Lyle Shelton meets a gay man

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Lyle Shelton meets a gay man

  1. I’ve never hated gays or Muslims.
    I’ve got a gay friend. And I’ll defend a gay if they are physically attacked.
    I’ve also had Muslim friends over the years and converse with them normally in work situations.
    Stop the lying and ignorant slander Bones.
    It’s facts and logic that are important.

    The majority are not in favor. That’s why I the US the homosexual community has gone the route of the Supreme Court. One day it might be the majority because of relentless efforts to change the opinion of voters.
    And one day it definitely will be because the homosexual community has tried and is trying to ensure that young students will be educated that way.
    And of course for people like you who are flip-flop according to the entertainment world, they have set out to influence through media.
    And it works.
    You’re a perfect example.

    Like

  2. Actually the majority wants it changed….Get over it…..

    And you’ve always hated gays and Muslims…

    Congratulations…

    Do you want a cookie????

    Like

  3. We know about qualifications for marrying people.

    We also know that the state defines marriage.
    It’s a very small segment that wants the state to change it.

    It may or not change but it will be because of relentless pressure.

    But who knows. Greg is now not 100% sure. And you have changed. Actually you’re always changing.
    All it would take is for John Oliver or Walleed to be against it and you’ll be there in front of your tv perplexed because you aren’t sure which way the wind is blowing.
    Must be hard having to keep abreast of who’s popular and what their opinions are to take a stand .

    Sad.

    Like

  4. Some people will need to get over it because it’s coming.

    The state defines who can and can’t marry and even gives permission for clergy to marry.

    Like

  5. You keep talking about Australia and ancient times.
    I’m talking about the whole world in recent times.
    When I refer to history I’m talking about my lifetime. And 7 years ago in the life of Obama and Clinton and just about everyone.
    Was everyone calling Obama a bigot 7 years ago?was Hillary vilified for saying marriage was between one man and a woman. The Chinese and North Koreans don’t care about the Bible or John Howard or Old Testament times.

    Saying marriage should be an institution between a man and a woman is not something to be ashamed of.

    If you want to change the definition (not just in Australia but the normal sense of the world) that’s fine, but nobody here has every explained to me why at the same time we say marriage can be between two men that it can’t be between three bisexuals or 3 polyamorous lesbians.

    I’ve said before . Sure all these things are arbitrary.
    If enough people think it’s okay for women to be topless anywhere in Sydney that’s up to the people there. It could be argued to be natural, reasonable, not hurting anyone, only right given democratic rights etc etc, but the majority of people don’t think so yet.

    We should respect the right of someone to disagree.

    Like

  6. Do you know who defined it as being between a man and a woman? Little Johnny Howard. He changed the law for political purposes.

    Marriage is already something very different from what it used to be. You can see that from the Bible where if a man raped a woman it wasn’t a problem unless she belonged to someone else. If she didn’t the man just had to marry her, in a version of ‘you break it you buy it’. Thank God its different now.

    Just saying that you can’t appeal to historical precedent. Or how it’s defined.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Wazza, millions of people in countries all over the world would disagree about marriage being ownership.
    Nothing to do with the Bible either.

    “Marriage is a state bound contract affirming the commitment and love between two individuals.”

    Well Wazza has disagreed with this.
    That’s your modern definition.

    But all countries either legally or by tribal culture have made rules about who can marry.
    That includes age of course.

    If enough people think it’s wrong marriage will be illegal between a 12 year old and an 82 year old. Or people from different castes. It’s all arbitrary of course. And some groups might allow a woman to have three husbands.
    For thousands of years marriage has been between two people not three. And almost everyone on the planet – religious or not has held to that. And it hasn’t been same sex. Until very recently the idea of two men marrying was considered absurd. Even homosexuals themselves 30 years ago were not arguing for marriage rights In 2008 both Obama and Clinton publicly stated for the world to hear that marriage was between one man and one woman.

    Most countries still don’t want same sex marriage – especially the countries that don’t care about the Bible – but if they eventually accept it、it will be because of outside pressure.

    But the problem we have now is that a person is insulted and criticized for simply having the same view that 99% of the world has had for thousands of years, and even Obama and Clinton expressed probably as recently as 7 years ago.

    Not to mention the King of flip-flop Mr Bones whose opinions change as frequently as logie winners…..

    Some people just can’t think for themselves and just flow with what they are told is clever and cool.

    Which is why of course … People use social media and tv shows to influence society. It works.
    Especially in leading intellectual and cultural centers like Bundaberg.

    Get those Bundy teachers and you’ll get the next generation.

    Waleed and this guy journo will probably be speaking to Mr Bones school.

    “Now boys and girls, listen to these men. They’re very clever . They’re on tv. And one has a GOLD LOGIE so we must listen very closely. “

    Like

  8. Currently it’s defined as being between two people, a man and a woman. I wonder how far we can change thighs before we start to create something entirely different. I’m not objecting to the essence of same sex marriage, I’m simply engaging in thinkingamifixationising about the philosophy of it

    Like

  9. There has indeed been a universal understanding of what marriage is about for thousands of years – tens of thousands of years,

    It has been the ownership by one man of one or more women.

    It is only since the late 19th century that this understanding has begun to change. Now it is a partnership of two equals based on love or some shared interest.

    I don’t think the historical argument can be used , as the nature of the concept of marriage has changed so markedly. The reason that same-sex marriage was not even thought of was because it was an ownership relationship, rather like a farmer owning cows. The concept of a farmer owning another farmer, or a cow owning a cow never comes up.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Talk nonsense, Greg.

    Marriage is a state bound contract affirming the commitment and love between two individuals.

    That’s it….nothing more or less.

    The relationship of people who cohabit is no different to those who stood before a minister and made vows on a certain day.

    Maybe you need to work out what marriage is without the church propaganda.

    Like

  11. Pat is disingenuous if he is trying to argue that changing the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not a ‘radical idea’, it most definitely is radical – it is a marked shift away from what has been a universal understanding of what marriage is about for thousands of years.

    I have been open to the idea of same sex marriage – I feel like I’m actually moving away from that position. Thousands of years – tens of thousands of years – marriage has been between one man and one woman.

    If two people from the same sex want to legally co-habit and be recognised under the state -I have no problem with that – but i wonder rid it is really marriage that they are undertaking – can we change the definition of a thing and still retain the essence of that thing – or do we produce something that is entirely new?

    I can’t believe I’m saying this – I’m siding with Lyle in this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s