20th Oct 2015
SBS takes a stand on gay marriage
SBS takes a stand on gay marriage

A Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday saw SBS come under fire by Liberal National Party Senator Matt Canavan, who accused the public broadcaster of protesting Australian law by taking a political stand on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Canavan accused SBS of taking sides on what is a contentious political issue, when it should remain neutral. SBS’s logo was published earlier this year in newspaper advertisement in support of same-sex marriage, featuring alongside other prominent brands, such as Google, Qantas, Optus and the big banks.

Canavan addressed SBS’s managing director Michael Ebeid, claiming it’s “an abuse” of his position to have come to a “corporate position based on no legal advice and little understanding” of the various opinions surrounding the issue, “other than ‘it's all just about equality’.”

He also asked, “Why is it appropriate for a public broadcaster to involve themselves in a political campaign on issues such as this?”

Canavan went as far as to suggest that Ebeid is acting against Australian law, because he is “an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Commonwealth of Australia has a Marriage Act saying marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Coalition Senator Chris Back also called out the broadcaster, questioning how it would be able to provide balanced news coverage in the event of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.

Ebeid responded to the comments, saying that he didn’t believe same-sex marriage was a political issue, rather “a societal issue”. He said that SBS would continue to provide balanced reporting.

“SBS, in its whole foundation and purpose of being, is about promoting cultural diversity and social cohesion. We are an organisation that does everything we can to support equality,” Ebeid said.

Read more at theguardian.com.au

What do you think of both Senator Canavan and Michael Ebedi’s comments?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Travellersjoy
    21st Oct 2015
    10:16am
    Senator Canavan is the one politicising what is a social and personal issue. A public broadcaster has every right to speak for the public, participate in public debate, encourage debate, allow various voices to be heard, and to publicise its programs.

    On what grounds does Senator Canavan claim a right to speak for the majority of Australians?

    Who is he actually speaking for? Not me.
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    12:35pm
    Likewise who is Mr Ebeid to speak for me? He is NOT an elected representative he is an employee - The Managing Director of a Commonwealth funded TV station.

    On what grounds does Mr Ebeid claim to speak for me? Who is he speaking for? Not me!
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:08pm
    Nor is Mr Ebeid speaking for me, and I am angry that the resources of this public broadcaster are being used in this fashion.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    4:21pm
    You don't have to watch SBS. I don't read Murdoch papers despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to Murdoch.
    Luchar
    21st Oct 2015
    6:37pm
    You are quite correct, Travellersjoy. "Speaking for the public", "participating in public debate", "encouraging debate" and "allowing various voices to be heard" is exactly what the public broadcaster should be doing. Unfortunately these ideals are not achieved when the public broadcaster in question takes it upon itself to present only one side of the debate.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:37pm
    KSS What a load of rubbish. Every comentator has the right to comment. You don't have to listen or agree. Anyone who stifles debate deserved ridicule.
    MICK
    23rd Oct 2015
    5:49pm
    What a croc of an article. As if the media does not take sides. It's easy.....just give more air time to the view you support and run interviews from people who oppose the view you do not support. Happens every day so no need to come out and make a call.
    If in doubt watch 9 media news and current affairs. Unashamedly feminist. Sickening stuff. But no problems with any senate estimates committee here.
    The media has long forgotten that it is supposed to report the news rather than make it and be fair.
    Adrianus
    23rd Oct 2015
    7:41pm
    mick, take it easy. Don't post while you're having your pre dinner aperitif in future. 9 has to play toward their demo. If you have a business which sells women's underwear you wouldn't be pitching to the men would you?
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    10:18am
    It's going to happen little boys, like it or not. I know you're used to getting your way but 72% of Australians disagree with you. SBS are on the side of the people. As opposed to the government, on nearly all issues.
    Troubadour
    21st Oct 2015
    10:38am
    Not true most of the people I have heard talk of this or spoen with are more in line with Canavan. It is not just an equality issue.
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    10:44am
    Here we go again.

    You can't judge public opinion on the people you talk to Troubadour. Independent reputable surveys show support for marriage equality to be around 70%
    Happy cyclist
    21st Oct 2015
    11:19am
    Sorry Troubadour - you are out of touch. There is no reason why 10 per cent of the population should be treated unequally. If all the gay people in the country get married tomorrow it won't make the slightest difference to my life -- except of course I will feel much better about the country than I currently do. We need to pass this legislation and move on to all the other important things which need sorting.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2015
    11:58am
    Well, Happy - it would at least remove one of the more irritating whines going around the traps at the moment, and allow us all to address the important issues instead.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    2:45pm
    Sorry Happy cyclist, you are misinformed: Less than 2 per cent according to the Aus. Bureau of Statistics, and marriage was ruled not to be a human-right by the International Court of Human Rights, so no inequality there!
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:13pm
    I would bet my last dollar that if a national vote such as a plebiscite or referendum were held today, the numbers in favour of gay marriage would be much less than the 70 odd % being thrown around everywhere and likely less than the 50% needed to pass it. People easily jump on the bandwagon when someone rings them up and asks the question, but with a formal vote they will consider the question and its implications more carefully!
    Luchar
    21st Oct 2015
    6:21pm
    I'm with you, Pablo. Penny Wong was over the moon when the Irish voted in favour, yet was furious when Tony Abbott proposed a similar vote for the Australian people rather than a vote of the Parliament. The only reason she would have for not being happy with Abbott's decision, and the decision which still stands, is that she knows full well that they will be lucky to get anywhere near 50% of the vote and the 72% being bandied around is fanciful.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:42pm
    Jen, SBS is not on any side. It, like every publicly owned broadcaster, merely reflects public opinion regardless of whether it's for or against.. SBS represents the most conservative people in our community who are usually immigrants from strictly religious family orientated backgrouds. The fact they can cater for them as well as their less conservative children is quite remarkable.
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    10:35am
    Ebeid is quite right - Canavan is quite wrong.
    Janus Sight
    21st Oct 2015
    10:36am
    The Holy Bible, the laws which Moses enscribed from God forbade same sex marriage and buggery. If Governments disagree they must be prepared to accept the requisite penalties
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    10:45am
    The Bible forbids lots of things we do and says we should do lots of things we would find abhorrent.
    Jennie
    21st Oct 2015
    11:22am
    I suppose you also believe we should stone our children to death at the city gates if they disrespect us Janus!?
    Gay marriage is a personal issue and has nothing to do with religion or politics.
    Homophobes have unresolved issues with their own sexuality as medical research has discovered.
    By the way, you must prove that God exists before you repeat what "he" said.
    Well done SBS!
    Sen.Cit.90
    21st Oct 2015
    11:25am
    Quite right Janus;
    The thought of 'shirt lifters' makes me want to vomit.
    There are plenty of Rod63 in our society, never mind them, stay with your Biblical beliefs.
    Happy cyclist
    21st Oct 2015
    11:50am
    Well said Jennie.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2015
    11:53am
    "Homophobes have unresolved issues with their own sexuality as medical research has discovered."

    Good laugh there, Jen.... instant put-down label (homophobe) and denigrating the sexuality of the 'opposition' as arbitrarily appointed by a self-interest and paranoid minority........

    Nothing 'homophobic' about disagreeing with gay marriage as a right so defined - and I certainly don't seek out men.....
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    12:38pm
    Jennie, can you please cite the research.
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:17pm
    When people have no ability to properly debate an issue, they refer to name-calling like you Jennie. Grow up and make sensible comments rather than attacking us for our rightly held and strong beliefs that have NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR SEXUALITY!
    Wstaton
    21st Oct 2015
    5:54pm
    I see nothing wrong with a man or woman loving another a same sex person as a friend, a person or whatever and loving them enough that they want to be joined together lawfully as their want.

    I also see it that a man an a woman were created by whoever to perform functions to continue the human race. In this they were created physically diffidently to perform this function. Organs were created to perform different functions and not some functions deemed as OK by gay couples.

    This is what I see abhorrent and I see this law as a justification that this legalizes this.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:45pm
    Janus, that's rubbish. The bible does not forbid homosexuality (provide proof), but it does support incest, bigamy and murder if you support the views of the Old Testament.

    21st Oct 2015
    11:27am
    SBS makes the same sort of biased political and socio-racial statements as the ABC but does it with more "new Australian" staff in tow.
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    12:07pm
    Mr Ebeid: "“SBS, in its whole foundation and purpose of being, is about promoting cultural diversity and social cohesion."

    Nothing wrong with that.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    6:20pm
    Well Rod63 Mr Ebeid seems to have created a lot of social cohesion on here.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:47pm
    Steady Eddie, you can't support that with any proof.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2015
    11:44am
    I have personally little to no interest in the 'gay marriage debate' and have long stated that gays etc have the same Right to marriage as anyone else - they simply choose not to take the option of marrying someone of the opposite sex. There is no 'discrimination' inherent here, since marriage between same sex couples was never defined as and was never intended to be part of marriage.

    To cast this endless meaningless disputation in the light of some massive 'freedom struggle' is absurd - and I think it's time this minority shut up for a while and left the rest of us out of it.

    I couldn't care less if they can marry or not - but I'm sick of being cast as some mythical enemy for disagreeing with it as a 'right'.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    12:06pm
    Well said. Do what you want, as long as it's legal, and stop making a big deal of it by pushing it down other peoples' throats and making it sounds like a triumph or a great achievement, because it certainly isn't any "accolade-receiving" behaviour.
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:19pm
    Trebor and Fast Eddie, I could not agree more and could not have said it better!
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:52pm
    Everything becomes redefined over time, even you TREBOR. Politicians redefine every situation to suit there own agenda. Look at Howard as he redefined Iraq so he could help turn it into a mess. As far as I am concerned a dog can marry a cat. It doesn't bother me one little bit. Why people get upset over such trivial issue, defies my comprehension. However, I can see that marriage under the law would provide certainty as far as wills are concerned and give children a sense of belonging and family security.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2015
    11:45am
    Plebiscite and let the people decide. Simple enough.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    3:07pm
    Agreed. But interesting, isn't it, that we can spend millions on a plebiscite on this subject but not on the TPP which affects every single one of us.
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:20pm
    This lobby will oppose any form of vote as they know they will lose it.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:54pm
    Yep, TREBOR, but lets do it cheaply along with an election.
    IanJ
    21st Oct 2015
    12:00pm
    SBS is right.

    The government member Senator Canavan is completely wrong - is he even in this century with his thinking? Untold harm can be done to people who are made to feel ashamed of their sexuality or that the love they feel is different and lesser.

    Grow up Senator Canavan.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:56pm
    You gotta be kidding. Fellas like him can't see outside their own narrow parameters.
    HappyDaze
    21st Oct 2015
    12:16pm
    Do what you do but don't call it 'marriage'.
    Misguided bleeding hearts/'Doo' gooders
    Too much crap in this society.
    Greed, corruption, economic growth WHY? We can get along well without it (only good for the wrong people). Main parties are only for big business and wealthy and pollution Earth destroyers. I have noticed this philosophy and said for many years. 'Those with the most toys at the end of the world - WINS.
    Greens - mandatory to have a limp wrist.
    Who are the good Independents? We need many more who will stand up for us and this country.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    7:57pm
    How long have you been buried, UnhappyDaze?
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    12:25pm
    One social group( the gay lobby )claims discrimination but wishes to impose it's discrimination on another social group that views marriage in a spiritual context that marriage is the foundation of the family unit and only a man and a woman can create life.
    As we are a community that loathes discrimination, then the middle ground should be sort.That middle ground already exists in the form of civil union where one party can enjoy legal equality while the other behold their faith.
    Equality means nondiscrimination for all.
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    12:35pm
    How are you discriminated against if same-sex couple are allowed to marry?
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    1:14pm
    Rod, you seam to have missed the point that marrige in the spiritual sense, which is very important for many in our community, and the reasons mentioned is protected under the marriage act.
    Marriage as a spiritual institution in one form or another has been around throughout human history for purpose of uniting a couple to booster the tribe and and raise children under the protection of the family unit.
    As an example, our own indigenous tribes had such ceremonies for that purpose but never to unit gays for that same reason.
    Happy cyclist
    21st Oct 2015
    1:27pm
    Marriage is not a divine right. Its an institution set up by men originally. Like so many of our institutions it reflected the time when it was set up but it no longer reflects the reality of our community and it needs to be updated. Its no different to women finally being allowed to vote, or black people no longer being abducted from their homeland and sold on the other side of the world. These past practices are now recognised as wrong. Society evolves -- with luck to make it more fair. Lots of stuff in the Bible is outdated, quoting the Bible is just dogma plain and simple.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    1:46pm
    Sorry happy cyclist but you seam to be on the wrong track.
    women's vote, black vote, slavery have nothing to do with this issue nor do I quote from the bible.
    It's a simple matter of respect to those that have their faith for the reasons mentioned.
    Wstaton
    21st Oct 2015
    6:29pm
    Marriage in a spiritual sense was brought on with the advent of religion.

    I would think that our caveman/women would even know the word "marriage" They just came together as a couple and procreated and created families. I wonder whether they had "gays" then.

    Man eventually brought about this concept of marriage through religion and of course man rules. That's why they created religions so that they could continue to rule. I cannot find anywhere where women did. Maybe things would have been different if they had.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:03pm
    Rod83, no one will be discriminated against in fact or spiritually. Poor ol' jackyd, looks outwardly from his undisturbed little caccoon, but can't see the trees for the scrub. He can't seem to understand that if he minds his own business, everyone else will get along fine. f someone feels demeaned by the what others do, then he should be very vocal about what we are doing to refugees. Now that's something to get upset about.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    8:45pm
    Gee paulwhatever, you have fallen out of your tree fair on your head! People minding their own business means maintaining the status quo and not changing what already exists. Practice what you preach.
    As for refugees, that's an entirely different matter.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    8:54pm
    Watstaton, explain your theory to 50000 years of indigenous culture where ceremony provided the institution for the purposes previously mentioned.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    9:20pm
    You're no anthropologis, jackyd. there are myriad examples of marriage between same sex couples going back thousands of years. Wstaton is quite correct. Marriage is a man made intitution as is patriarchal religion. Only the Hindu has female Gods with the exception of a few very minor religions. My comments about minding your own business refers to your desire to interfere with the lives of others. The push for gay marriage will not have any effect on anyone else except gays unless those who don't agree want to step into conflict with their desires. My remark stands. Mind you own bloody business and let the gays get on with fulfilling their lives as they have every right to do.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    10:01pm
    Paulwhatever, we in this country will decide this matter by democratic vote, unlike the USA where 5 out of 9 judges decided the outcome for 330 million people.
    In the meantime you mind your own bloody business yourself and don't condemn those that view marriage aligned with their faith.
    Which ever way the vote goes will be acceptable to me.
    Young
    21st Oct 2015
    12:33pm
    Am sick and tired of minority groups overruling the majority.
    SBS is just like the ABC.All politically correct but no common sense or feeling for the majority.Many people today are too scared to give their views.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    3:05pm
    Sorry Browny, but YOU are the minority.
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:24pm
    I think NOT Jen! the point being expressed by Browny and others is that those who don't agree with your minority view should have it shoved down their throat by people like you.
    Pass the Ductape
    21st Oct 2015
    4:55pm
    Jen - you wish!
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    5:25pm
    I have actual stats on my side Pablo and Ductape. Sadly, you just have your indignation.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    6:07pm
    Jen if you had stats you would produce them.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    6:59pm
    It's amply available on the internet. If you were genuinely interested in the truth, you would do a little Googling yourself.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:09pm
    Browny, it wasn't long ago that people with compassion were called bleeding heart lefties. What are you? Now tell me how minority groups overrule the majority. Are you indigenous, a Moslem, gay, a Green or a refugee advocate? You might see things a little differently. Everyone of those are discriminated against by the majority. You really do have a topsy turvy view of Aussie society.
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    12:34pm
    Not original, but I read this recently :
    If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."
    Not Amused
    21st Oct 2015
    12:56pm
    The gay lobby hijacked the definition of marriage. They have cleverly convinced some of the public that not being able to be Mrs and Mrs is forced inequality. What garbage, what rudeness to walk over people whose understanding of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Nowadays two women or two men walking down the street together, or holidaying together, sharing a house together, are automatically stared at and gossiped about, "suspiciously". The over-bearing gay campaign and "coming out" has made both genders sensitive about maintaining healthy straight friendships in public, for fear there will be conjecture about their sexual preference. The gay lobby is getting exuberantly happy with getting what they want. No regard or consideration for resultant feelings on straight people, as a result of their demands. How equal is that?
    Pablo
    21st Oct 2015
    4:27pm
    Not Amused, not equal at all but why would you expect the gay lobby to be interested in other people's wishes, desires etc when they think what they believe or want is the only important thing!
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:13pm
    Pablo, you have a cock-eyed view of the world. Look up the meaning of marriage in the dictionary, not the bible and you might understand the drivel you write. Most of us are not religious and do not follow the tenants of the bible religiously. You go ahead and do and believe what you will, but leave the rest of us alone. I don't tell you what to do, so don't tell me what to do. I'll marry a bloody fish if I want to.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    9:15pm
    Paulwhatever, you are quite welcome to plan your marriage to a fish as I am quite sure any fish would love you, but that's not going to happen until we all have a vote and your dream may then be enshrined in legislation, cheers.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    9:23pm
    True
    Not Amused
    21st Oct 2015
    12:40pm
    SBS, ABC are funded by taxpayers' money. Not everyone supports the stance taken by SBS. They have no right whatsoever to "choose sides" on political and personal issues. They are there to educate, inform and entertain. They are not there to advertise institutional bias. It is said that the majority favours same sex marriage. Who did the surveys? The same people that said David Cameron would definitely not be re-elected? No-one ever asked my opinion, or anyone I know.
    Rod63
    21st Oct 2015
    12:44pm
    Reputable survey firms - research it on Google. Newspoll, Fairfax, IPOS etc.
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    12:47pm
    ditto.
    Does anyone out there have a copy of the SBS Charter ?
    Surely it is not their role to side with "public opinion" polls.
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    12:48pm
    my ditto was to ... Not Amused
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    1:04pm
    Agree Not Amused. "Google, Qantas, Optus and the big banks" are all private enterprises and can support who and what they like. Publically funded media must maintain a non-biased position. Something neither SBS nor the ABC seem able to do.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    3:04pm
    "SBS, ABC are funded by taxpayers' money. " Yes, and the majority of taxpayers believe in marriage equality. But I do understand your point. You would much prefer the public broadcasters stuck to the Anti side of the equation and ignored the equal rights side altogether. Right?
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    3:18pm
    What part of "non-biased" position do you not understand Jen?
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    3:52pm
    That's exactly my point KSS. I don't think Not Amused is wanting "unbiased" at all. Unless that means biased towards inequality.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:16pm
    Ha Ha!
    mollie
    21st Oct 2015
    1:25pm
    To throw this in will cause a furore!!!
    Too many awful health issues - incompetent anal sphincters, damaged bowel lining and faecal leaking to name a few, are the disastrous effects on homosexual men. Sorry this isn't sex! Sex is between a vagina and a penis! Right? therefore how can a marriage between gay couples be said to be consummated? Grounds for annulment if anyone has thought this through.............
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    1:56pm
    Well I guess that's one way of putting it, cheers.
    Tom Tank
    21st Oct 2015
    2:59pm
    Rather a narrow view of what constitutes sex. Perhaps it is a reflection of so many of the narrow viewpoints being expressed.
    Same sex marriage is NOT about sex. Homosexuals can and do have sex without being married, the same as hetrosexuals and as for some of them, hetrosexuals that is,they are married but not to each other at times.
    Wstaton
    21st Oct 2015
    6:07pm
    Well said mollie and the taxpayer has to pick up the tab just like smokers.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:20pm
    Oh dear mollie. Never had anal sex my dear? Lots of straight people do. There are some trannies who don't have a vagina, but are as female as you. My advice to you is to stop imagining what other people do in the bedroom and you will be much happier.
    Supernan
    21st Oct 2015
    2:16pm
    With 10% of the population born gay, why should they not have the same rights as the rest os us. It not their fault they were born that way. Why should they be deprived ?

    Some scientifcic studies suggest that when animals are living in over crowded situations, a higher % of gay animals are born. May be its natures way of compensating for there being too many people on the planet ? Who knows !
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    2:38pm
    Not all gays are interested in marriage but others get all huffy about it.
    If Isis and extremism take control then over population including the gay issue will quickly be resolved.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    2:55pm
    Sorry Superman, you are misinformed: less than 2% of the population according to the Aus. Bureau of Statistics, and marriage was ruled not to be a human-right by the International Court of Human Rights, so no discrimination there!
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    4:54pm
    Supernan, as it is with some fish species. Given a school of females one fish will decide to bat for the other side and become a male. But this is not the case with humans, we are fairly even numbered.
    Other fish species have an upper size limit because they change from males to females at a certain age. This is also not the case with humans. We are in control of our own destiny. We are no longer reliant on nature to decide our future.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:25pm
    I like that Supernan. As for markw, the chances are that the actual figure is higher than 10% as the statistics don't take into account bisexual behaviour. Most gays, both male and female tend to be a bit AC/DC before they settle on a preference. I believe one of our most prominent past Prime Ministers fits that description.
    Young
    21st Oct 2015
    2:27pm
    Love your comments Mollie.
    And I don't believe babies are born gay.I believe they are made gay by their parents and then they choose to stay that way.
    Sundays
    21st Oct 2015
    3:02pm
    Don't be ridiculous. Parents don't make children gay. I had hoped we now understood that people can't help being gay. Why shouldn't a gay couple marry, we're not saying that ministers/priests have to be forced to marry them, just thAt gay couples should have a legally binding Union if they want. That said, I agree that SBS should be politically neutral
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:27pm
    You have really led a sheltered life Browny. The minimum of education would have taught you how stupit your belief is.
    Young
    21st Oct 2015
    2:36pm
    Most homosexual men I know have had dominant but caring mothers and fathers who have shown little interest in them.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    2:59pm
    Good grief.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:29pm
    Most gay people I have known are no different to you or me and whose parents are no different to yours or mine. However, I love your comments as they make the rest of us feel great about ourselves.
    FEDUP
    21st Oct 2015
    2:44pm
    The Honourable Member (or should that be Homophobic Member) should change his name to Caravan, get out amongst the people that he claims to represent, and get their view.
    Either that or get back into a closet.
    Mr Canavan should realise that if two gay people are living together, they can claim single benefits, where married couple are disadvantage.
    Think of the money that the Government could save?
    Marriage is a commitment of LOVE nothing MORE or LESS, no matter what sex.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:30pm
    Well put, FEDUP.
    Supernan
    21st Oct 2015
    2:50pm
    If we are going to quote the bible, the New Testament says " love your neighbour as much as you love yourself " & makes it clear that your neighbour is everyone. Black, white, gay straight, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim.

    The bible also says "Judge not so you dont get judged yourself. ". & "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" . Meaning only if you are perfect in every way, may you condemn others. I'm not particularly religious but have done studies comparing religions. Its amazing how people pick out bits & pieces to support their pet theories ! And try to tell us this is God's view ! In reality it is just theirs or their Priests interpretation of an ancient scripture !

    A countries laws are made to suit the majority view. If the majority view changes, so should the laws. The people who want change should be able to say why, without being judged or condemned.
    Happy cyclist
    21st Oct 2015
    2:59pm
    Gee Supernan, you get my vote for most appropriate, intelligent and relevant comments today!
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    3:16pm
    Oh Super ..... Nazi Germany: I don't think the majority got what they wanted.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:31pm
    Good on yer Supernan!
    Bizylizy
    21st Oct 2015
    3:24pm
    Australian Law is that which has kept us united forever, including the Law Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and is a sacred establishment. There should be no discrimination against anyone's co-habitation with another person of the same sex, but it cannot possibly be a part of the Marriage act as is ordained by God, in whom we Trust. There is a security and utmost respect for each other when we give our self to another in order that we may bear children to populate the world ; children who will have a the knowledge of parental guidance of both a Mother and a Father, brothers and sisters , Aunties and Uncles, Grandmothers and Grandfathers who also add to the responsibility of nurturing a loving and respectful adult who will take their place in a world of a loving and peaceful population. We were born free, there are only 10 Commandments to enjoy this wonderful life.
    Imagine what would happen if we all lived by them......worth thinking about.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    3:40pm
    You may trust in your God, Bizylizy, but your god has nothing whatever to do with Australian law. The fact of the matter is, marriage is a man made entity. And laws must keep up with the times. Or, in the case of this government, go backwards.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:34pm
    Good on yer Jen. The bible is refuge of the religious and that's fine, but they really should leave the rest of us alone. Just bu---r off and leave the rest of us to get on with making the world a better place to live in.
    Cautious
    21st Oct 2015
    3:26pm
    If it's about rights. The rights of those that do not agree with gay marriage are just as important. Their rights should be considered in any new legislation. They should be protected. If they have a business and feel that it is against their belief/faith then they should be exempted from participating in a gay marriage.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:39pm
    I'm married. The rights of a married gay has no effect on my rights. Why should it? Just because you don't want to recognise someone else's marriage, doesn't mean that I shouldn't. Leave them alone. Why do people want to spoil other people's lives just so they can say they are right? And don't tell me it demeans the meaning of your marriage. If it does that, your marriage sucks.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    4:09pm
    Michael Ebeid should be sacked. He is not fit to be MD of the SBS.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:40pm
    Gee Frank. Do you feel better now?
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:22am
    My opinion counts just as much as yours or Mr Ebeid's. Mr Ebeid assumes to speak for the government and the Australian people by advertising that SBS is 100% in support of gay marriage. Many of the SBS viewers would disagree. Particularly muslim viewers who have been lobbying the government for legalisation of polygyny. Simply a blatant and arrogant misuse of positional authority. A reprimand is satisfactory but I would clean out the dead wood of those who seek to undermine their employer.
    Not Amused
    21st Oct 2015
    5:08pm
    Jen, nowhere did I suggest public broadcasters take ANY side. They are taxpayer funded, the organisation and its staff use money that is supplied from ALL sides. They are not supposed to choose, and be a cheer squad for, or promote, any particular social or political issues. They are paid to report and present, not to use their television platform to push their ideology.

    Since you don't seem to understand – the habitual insertion of a penis into a rectum full of bacteria is regarded by many as abhorrent and unhealthy. In case you don't know, it is what gays DO that makes heterosexual people feel uncomfortable. This is why I made the point that heterosexual men these days feel embarrassed and hesitant to engage in simple non-sexual public mateships for fear of being suspected as gay, with the connotation they could be engaging in anal sex with each other.

    It is a sad state of affairs that the gay movement has been permitted to walk over so many others in their quest. Everything in life is not meant to be equal or I would expect to be equally as rich as my neighbour. I would expect an equally luxurious car as my neighbour and to be equally as attractive as other women. On top of ripping the traditional definition of marriage away from those heterosexuals who still believe it is a male-female union, there are now selfish gay rights side-effects that, although not deliberate, will forever impact very negatively on a very large and undeserving heterosexual section of our society.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:46pm
    Absolute drivel. Never had anal sex, Not Amused? Lots of hetrerosexuals do, you know. Stop imagining what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and the bad dreams will stop. Why don't you simply mind your own business? I bet you do things that would gross me out and many others as well. I certainly don't want to imagine where you or what you insert your penis into.

    As for the gay movement walking over anyone. Please name me one instance where you have been disadvantaged by gay activism or the gay movement - unless of course they have been causing you nightmares.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    9:09pm
    Thanks Paulodapotter. I have to wait for the disgust to subside before replying to Not Amused.
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:34am
    Well said Not Amused. Your points are valid and the responses you have drawn validate your assertions. Gay people are just agitators. A Sydney council spent $10,000 of ratepayers money for a rainbow pedestrian crossing on Oxford street so they could walk over it too!!
    Foxy
    21st Oct 2015
    5:41pm
    What terrible terrible comments some people have made on here? I am appalled! Appalled! I would seriously doubt that same sex marriage would affect even 0-1% of people on this website? Right? So get on with your own lives - leave other people to live their lives happily and MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!

    One of my dearest sets of friends (of 14 years) are two "gay" guys whom have adopted three children over the years (Australian kids) and brought them up in a beautiful home with beautiful values in life! Why? The kids "hetrosexual" parents were druggies and losers - and - lost their children through the Court system!!!
    No one wanted the kids! No one Kids were in foster care after foster care!!!

    Instead of dragging down people that you do not know and have done NOTHING yourselves for kids in dire situations I suggest "you" - as I said before "you" - please mind your own business! It does NOT affect you in any way! Geeeez ..........................................
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    5:55pm
    I appreciate the comments. This was supposed to be about the SBS's call .... it seems very suss that the public broadcaster should do that.

    Obviously many traditional marriages have some serious problems.

    Seeing that others have stretched the topic .........

    Other matters in my limited little world. Women don't mind being chatted to by gay men, knowing they are not being hit-on. On the flip side, as a man I should care about all women's health matters, but these women don't give a hoot about men's health.

    Wondering what others think.
    Foxy
    21st Oct 2015
    6:17pm
    Rob - you sound like a reasonable person - I do not get your questions however regarding "women's/men's" health" matters? (as you put it?) Care to clarify please?
    As to your comment that "many traditional marriages have serious problems"? May I humbly suggest it is the "majority"??? How many people are 'living the lie" - my God - I know of plenty!! Been together "X" number of years - hate each other's guts but still stay together for what? Property? Money? What? lol kinda sad really ........
    Swinging voter
    21st Oct 2015
    6:31pm
    I can see (a) the point that SBS should not take sides on taxpayer funds and (b) the men's health issue re heterosexual men fearing if they are seen socialising together eyebrows go up - mistaken for gays when it has never been more important for men to spend time with mates and talk about their lives. It is very important for males to have regular male company but I hear men often in workplace say exactly the same thing. Just because a couple of men raise kids together doesn't put them above heteros who look after people in dire circumstances and also that people aren't entitled to say how they feel. I am actually very appalled and troubled to hear someone being told to mind their own business when this subject is the business of anyone who is interested. Damned or not. Put your manners back in Foxy and let contributors have their democratic opinion and do disagree politely and don't try to shout others down.
    jackyd
    21st Oct 2015
    6:33pm
    Certainly Rob, SBS is out of control as a public broadcaster and needs to be rained back in with a swift boot. Opinion rather than fact means tabloid, not the business of a taxpayer benefited media organization.
    Foxy, far more people than you think consider marriage and civil union as separate issues.
    Rob
    21st Oct 2015
    6:34pm
    Foxy
    Agree, far too many marriages are stuffed.
    Health .... I care about women’s health: women’s cancers, periods, etc.
    I don’t feel lesbians would do health harm to each other.
    Men, to each other. I feel they have the potential there to do each other some serious damage. Do women appreciate this?
    I’ll leave it at that for now.
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    8:52pm
    Absolutely Foxy. I'm equally appalled by the narrow ignorant attitudes on display. However, it does give an indication of how many truly nasty ol' oldies there are. They can be a miserable uncomprimising lot. If they concentrated on having some fun and living life to the full, they wouldn't be bothered vilifying everyone they perceive as different to themselves.

    21st Oct 2015
    6:45pm
    Changing the 2004 Marriage Act is a legal (not a social) issue. So, rather than debating same-sex 'marriage' itself yet again, we need to look at SBS's stance from a legal perspective - in which case the LNP Senator is undeniably correct, and the SBS boss wrong. It is not the role of broadcasters to engage in social engineering or to take a stance one way or another on a particular issue. Rather, they exist to report news to the public in a neutral, disinterested manner, as is, for SBS, required by law.
    Jen
    21st Oct 2015
    6:55pm
    Yet our own government engages in social engineering every single day. So everyone should just accept it?
    Paulodapotter
    21st Oct 2015
    9:04pm
    How on earth can you possibly imagine that SBS is doing any social engineering? That is totally ......blurb, blurb, blurb. SBS is not required to by law to be disinterested or neutral on a single program or issue. As long as all points of view are shown through commentry by a range of commentators over an extended period of time, then they fulfill their charter. I suppose if someone condemns murder on a program without a murder advocate then that would show bias? It seems obvious to me that DrPolymath does not have a pluralistic view any more than Caravan does on this issue and hence his annoyance with SBS. Get over it. If SBS has that amount of influence in redirecting the values and principles of a society then it does not speak highly of the public. Are you that contemptuous of the public DrPolymath?
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:05am
    DrPolymath, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The ABC/SBS got rid of a lot of dead wood, but clearly there is still more work to do in that area.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:29pm
    @Pauloddpotter. What an absolutely cretinous response! You ask: "Are you that contemptuous of the public DrPolymath?" Yes - but only towards the alarmingly large proportion of the public who 'think' as you do. i.e. the (sub-)mediocre pseudo-intelligentsia, like you, who have delusions of adequacy.
    Aviatorman
    21st Oct 2015
    10:18pm
    It is said that what any two people do in private is 'nobody's business but theirs.' Fair enough. Though there is much more to a relationship than what goes on in a bedroom which is the basis presumably for equality ie., 'marriage', I do wonder about 2 males and their activities. What happens if 'junior' walks past the bedroom and catches 2 dady's in some bizzare act. "Its ok my child, perfectly normal" or is it.??
    We have seen many politicians advocating 'same sex' marriage, mainly those with a vested interest. And funnily enough its mainly the women like Penny Wong, Tanya Pl., Tony Abbotts sister, etc., incl Dr. Phelps. Does this then give it the 'motherly touch' as distinct from 2 'shirtlifters' ? and thus make it OK. ( I think not ) Time will tell. I think the debate has a long way to go.
    Kopernicus
    22nd Oct 2015
    8:41am
    I take it would be fine for junior to observe the sexual activities of his heterosexual parents, according to you. By the way, 'bizzare' sexual activity may not be excluded by mum and dad either, but that's OK cause they're hetero, whatever they get up to.
    Truly, we should stay out of the bedroom in these conversations, it's each couples private stuff, but seems to hold a fascination for you. Are you a shirt lifter or do you prefer raincoats?

    Numerous studies have shown children of gay parents do more than OK. But lets not allow prejudice to get in the way of relishing your disgust.
    Brissiegirl
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:23am
    SBS is campaigning on public money just as the ABC does. Both blatant advertisers and touters of causes using funds from a large percent of people who disagree.
    We saw enough bold in your face disgusting public promotion of what goes on happening in the street for all to see; kids included; at the Sydney gay mardi gras. If that is an example of pride and demonstration attitudes publicly passed on to young observant impressionable kids in the streets we were disgusted. Talking of disgust here sounds like some people want homosexual behavior defined as normal and that normal families with male/female role models are no longer standard. When the scientific facts of gay sex act are discussed openly in the same direct way male-female functions are talked about, suddenly the disparity is clear as to what real marriage means eg. some don't like their same sex activity described equally as openly. Ok for heterosexual conduct to be written up and talked about ad nauseum but oh no not gay functions, oh that's too confronting it might put people off voting for redefining the word marriage. I'll vote no. Heterosexuals are happy to leave gays to lead their lives according to their preference just please leave the rest of us to have marriage as a man and woman union. Next they will want words like mother and father redefined. And then what.
    Kopernicus
    22nd Oct 2015
    5:45pm
    Well Brissie it's clear, in your view, life has apparently given you the right to deny some people equality of access to some rights that you and I enjoy. Your way or the highway principle.
    Same sex attracted people have a long, cruel history of jailing, bashing and hatred and vilification and this remains so elsewhere. Time to set it right - they are people with beating hearts and deserve all the rights you and I have.
    Why should that bother you? If you think this way because of religion consider this, 75% (and climbing) of Oz marriages are civil, not religious, ceremonies. Why should religious beliefs of a minority carry the day on what should be everyone's right? Thank God we live in a democracy and not a theocracy. This growing acceptance of same sex relationships will continue to grow as new generations freed of old dogmas come to the fore.

    Once this right is granted, as it should be, why should this impinge on you in any way? Live and let live.

    This is hardly worth mentioning - I walked in 2 Mardi Gras years ago and what I saw was joy, celebration and raucous acceptance by 100s of thousands lining the street. There are so many people that do not share your judgmental views on sexuality. Nor the prurience used as another stratagem to vilify.
    Brissiegirl
    22nd Oct 2015
    7:04pm
    Kopernicus. It is not vilification for anyone to say they do not agree on gay marriage and what is widely known about gay choices. I don't think anyone here believes gays are not nice or badly intentioned and no-one has said anything like that. On a personal level gay people as far as I have noticed, live peaceful law abiding lives.They have suffered greatly for a long time as you said, with violence that is uncalled-for. It seems one-sided that it is ok for discussions about the female anatomy, reproduction, abortion methods, breasts etc. etc. but when someone questions known gay physical habits the description "prurience" is used as a means of attack. One thing that is common in the discussion here is how those who disagree with someone else's general opinion like to reply by way of personal attack dog method. You don't know people here beyond what is written so why not reply politely with your opposite argument which can be absorbed and counter-argued or agreed with? I do not agree with SBS's taking up the gay marriage cause using tax money and certainly hope that others will not be bullied out of having an opinion on this forum just because it is not the same as yours.
    Kopernicus
    23rd Oct 2015
    10:10am
    Brissie, no it’s not vilification to say you oppose gay marriage per se. But, when the reasons for that view are exposed to include vilification, prejudice, hatred, bigotry then you can get called out for it. My initial response was to a dog whistle condemning sexual practice of gay men (lesbians are always left out) and the innuendo that gays will make bad parents and their children will suffer. A statement of ill informed opinion undermined by heaps of contra evidence. Again no mention of lesbians who actually are the mainstay of same sex parenting.
    Basically, much of any allusion to gay male sexual practice in this debate has to do with virulent old views and prejudices. Historically, conflating bestiality and sodomy gives a nice background to regarding gay sex as depravity and perversion and worthy of severe punishment. While the Church always had zero to say about sex, it ranted about Sodom (while sexually abusing children on an industrial scale). I love the opinion of one ‘modern’ Pope – God can love a gay person, as long as there is no sex. The evocative term sodomy has become extinct as anal sex had become much more apparent in the heterosexual domain.
    Sooo …….. I think you are totally disingenuous with seemingly obscure statements like ‘scientific facts of gay sex act’. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink – I get it, those Sodomites are unworthy of having their relationships ‘sanctified’ by the (civil) ceremony of marriage. Lesbians don’t rate a mention, but throw them in as well, we need to be fair.
    I repeat, a couple’s consensual sex life should be in the realm of privacy and of no interest to others in my view. In this debate it only gets mentioned for pejorative purposes, often as an innuendo.
    Strummer
    22nd Oct 2015
    8:10am
    This question needs to be put to the electorate in a plebiscite with an unequivocal "Should same sex couples be permitted to legally marry. YES or NO" vote. I'll be voting no, by the way.
    Aviatorman
    22nd Oct 2015
    4:06pm
    As a matter of interest (to everyone) was the passing of 'same-sex' marriage vote by the IRISH people a "COMPULSORY VOTE"??
    YES or NO.
    Kopernicus
    25th Oct 2015
    8:05pm
    Jen, what a succinct and poignant summary! Spot on, my full agreement. Thank you, I just get too aggro, cause I care so much about the people near me who are being trashed by those comments. You've expressed this so superbly.
    Kopernicus
    25th Oct 2015
    9:11pm
    Sorry Strummer, no idea how my reply to Jen ended up here.
    However, I re watched the Irish vote prog on the ABC last nite and it struck me - the Church blew it BIG time. All those centuries of dominance of mores and ethics soooooooo.... undermined by abuse, not just sexual but physical and moral .......... on an degree of prevalence you'd be tempted to say industrial. It helped the Gay vote immeasurably - a turn around for the whole nation, over the Catholic misdeeds, never fully acknowledged. Talk about entitlement, the Church had it and abused it for centuries! The Irish finally got it!

    22nd Oct 2015
    9:27am
    Basically thought the whole institution of 'marriage' was on the wane.... And given its history of female oppression, high divorce rates, domestic violence statistics, the fact that many treat the whole institution as a bit of joke making a mockery of things like marriage vows etc. as evidenced in the recent Ashley Madison dating site revelation etc. etc. etc. ...

    Bit surprised anyone, including the Gay community would have much interest in buying into it.....
    Aviatorman
    22nd Oct 2015
    4:15pm
    Maybe its the way I was brought up, but the sight of 2 gay men kissing in public, whether in or out of "marriage" I find totally abnormal. My gut reaction is YUK.
    ... Oh well, I'll just have to turn a blind eye wont I. ( Its called LOVE I suppose)
    Kopernicus
    22nd Oct 2015
    5:55pm
    Aviator, I saw the film "Holding the man" - about a gay couple who met at high school. I saw it with an oldish film group, a number of whom said they found it confronting as they have never witnessed, as you said, man to man sexual attraction. Their final summation was that they 'got over it' as the film went on and ended up loving it as a really good film and being glad they saw it.
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    7:51pm
    And what were your personal feelings Kopernicus?
    Kopernicus
    22nd Oct 2015
    11:26pm
    I was not 'confronted' by the depiction of male homosexual sexuality in the film, if that what you're asking, but I was surprised at how overt it was. This was quickly submerged by strongly emotive events with a very touching ending.

    As a film, I thought it was a quite moving and involving depiction of the sort of relationship that has been treated as non existent in the cinematic past. Well written and acted. I was really glad I saw it and would definitely recommend it. The group gave it 4/5 and that was my view.
    Adrianus
    23rd Oct 2015
    11:11am
    Breaking new ground huh? I guess it differs from Brokeback Mountain ? I watched part of Brokeback Mountain, not really my thing.
    There appears to be a concealed agenda with many movies these days. I mean, in the past a movie was purely entertainment, gradually and subtly sneaking a brand name in but these days they are commonly used to condition a collective behaviour. The best example I saw was Cast Away. A blatant FedEx movie without a hidden agenda.
    Clearly Holding your Man is a gay activist movie with an agenda.
    I think in that regard Holding your Man is a little like Shirt fronting, it should be penalised. I give it one star and I haven't seen it.
    Rod63
    23rd Oct 2015
    11:33am
    "a gay activist movie with an agenda".
    Dear oh dear! What a blinkered view. It is the film version of a popular memoir and stage play based on it. It's not an activist movie - it is the story of someone's life and is warm, funny and extraordinarily moving. LGBTI people ARE people. They have lives, they love, they endure tragedies. They are human.
    Kopernicus
    24th Oct 2015
    1:40am
    Frank, you have summed it up brilliantly - 1/5 before you even see it, how's that for pre judice? There is a lot in life you will never get with that approach, nor do you appear to have the capacity or desire to change it, it seems to me.

    What exactly is your thing Frank?

    The movie as Rod said was a moving depiction of a couple of lives, they happened to be gay. Got a problem with that?
    Adrianus
    24th Oct 2015
    7:32am
    Why do I have to be gay??
    I see, if I'm not gay I am blinkered in my view. I will never learn new things. I will never understand the warm fuzzy feeling of two men being in love and going HIV positive together. And as you say I don't have the capacity or the desire to change. What sort of animal must I be?
    I love women, that is my thing. I'm intrigued by a woman's capacity to endure, to love so deeply and to experience the many types of love that I as a man cannot. The strength of a woman's motherly love is something to behold. You may feel as though I am pitching an argument against gay people. I am not. Clearly that is your thing. I say go off and paint your driveway rainbow, but don't expect all your neighbours to do the same thing.
    Rod63
    24th Oct 2015
    9:38am
    Who says you have to be gay??

    Just don't regard people who are as "animals" (your word).
    Adrianus
    24th Oct 2015
    10:28am
    Rod63, my confession of my love of women has upset you and it shouldn't if you were a fair and reasonable person. It has had the same effect on you as a cross would to a person possessed by demons :-/ You have lost it. :(

    Please show me where I called gay people "animals?"

    You have shown your true colours Rod63. You lend no credibility to the gay movement. With camp aigners like you your numbers will remain at 2%.
    Rod63
    24th Oct 2015
    10:46am
    Frank, for the record, I am a straight married man with 3 kids. I love women too - especially my lovely lady. But I love all people if they are good people. Their sexual orientation, religion, race etc has nothing to do with that.

    They are my true colours.

    No, you didn't call gay people "animals". I was using your word from here in your post above: "What sort of animal must I be?" because from the way you have spoken about gay people it seems that is how you regard them.

    They deserve better.
    Adrianus
    24th Oct 2015
    11:11am
    And another thing Rod63. If I choose to regard someone as a low life by association with their behaviour then I will! (I cannot remember the last time I did.) It will be my choice!
    Regardless of what you tell me I should think or the regard I should have for other people.
    The only freedom I have left is in my mind and I will not give that up on your say so, or anyone else's for that matter.
    Your brand of stupidity is what drives big dollars to the Kardashions bank accounts and puts idiots like Rudd in charge.
    Rod63
    24th Oct 2015
    11:34am
    My brand of stupidity? Caring about people?
    Kopernicus
    25th Oct 2015
    8:01am
    The quintessential display of stupidity and ignorance here is yours on display Frank. No, you don't give it up cause you can't. You can't see the depth of your bigotry and ignorance, nor understand anything about this issue, even the basics of same sex attraction not being a choice.

    Who's tho low life here?
    Adrianus
    25th Oct 2015
    10:18am
    So, I am a bigot, a low life, an animal and to top it off ignorant?
    Why? Because I have a view which is different to yours?
    Do you realise that is very gay?

    I don't know if it is a choice or not. Where did I say I had an opinion on that?

    Is homosexuality a choice or an addiction like playing the pokies?
    Who knows?! Who cares?!

    The gay and lesbians seem to care and would like the rest of us to think that they were born that way.
    I suppose if that were the case then it would be easier for heterosexuals to accept.
    I guess if it can be scientifically proved, that for the most part, people do not have a choice in the matter, that they have no control over their urges or sexual behaviour, then I would be convinced. But until then I think the jury is still out with me.

    One thing I do know about human sexual behaviour is that we are programed to replicate or re-enact our first sexual experience whether or not it was entirely pleasurable.

    It's ok to be caring. It's also ok to be blindly caring in an act of selfless love, but let's not confuse caring with the consequences of stupid changes to our laws.
    Rod63
    25th Oct 2015
    2:04pm
    From a blog I just read. No comment needed:

    This summer I visited the Netherlands. For the next few weeks I’ll share my observations here.

    The Land of Skyscrapers

    After I landed at Schiphol airport, I took a train to the city. As I came out of the Amsterdam train station, my neck was tilted back.

    This wasn’t New York. There are no skyscrapers. The Netherlands is a land of tall people. Average height is more than six feet. That means about half the people are over six feet.

    As I walked toward my hotel, crossing several bridges on the network of canals on the way, I thought about why the Dutch are so tall. My theory is that it may have something to do with the fact much of the Netherlands is below sea level. It’s nature’s way to make sure that ultimately everyone is at the same eye level. For the same reason people in mountainous regions are usually short.

    We can look up to these tall Hollanders, literally and figuratively. With a live-and-let-live attitude, they have led the world in many things. They were the first to legalize same-sex weddings, back in 2001. They have decriminalized weed, but their per capita consumption is less than that of the US. And they have legalized much more that people in other parts of the world might regard as sinful.

    Yet, this was no Sodom and Gommorah. I met people who happily go about their lives ... bicycle to work, make art, care for the sick, laugh, live, and let live.

    Amsterdam has more than 1200 bridges -- perhaps all of us should be making more bridges and fewer walls.
    Jen
    25th Oct 2015
    2:48pm
    And well said. Giving gay people the right to marry is not going to affect anybody but themselves and then, only if that's what they want. Nothing else will change. It's sad that so many people are so precious about heterosexual marriage when around half of heterosexual people live in misery, or divorced. Simply letting that percentage of people who happen to be gay, get married, is not going to change a thing for the rest of us. So why are some, especially this age group, so fearful of it? It makes no sense to me. What makes real sense and fairness to me, is allowing 100% of the population the same rights to choose whether to marry or not.
    Kopernicus
    25th Oct 2015
    8:33pm
    Jen, what a succinct and poignant summary! Spot on, my full agreement. I just get too aggro in this discussion, cause I care so much for those very near me, who are so easily and flippantly vilified at a drop of a hat in this blog. You've expressed this so well. thank you.

    23rd Oct 2015
    7:24am
    SBS is a public broadcaster. Pushing a view on gay 'marriage' is undeniably social engineering.
    Adrianus
    23rd Oct 2015
    11:22am
    It is also a blatant misuse of positional authority by the MD, and should be recognised as such!!!
    Stoney
    23rd Oct 2015
    9:00pm
    Who cares about politicians and their thoughts - nobody!
    Everyone can understand the lesbian side of the argument, but, really, men having sex with men is disgusting to any normal, right-minded human being, and, since most of them are sad, miserable people, maybe the only answer is castration for the sake of all concerned.
    Rod63
    23rd Oct 2015
    9:23pm
    Back under your rock, Stoney.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    11:08am
    I couldn't agree more, Stoney. Gay sex-acts are not just anatomically dangerous, but are - literally - truly filthy. It's such acts, and the well-known high levels of gays' promiscuity, that introduced humanity to HIV (the first case in 1969).

    @Rod63. It's the totally depraved sodomizing faggots who should crawl back under their rocks, where they belong.
    Rod63
    30th Oct 2015
    2:50pm
    I don't now why you two are so concerned about other people's sex lives. They have noting to do with you.

    This disgusting comment, "since most of them are sad, miserable people, maybe the only answer is castration for the sake of all concerned" was what prompted my remark.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:05pm
    @Rod63. You seem to labour under the delusion that private acts cannot have public consequences. That is definitely NOT the case. Depraved sex-acts (carried out in private) can - and do - result in physical injury and/or STDs. That, of course, imposes an unnecessary burden upon the tax-payer. Ergo - other peoples' sex-lives ARE Stoney's and my business.
    Kopernicus
    25th Oct 2015
    10:17pm
    I wonder how anyone would imagine your reaction to the situation of your child revealing to you they were gay/lesbian? How would you deal with it, if it really clashed with your contra beliefs? What would be more important to you? The heart or the dogma?

    Or if that has actually happened in your case, would you like to share this with us?

    Frank, I'd love to hear from you given our previous exchanges.
    Adrianus
    26th Oct 2015
    10:28am
    Kopernicus, if that did happen to you then it is your choice alone. But let me say that you are not a bad parent. Perhaps you simply lost an essential skill of parenting (open communication) and that is why you did not see it coming? Don't blame yourself for that. It is an activity which happens in private. I would however be concerned if your child said "dad, I'm an alcoholic" because you should not have needed it said if you had your eyes on the target!
    I think you are being far too emotive and serious about so called gay and lesbian rights. I think they have more rights than heteros already. I don't know why we as a society need to even measure the rights of citizens based on their skin colour, religion, ethnicity, or sexual activity? A citizen is a citizen! The more we argue for so called equal rights for one group the less equal the rights become.
    Kopernicus
    27th Oct 2015
    8:32am
    Frank, I'm sorry, you don't get it. Your reassurance is wasted on me. I've never held prejudice toward same sex attracted people simply regarding them as an unjustly maligned and oppressed minority. This may be partly due to my own experience of prejudice - being a migrant and a Wog from the age of 12 - made me very aware of shit societal attitudes.

    I also did a stint as a very active member of PFLAG (parents, families and friends of lesbians and gays). We were approached by many parents whose children came out and were seeking support and information. Conversely we also supported gays/lesbians who were cruelly and heartlessly rejected by their families. We also did a lot of media stuff in support of GLBT issues as a local heterosexal lobby group, hence this is how I got to march in the Mardigras - Pflag always marches.

    I would not dream of feeling responsible for my child's sexual orientation either. This a myth that males are particularly affected by. To be gay (ie a poofter) is not to be a real man and may reflect on the father, if all his mates are of that bent (I imagine you would have been at risk here). I loved it when Ian Roberts (Manly/Cowboys prop) came out, we had his books for loan at Pflag.

    Further, consider this. An adolescent becomes aware of his/her sexual attraction toward the same sex. They may feel utter horror at this recognition. They fully recognise the future potential for estrangement of family (depends on family of course), social isolation, bullying etc. Only a masochist would make such a choice. A poignant story from a Pflag member - Her husband lay dying from cancer. In his final days he wailed with bitter disapointment - he was gay and stayed in the closet all his life being a lie. Thank God attitudes are changing.

    So Frank, please don't tell me to be less emotive. These people have been cruelly and unfairly oppressed by society for ever. Instead, I suggest you become less vituperative in your views, they can seem like foaming hatred and utter disgust.
    Adrianus
    27th Oct 2015
    12:51pm
    Wow Kopernicus, now I am being "vituperative"? Do you mean I'm bitter and abusive?? "Foaming hatred and utter disgust"????
    Really???
    I see you haven't yet realised that I am not effected by insults.
    I think you need to have a break from Pflag and the Mardigras for a while. Just until you regain your perspective and equilibrium.

    You are the rebel with a cause not me. I'm just a voice in cyberspace with the time to communicate on level 2 or 3. And I have to put up with abusive name calling from you and Rod63?
    Any more of that stuff and I will have to mention both of you to my therapist. :)

    Here's another tip, treat people as though they DO get it and are part of the community TOO.You may just find it easier to garner support for your cause, whatever it may be.

    The more you insist that it is a "them and us" situation, the more people will agree with you. I'm sure you do a lot of valuable work for a particular section of the community. That's a good and honourable thing to do.
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2015
    1:28pm
    Kopernicus can speak for himself, but I never once stooped to"abusive name-calling".
    Kopernicus
    28th Oct 2015
    10:07am
    Well Frank, I really have to apologise, I think to call you vituperative was an error of judgment. On reflection, your style is more of the perverse kind and yes, the content is replete with bigotry and prejudice, which is hurtful to those who are its target - the ‘low lives’ in your terminology .

    You ‘innocently’ asked me what I thought of that film and then launched a tirade. You knew nothing about it whatsoever, yet you could pronounce it gay activist crap. That an oldish film group who are not pro gay liked it means nothing to you but is revealing to me.

    You insist on your right to regard people whose ‘behaviour’ you disagree with as low life and then squeal when that term is bounced back at you. I posed a serious question and you avoided it but choose to offer me personal advice instead. Love or dogma quandary too tough a question for you Frank?

    What would a guy like Frank say to Frank? “Frank, love to see you dish it out, but you gotta take it as well, otherwise it looks so gay”. I, of course would never misuse gay as a pejorative term, as you do, repeatedly. I would not expect your changing mind on any of this, it’s like expecting the jackpot at pokies. Calling you out on the ugliness of homophobia, making sure you are responsible for what you say will do.
    Adrianus
    28th Oct 2015
    12:01pm
    Koper, the only reason I suggested you have a break was because you appear to be stressed about the issues. Your experience and role would indicate a less confrontational approach is required. I would have thought you would be more conciliatory in your role, with an eagerness to resolve any conflict, not start it?
    Kopernicus
    29th Oct 2015
    1:31pm
    I've retired from my active role, but that does not mean I don’t speak up when I need to. Things have changed remarkably in the 20 yrs since I started with Pflag. The new generation has overwhelmingly a 'so what' attitude to same sex attraction. There is noticeably less discrimination and less hate crime and physical danger and laws have changed.

    Homophobia persists, albeit with a smaller following that peaks within the older demographic. This may not appear so in the blogosphere cause people with those attitude are highly motivated to voice it.

    At least we're not in Russia where homophobia is State sanctioned.
    PIXAPD
    26th Oct 2015
    6:48am
    THE HOLY BIBLE; GOD DECLARES HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION www.richard-2782.net/abom.htm

    Australia does NOT need the FILTH of the sodomites, catamites and lesbians...they are not 'gay' for gay has nothing to do with them, so let's call them exactly what they really are.......abominable.

    Christians everywhere must stand against same sex marriage declaring it an abomination, it is a notion that comes from reprobate minds. We must teach and teach again that buggerers inherit not the kingdom....'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers' 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1
    Kopernicus
    27th Oct 2015
    7:13am
    What an abomination of an interpretation of the Bible you have concocted. Your Jehova sounds more like Odin or Thor - off with their heads. Is religion the root of all evil? Your vision sounds likely.

    I'd prefer the version chosen by the devout Irish of a kind, and gentle God who loves us all. This religiously steeped nation had overwhelmingly decided homosexual marriage is a human right and is not incompatible with the Bible nor the belief in God himself.

    The views of the Church with it's horrific history of the sexual, moral and physical abuse of children and the support of this practice with evasion and denial was simply ignored. T
    PIXAPD
    26th Oct 2015
    6:49am
    Australia is now in the grip of some sort of rabid panic to bring about same sex marriage, and that by a referendum or plebiscite. This is at least better than allowing a conscience vote by politicians hoping to get favour with a minority group who want things their own way. Even if a referendum or plebiscite went against those of us who will say NO, at least we would have had the opportunity to declare our opposition to such a reprobate notion. I might add that wickedness made legal still remains wickedness.
    Jen
    26th Oct 2015
    7:32am
    ^^ Hate masquerading as Christianity.
    Adrianus
    26th Oct 2015
    8:50am
    The rabid panic for change may have been forced upon us by a strengthening Islam. The battle lines have been drawn and the race is on! We may have a future world of only two choices. Become gay or have 4 wives?
    Now let me see?? Gee I don't know? Do I get a third choice?
    PIXAPD
    26th Oct 2015
    8:53am
    4 wives has the distinct advantage of more Centrelink benefits ha ha ha...but the disadvantage of never ending nagging...
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:22pm
    @Jen

    "^^ Hate masquerading as Christianity."

    A perfect exemplar of anti-Christian hatred masquerading itself as decency. (How Orwellian...)
    PIXAPD
    26th Oct 2015
    7:35am
    Homophobic/homophobia are words coined to use against any person who says that homosexuality is wrong. Islamophobia is a word coined to use against anyone who dare says that Islam is wrong....OH that's me, for I say both
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:18pm
    The correct term for one who opposes gay 'marriage' is "homosceptic".

    As for Islamophobia, a phobia is an irrational fear. A thorough reading of the Quran and Hadiths, as well as an awareness of Islamic actions over the last 1,400 years or so, is eminently rational.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:37pm
    Sorry: the last clause should be "is an eminently rational fear". Fear of Islam is no phobia.
    aly_rob60
    28th Oct 2015
    12:08pm
    This is a PERSONAL issue and NOT for comment by politicians. They should BUTT OUT and mind their own business.

    So much for a Democratic Society!
    Rod63
    28th Oct 2015
    12:33pm
    But they are ones who will need to change the law.
    Aviatorman
    28th Oct 2015
    9:41pm
    Can someone advise if the passing of the "SAME SEX" marriage VOTE by the IRISH was a COMPULSORY vote>??
    Kopernicus
    29th Oct 2015
    1:13pm
    62% voted Yes 38% No, which was a decisive and unequivocal margin margin.

    Referenda aren't compulsory In Ireland. Overall 61% of eligible people voted, which historically is a high turnout for Ireland, higher than the Good Friday agreement in '98.
    Anonymous
    30th Oct 2015
    3:43pm
    In terms of the Irish electorate in toto, because so many Irish chose not to vote (39%), the true figure for the 'yes' vote is only 37.82% of the electorate - hardly a ringing endorsement...
    Kopernicus
    2nd Nov 2015
    7:47am
    Dr Poorlymaths, using your formula to express the vote as a % of all eligible voters shows that only 23.5% voted NO - a less than a lousy quarter.
    JAID
    28th Nov 2015
    10:51am
    Everyone has views. It is better that they be put up front. People can interpret what they hear, read or view appreciating the bias of the presenter.

    I didn't pick this up in the news. For what it is worth, I believe it should be no matter for government or any person other than the couple as to the nature of their bonds and sexuality. If the honorable senator was suggesting that adherence to a corporate bias, one way or another, may be required of SBS employees, then, I would agree wholehartedly that it should not be.

    ASIDE:

    Marriage seems to mean something to adherents of religion that it may not to others (regardless of how they may operate marriages.) It has amazed me that nowhere in this decades-long debate have I heard anybody suggest that the the legality, responsibility and protections of marriage be conferred by government under a name other than 'marriage' leaving people to describe what they have as that if they prefer or if they have some religious affection for the term. Seems simple to me...and respectful of others traditional views. Do we really have to confront everything and bash people over the head with what we reckon to be their ignorance, antiquated or even bigoted views whether or not they are that?
    Leslie
    27th Oct 2017
    12:28pm
    I VOTE YES for my constitutional right to a Referendum
    I VOTE YES for the Release of intended Legislation
    I VOTE YES for Freedom of Thought
    I VOTE YES for Freedom of Expression
    I VOTE YES for Freedom of Speech
    I VOTE YES for Freedom of Choice
    I VOTE YES for the Freedom to Debate
    I VOTE YES for the Freedom to Offend
    I VOTE YES for the Return of our Democracy
    Therefore I VOTE NO
    Rod63
    27th Oct 2017
    12:41pm
    Weird logic. You are NOT voting on any of those things - just the right for same sex people to have the ability to marry as heterosexual couples can.

    Nothing else.
    Adrianus
    27th Oct 2017
    1:10pm
    I think Leslie has a very good point!
    Our national broadcaster shouldn't be blatantly attempting to sway opinion on the way we vote.
    Leslie
    27th Oct 2017
    2:41pm
    Rod63, to make such a claim, you must be privy to the proposed legislation - if so, please share your sources., or are you accustomed to voting blind and signing blank cheques?
    JAID
    27th Oct 2017
    4:10pm
    Seems acceptable to me that organisations are able to declare their preferences. They should make it absolutely clear that the decision is by owner's or board's decree, managment decision. democratic vote, other voting form or whatever and that it does not necessarily reflect the thoughts of individuals or groups within or related to the organisation.

    While that may lead to some skewing of outsider's opinions and in this case cost taxpayers money at least it's bias is open for all to see. People have to be responsible for their decisions and part of that involves bearing responsibility for collecting accurate information to base those upon. If they fall for the mindless rubbish which a lot our media and political figures encourage, then, the responsibility remains and we all agree to wear the consequences.

    The consequences of ignorance are a measure of our maturity as a society. Given our ownership of this society consequences have to be accepted as evolutionary. Guess as we may, future licence makes rating of present outcome something for the future.

    In this light there is no need for upset. Referenda bring highlight our maturity. They can be used to assure us of better government.

    I encourage all to attempt to ensure all others enjoy the liberty and responsibility which they themselves enjoy. If you do that, no doubt goverments will make a botch of some of the resolution they build around this simple aim but that can be fixed when it arises.

    It is not reasonable to assert that some possible side effects will be a certainty or that they cannot be quickly overturned if they do arise.

    Just the same, we do see how rapidly teachers adopt trending social affects and we have seen this radically alter child and youth perspective in the last quarter century. Time will show some actual benefit and some dismal failure in this respect. What we may not grasp and what we need is for teachers to understand that their involvement in social engineering is not acceptable; not wanted and something of a distasteful character disrespectful of individual potential and liberty. This will not be a short-term reformation but to withhold liberties we can make available because we are too dim to appreciate and correct our trampling of other liberties makes no sense.
    Adrianus
    27th Oct 2017
    4:37pm
    Not all organisations JAID. SSM is a contentious political issue and as such employees at SBS would be divided. Let's not forget that the SBS is a public broadcaster and those who work at SBS are public servants presumably still with thoughts of their own.
    What next? The Tax Office announcing they are supporting the NO Vote? Totally wrong in my opinion.
    Rod63
    28th Oct 2017
    11:16am
    Frank - although the law needs to be changed by parliament, SSM is really a social issue, rather than a political one. So, I think it is reasonable for organisations to take a position.

    Leslie - of course I am not privy to any legislation; all this needs is a very simple wording change to the marriage act. Changing that is the most important thing.
    Leslie
    2nd Nov 2017
    1:37am
    Rod63 - If only it was that simple, but ignoring the consequences of this legislation as played out in other countries is naive to say the least, especially when not one of us knows exactly what we are voting for, and neither major party can be trusted with a blank cheque.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2017
    8:42am
    I agree Leslie, none of us know what we are voting for.
    All I know is that the YES people don't want a national discussion on the topic and did not want people to have a vote. That says a great deal about the dark unknown.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles