the Australian Christian Lobby has it's talons in pretty deep. It's depressing. When will an Australian leader with the balls to STAND UP emerge and champion the majority's cause?
jontron111 6 months ago
@jontron111 exactly what i was thinking
BeeEmmW 6 months ago
Whats relevant is what we took to the last election.
The same as "there will be no carbon tax" Ruddy?
Policies taken to the election hold no weight , everybody knows that.
BassGoesBoom1 6 months ago
Rudd, Gillard, and Abbot are all assholes.
Insanekid95 6 months ago
I'm a recent convert to the idea of gay marriage, which at least shows that the idea of a public debate is one worth having - first time in my life I've ever really felt that about any issue in Australia. I used to believe that marriage was between a man and woman, but I'm a heterosexual man who is in a de facto marriage, with children, who has no intention of tying the legal knot. If two individuals of any sex want to get legally married, I don't see how that infringes on anybody else's rights.
mlawren7 6 months ago
the discrimination isnt going to be removed when its discriminating against gay couples, disallowing them the get married.
fuckcicle 7 months ago
The LEGAL definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. So why would a lezzo or faggot couple want to subscribe to that institution that shows everything that they are opposite too?
Perhaps do a 180 and the view could be for married couples that we don't want same-sex couple ruining our legal recognition as a relationship?
At least conservatives can see both sides of the coin, when you people on the left won't even move an inch cus you're 'progressive'. Whats worse?
SSBull900 7 months ago
I can't wait for the census this year. the only thing i hope for is that the atheist, agnostic, homosexual, and pro-homosexual rights groups are completely honest about their religious stances. the anti-gay-marriage groups in Australia have no answers other than "because we said so" or "it's in the Marriage Act *cough*Bible*cough*" to the question of "why can't gay and lesbian people have the same rights as everyone else?"
originalkaratemastr 7 months ago
Comment removed
HrMerrlol 7 months ago
RUDD SUCKS
=======3
sparkly21 7 months ago
Not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination . It sends a strong message that same-sex relationships are lesser in value than heterosexual relationships . There is no substitute for equality. Nothing but full equality will do
lozza1831 7 months ago
politicains can't change a words definition. Oxford def is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife". same sex marriage is not marriage because it is not the the definition of marriage is NO MATTER how much you want it to change. You can't just go around changing any word you like just to make it fit the way you want. Just deal with it same sex marriage is a lie and can not be marriage.
jcn35 7 months ago
So gays don't have the right to get married because... it would mean changing the definition of a word? Right. Changing word definitions is impossible! It NEVER happens.
zzzzzz2408 7 months ago
Anybody else notice that some definitions of "marriage" aren't exclusive to the marriage between only a man and a woman? Seems as though the meaning has (never?) changed, therefore, it'd be nice if the half-assed reasons against same-sex marriage ended. Hmmmmmm?
linkkid185 7 months ago
I'm sick of politicians, because their self interest almost always comes before national interest. Imagine if humanity were free of government. Imagine the freedom. This politician does not care, he really does not care.
markusboyd3 7 months ago
I Loved Ruddy. I Had No Idea He Was Such A Jerk.
**Check Out My Videos For The One Of Me Screaming At him, How Much I Love him**
I Was Lucky Enough To Meet Him Once, I Can't Believe I Never Said Anything To Him.
iMyChemicalRomanceX 7 months ago
I love that only a few bigots in the audience clap when Rudd shoots down gay marriage. Clearly a majority of Australians support marriage equality. The government is here to support and adhere to the needs and views of the masses, just do your job.
madbad01 8 months ago
Should have brought in gay marriage Rudd, you might still be in power LOLLERCOPTER
CatharticWeek 8 months ago
what would happened to australia if gay marriage is legalised?
gay couples would get married.
thats it.
faulk1996 8 months ago
Rudd's in love with Mike Rann from South Australia!
MRMILO57 8 months ago
Whats it matter if the government says your married or not?
callum12321232 8 months ago
So basically their whole argument lies on the fact that the definition of marriage is between and a man and a woman. Genuine question is that are definitions unable to be updated?
graffitiMANZ 9 months ago
Its biologically wrong
callum12321232 9 months ago
@callum12321232 You Ignorant Fool! "Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom; 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them; A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species"
bvdek 8 months ago
@bvdek lol Your just like my fridge except my fridge doesn't fart when I pull the meat out.
callum12321232 8 months ago
@callum12321232 lmfao.. well excuse me.. i'll not have ANYONE pulling meat in or out of me!! lol
bvdek 8 months ago
The proble, with legalising gay marriage is that is is defined in the Australian Constitution as a ceremony between a man and a woman. To legalise gay marriage you have to either call it something other an the term "Marriage" or literally re-write the Constitution, which is above the Prime Minister's authority.
Anon371 9 months ago
@Anon371 Actually that's not true, it was assumed in the original writing of the Constitution that the definition from the Bible would stick. The Marriage Act however, defines marriage as between a man and the woman. Our constitution actually has no definition of marriage.
InMyLifetime2010 8 months ago
@InMyLifetime2010 My point is that the Prime Minister has to go the Supreme Court to change the Marriage Act because it is above his authority to change a definition that correlates with the Constitution's definition. If the Constitution says that the Bible's definition must stay than the Marriage Act must match it by default. They're not going to tell the public this however, otherwise they'll harass them to change it, which the PM has no authority to do.
Anon371 8 months ago
@Anon371 Oh my goodness did you not listen to anything I said? When the Westminster system was set up in Australia, it was assumed all CONVENTIONS would pass down to Australia. Also, no one could have possibly perceived that gay people would be allowed to live, let alone get married so they did not bother to define it in the constitution. The Supreme Court is a STATE court why would the PM go there?! And no court has the power to control govt legislation. It's called the Separation of Powers!
InMyLifetime2010 8 months ago
@Anon371
The HIGH COURT is the highest court in the land. The marriage act is LEGISLATION which ANY government may AMEND themselves. I'm sorry but I'm a politial sciences student and it angers me when I see this total ignorance about our political and legal system. The government has every power to change the marriage act and I'm still laughing that people ACTUALLY THINK that the Supreme Court has ANYTHING to do with Federal govt. Please go back to year 10.
InMyLifetime2010 8 months ago
@InMyLifetime2010 you only learn politics in year 6
callum12321232 8 months ago
@callum12321232
...not in WA
InMyLifetime2010 8 months ago
bring back slavery - the bible (god) says so. Seperation of church and state is required
benaberry 9 months ago
look one cannot argue with the proponents of gay marriage but k rudd and the labor party are not the enemy it's the ACL keep the labor goverment conservative on such issues. show the goverment that the ACL (australian christian lobby group) show the government that the ACL does not represent you and you will have a much greater chance of being heard
judoisoww 9 months ago
Put it to a referendum... simple, let the people en-masse decide the fate of what is their social institution!
WarriorCrimson 10 months ago
I think the real issue lies in surrogacy and the legal minefield that it would create and not so much 'gay relationships'. I personally have no problem with gay people being 'married'. But, if someone wants to have a child, i think it would lead to ethical and legal minefields not only from the surrogate but also the other gay partner who hasn't shared his/her genes, and for the child who has an identity problem with regard to connection to a biological parent.
o0POSH0o 10 months ago
I miss Ruddy
ArachEye 11 months ago
It shits me when these politicians claim to be making great moves against discrimination.
They are throwing these 'civil union benefits' in our face just to keep us quiet for a while. They have no intention of passing it fully.
So whilst they claim to be making great moves against discrimination, they are secretly trying to preserve it.
Helen Keller can see that.
toddles9 11 months ago
why would anyone want to associate with this guy?
apparently his staff were quite young and pretty malleable
mahlstadt 11 months ago
2:36 ''we must remove the discrimination'' (of gays)
Really Kevin? So removing discrimination means NOT allowing gays the same marriage rights as heterosexuals?
No matter how you twist it sir, it's blatant bigotry. You can't get out of it. If we're equal, we get the same rights. If we're not equal (and NO ONE has said that) then we don't.
So what is it Kev? Are we equal or not?
toddles9 1 year ago 2
WHAT A WANKER, YES YOU RUDD
danieldj027 1 year ago
His argument is based purely on rhetoric! What a weak argument, using the definition of the word. Words are defined by the way we use them, not the other way around! If this weren't the case, then dictionaries would never change; but they do. Ok kevin, we get it, the legal definition is between a man and a woman, we already knew that, and that is what we are protesting. That is what we want
morningstomper123 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 If you look up the etymological root of the word "marriage", you will find it comes from the latin word "matrimonium" which literally means "state of motherhood" because of the association of marriage with parenthood.Parenthood arises only from the marriage of a man and a woman so naturally marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. So technically gay marriage is an oxymoron. Whats wrong with just making a new word for gay couples? Why change this1?
mattd259 1 year ago
@mattd259 So the purpose of getting married is to procreate? What about infertile couples, or couples that are too old to have kids? What about people who just don't want children? Are we going to 'ban' these people from getting married, or are you just prejudiced against gay people only? Look, whats the problem, just because it doesn't fit your archaic definition of marriage doesn't mean it should be illegal. There are no victims. Making a seperate name for gay marriage would be segregation.
morningstomper123 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 I never suggested we make it illegal or ban anyone. Im only suggesting that hetero marriage is unique and should be identified as unique;thus the distinguishment in terms. The marriage of a man and a woman is unique fundamentally because of the ability of a family to be born FROM (not in spite of) the marriage, as a manifestation of their unity.Ther is also the physiological and affctive complemetarity of the genders which makes hetero marriage and the family distinguishable.
mattd259 1 year ago
@mattd259 If someones actions don't negatively impact your life or the lives of others, then you don't get a say in whether they can do it or not. Do you understand? It is not complecated. If you don't want to call gay marriage "marriage", then what do you want to call it? What about a nice derogatory word like "abomination"? It is marriage, calling it anything else would stigmatize gay people and create problems for them, legal issues not excluded. Now THAT is wrong. are you a churchie?
morningstomper123 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 It not a crime to distinguish between two things that are different. Im not trying to stop people from doing what they think will make them happy. I havent suggested that we obstruct anybodys actions of anyone. Im just saying that putting the two in the same genus would be wrong, because they arent the same in essence. What do you suggest we define marriage as?
mattd259 1 year ago
@mattd259 The union through love of two free people of consenting age. Or something like that, I am no expert with language. However, I don't see how "man and woman" makes it any more logical. I also can't see how it could possibly devalue the marriage brand. i can't see the real problems, just the percieved ones. "oh no it doesn't fit the old definition". Pffft, let them marry, and live your life, and be happy.
morningstomper123 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 To me the love between a man and woman stems from a natural, affective, sexual and physiological complementarity. His masculinity and her feminimity.And their marriage is the ultimate, lifelong union of the two. Out of their love, comes the ultimate manifestation of their unity,a child of their flesh and blood. Thus comes a family which not only keeps the species going, but is largely the building block of society. This is why marriage has always been considered a sacred thing
mattd259 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 (continued) Gay people have the ability to forge the strongest relationships between each other, but i'm sorry, you cant call their union a marriage in the same sense as between a man and a woman. Its just not the same. That's why i dont think it should be called a marriage, because they are just so fundamentally different. That sounded a bit harsh, I'm sorry if i have offended you, i dont mean to.
mattd259 1 year ago
@morningstomper123 About infertile and old couples, they can still be called marriages because by its own merit, their marriage should be able to produce offspring, but it is just obstructed by some impairment (disease or whatever). Despite the obstruction, though, the potential is still there.Its like the difference between a car with a faulty engine,a normal car, and a stool. The faulty engine car is still a car also, though it is not the same as a stool, evn though they are both motionless
mattd259 1 year ago
@mattd259 morningstomper123 is a faggot fat boy
putademuerde1 9 months ago
@putademuerde1 That's just disrespectful. You dont have to agree with what people do, but you still owe them the respect that is due to all human beings.
mattd259 9 months ago
@morningstomper123 morningstomper123 is a faggot fat boy try planking and die from it .lol
putademuerde1 9 months ago
What a contemptible douche, they were right to get rid of him.
orangewilliam 1 year ago
How can he remove discrimination?
If he is the one making the difference?
VC106893 1 year ago
The thing about people who don't want Gay marriage is we live in a secular country, and our constitution explicitly forbids the creation of a law based on religious teachings. There is no secular reason for not allowing Gay people to get married, so because of this there is no reason for Australia to not allow it.
Anyone who disagrees should be immediately disqualified from the debate.
2edsajdmsa 1 year ago 8
@2edsajdmsa I guess if you can't win an argument, you have to 'disqualify' your opposition, right? Is there a secular reason for not allowing a father to marry his son?
hpd929 1 year ago
@hpd929 My argument is that Gay marriage hurts no one, therefore it shouldn't be outlawed. Stopping the rights of 2 individuals to marry because you don't like it is not enough mate.
I'm actually going to go further. I'm consistent on this issue, something a lot of Gay marriage supporters are not. I think if a Father and Son wish to get married, they should be allowed. For the same reasons. They hurt no one, its consenting and it would mean a lot to them.
2edsajdmsa 1 year ago
@2edsajdmsa Law has always arisen from a religious basis, so to exclude those who maintain the religious basis of marriage as being between a man and woman would be hypocritical and like it or not the constitution of Australia states that marriage is between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others....that is the way it is.
I expect gays would have a lot less resistance if they were not chasing gay marriage. If they wanted a "civil union" I expect the resistance would drop considerably.
SauronsEye 4 months ago
@SauronsEye
1. Law has always arisen from a religious basis
No it hasn't, and it can't in most countries in the world today (who are secular by constitution).
2. like it or not the constitution of Australia states that marriage is between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others
Thats because John Howard changed it, I see what you did there, hardy-har. He changed it, and it can be changed again, and it will be
continued
2edsajdmsa 4 months ago
@2edsajdmsa and @SauronsEye
I am unsure of the factual support to the comment indicating The Constitution was altered. The only mention of marriage within the Constitution is under section 51 , an area that pertains specifically to the powers allocated to Parliament in relation to the creation and alteration of Legislation.
You should reference the Marriage Act, which has not been altered to include or exclude a certain gender since 1961, the year it was created.
PS. I'm all for Gay marriage.
pahgee23 4 months ago
@SauronsEye 1. If they wanted a "civil union" I expect the resistance would drop considerably.
I'm sure it would, but why should they when they deserve marriage? Why should they shoot lower because people like you tell them they should?
2edsajdmsa 4 months ago