Love is love

[Amphipolis]

My experience is that homosexuals are relatively normal persons (most of them are discrete like Kevin Spacey), so their sexual preferences should not exclude them from anything (including parenthood, adoptions, civil marriage, army service etc.).

I wouldn’t mind having a homosexual as a relative, co-worker, friend or… sex partner.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Looking forward in light of these recent developments, could that be considered discriminatory towards homosexual couples who view themselves as devout practitioners of their religion? In a secular country like Australia, civic law generally takes precedence over religious law in cases where the two may collide. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, do you really think it is unfeasible for the state to impose its will on religious institutions some time in the future? I take on board your comment about presumptions, but I also think it would be naive to completely disregard potential consequences. And I see no harm in discussing them.

Why would someone even want to get married in a church that is hostile and secretly despises their relationship? There will be churches that will exercise independent autonomy and welcome an opportunity to marry same-sex couples.

If they are devout practioners of their faith then I don’t see why they would dispute the church’s ability to exercise discretion here. Perhaps they wouldn’t even want to marry if they are that devout, as some gays did vote no for such reasons. I think this creates an inherent conflict between their choice to practice their religion devoutly and their non-choice of sexual orientation, but that is their prerogative and I don’t doubt that there are religious interpretations that are compatible with homosexuality.

Sure, they can and should be discussed. But to hold this vote responsible for such unsubstantiated consequences is wrong. As I said before, if a pessimistic outlook is the paramount concern for every progressive social change, then it is likely we’d still be living in a society that has an abundance of inequality based on race, religion, gender, and so on. The benefits of this vote will primarily flow to two people that love each other, allowing them to marry. It’s not fair on them to deny them this right based on indirect consequences that may or may not happen. If someone wants to use the vote for an agenda beyond marriage equality, then it is the job of parliament to ensure that it is scrutinised and exposed for debate. I find it amazing that any positives that may or may not flow from the vote are completely overshadowed by the insecurities of the naysayers. If negative consequences are relevant to the discussion, then so are positive consequences.

Different circumstances, and besides, there is no official denial of homosexual identity in Australia comparable to the Macedonian situation in certain Balkan countries.

Hence why I included the geographic qualifier. Just look at the Middle East, Africa and Chechnya for example. I’d say the plight of homosexuals in some of those countries is akin, if not worse than the deprivation of rights against Macedonian minority groups in select SE-European States. Macedonians in the past were beaten, killed and discriminated against for simply standing up and embracing their identity. The same is true here for gays in a number of countries.

[Soldier of Macedon]

A lot of 'yes' voters, including myself, agree that churches shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples.

Looking forward in light of these recent developments, could that be considered discriminatory towards homosexual couples who view themselves as devout practitioners of their religion? In a secular country like Australia, civic law generally takes precedence over religious law in cases where the two may collide. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, do you really think it is unfeasible for the state to impose its will on religious institutions some time in the future? I take on board your comment about presumptions, but I also think it would be naive to completely disregard potential consequences. And I see no harm in discussing them.

Macedonians have and continue to have their identity and rights denied. Homosexuals have and continue to have their identity and rights denied.

Different circumstances, and besides, there is no official denial of homosexual identity in Australia comparable to the Macedonian situation in certain Balkan countries.

I've heard about that vote a while back and that embarrassingly terrible ad against same sex marriage.

Which ad are you referring to?

I expected better from Australia but I guess the far right really is a world-wide problem these days.

The far left is equally as loopy as the far right when one looks at the recent case in Canada where a newborn was officially deemed as "genderless".

I was thinking that exact thing, the one night everyone wants to get online and debate back-and-forth like in the old days and it's over what is essentially a non-issue. Still so many open threads with unanswered questions and unfinished discussion but nope let's abuse eachother over a marriage survey in Australia.

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a problem if we discuss matters that aren't directly related to Macedonians from time to time, so long as we keep it civil. It's a current event, it will soon die down and there will be other things we can fight about

[tchaiku]

Bisexuality was common in pre-Christian Europe, the Ancient Macedonians were no acception to this and there have been rumors Aleksander was a homosexual. It is more likely he was bixsexual yes, as was Filip. One of the theories for Filip's assassination was that his assassin was a jealous lover.

My aim was at the people here glorifying Alexander the Great and loathing homosexuals.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Wasn't Alexander The Great a bisexual?

Bisexuality was common in pre-Christian Europe, the Ancient Macedonians were no exception to this and there have been rumors Aleksander was a homosexual. It is more likely he was bixsexual yes, as was Filip. One of the theories for Filip's assassination was that his assassin was a jealous lover.

[tchaiku]

Wasn't Alexander The Great a bisexual?

[Karposh]

You've definitely started something here with this one Risto. I dare say, there is hardly a topic that is more relevant in the world we live in today. Everywhere you turn, from massive billboards on train stations propagating that “love is love” to social commentators and their perverted logic of “God loves homos too”, we are aggressively being conditioned to accept the LGBTQIAPD agenda. I can't even tune into my car radio in the mornings without being bombarded by homo propaganda.

I think what it boils down to is that dirty word called religion. It's not so much whether poofters and lesbians are allowed to get married in the eyes of the law (most people don't give a shit) but a question of whether “Christian” Australia is prepared to give the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act it's blessing in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a Christian Australia. The sad reality is Christianity is a dying religion in the western world. I realised this when “Catholic “ Ireland voted to amend it's constitution and allow same-sex marriage back in 2015. I guess there's no stopping the rot now. It was only a matter of time for Australia to fall into line I suppose. Yes, I guess dinosaurs, like myself, must wake up and face the fact that Christianity is a pathetic relic of the past and has no place in a modern, enlightened and progressive society such as Australia. Sure, there's Christmas and Easter each year and we like to pretend that we are a Christian country but that too is a delusion on a massive scale. The meaning of Christmas and Easter was lost a long time ago to commercialisation and materialism (and chocolate Easter eggs).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, for anyone left among us, who has any sense of spirituality left in them, in this rapidly degenerating world, then you will feel as I do today - disappointed. If not, then really, like some have pointed out here – it's a non-issue. Life goes on...

[Liberator of Makedonija]

I echo that it is not relevant. Though I do get that the forum has been slow. It's just sometimes that topics like these have the tendency of driving people away for a while or giving certain impressions to non-Macedonian visitors.

I bet Risto is thinking, "only if we could start a Macedonian thread these days that generated this much traffic flow like the old days."

I was thinking that exact thing, the one night everyone wants to get online and debate back-and-forth like in the old days and it's over what is essentially a non-issue. Still so many open threads with unanswered questions and unfinished discussion but nope let's abuse eachother over a marriage survey in Australia.

[vicsinad]

This whole thread is pointless and is just turning members of this forum against eachother. The results of the Same-Sex marriage survey in Australia are not relevant to the purpose of this forum.

I echo that it is not relevant. Though I do get that the forum has been slow. It's just sometimes that topics like these have the tendency of driving people away for a while or giving certain impressions to non-Macedonian visitors.

I bet Risto is thinking, "only if we could start a Macedonian thread these days that generated this much traffic flow like the old days."

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I love Islam.. and thank god for Islam.. I'd choose the Muslims over the liberal left any day.. Islam is the lefts cure..

Btw I don't hate gays either.. you can't stop them.. but we shouldn't promote that crap.. that's my angle

Read this.. are you related to that person?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ren...c18e9ccf43644b

Back-peddling and saying that you don't hate gays isn't going to make your argument any more credible. You made your 'angle' more than clear from the outset.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

This whole thread is pointless and is just turning members of this forum against eachother. The results of the Same-Sex marriage survey in Australia are not relevant to the purpose of this forum.

[Starling]

SS couples serve the purpose to raise orphans?? Wow.. OMG we are dead and buried..

Some here knock the Greeks for being Gays, I reckon the fyromers are much bigger pederi..

Fn brainwashed..

Did you just refer to Macedonians in general by a homophobic slur and a term well established to be offensive and unwelcome on this forum?

I love Islam.. and thank god for Islam.. I'd choose the Muslims over the liberal left any day.. Islam is the lefts cure..

Btw I don't hate gays either.. you can't stop them.. but we shouldn't promote that crap.. that's my angle

I'm not convinced by how you phrased your response to observations that you don't seem to like muslims and gay people. You seem to be implying that you regard Muslims more as a lesser evil rather than genuinely respecting them as people. You also equated not hating gay people to treating them as inevitable, which implies putting up with people you don't like rather than actually liking them. If you truly respected gay people then you'd be fine with them expressing their sexuality on equal terms to heterosexual expression of sexuality, as well as allow people to talk about same sex relationships rather than pretend they don't exist. In essence, you're saying "I don't hate gay people, except I don't like what they do differently from me and don't want them to exist publicly even as others talking about them in a positive manner". Do you see the contradiction?

On top of your generally patronizing behaviour you've more than worn out your welcome in my eyes.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Every natural instinct will select a mother and father for an adopted child (all other things being equal). It is natural, milleniums of history confirm this. That won't be allowed and any suggestion of preference for the "natural choice" would be pursued rigorously by the wronged homosexuals.

Again, adoption by same-sex couples is already permitted in most Australian jurisdictions. Today's results had/will have no impact on this.

i get it, it's cool now.

So people choose to be homosexual because it's 'cool'? So I guess the overwhelming representation of LGBTI people in suicide statistics is a part of this 'cool' trend too? Why is supporting a framework of acceptance and equality for these people a bad thing?

But why do you think consequential issues are irrelevant?

Because the vote wasn't about those consequential issues. If you frame it in the negative, this mindframe basically rejects ones' rights on the unsubstantiated presumption that maybe this will happen, or maybe that will happen. That is simply not fair. If debate on fundamental rights is continually stifled based on downstream, disconnected 'what ifs,' then it is likely we'd still live in an age where slavery is accepted, women cannot vote and Indigenous people have no rights.

Furthermore, from a purely procedural point of view, history shows that public votes/referendums will be unlikely to address the question in contention if it is worded in such a way, or bogged down to such an extent that the reasonable voter is unsure what it is asking. To this extent, they will opt for the status-quo, and the true public perception will not reflect the voting results. Here the question was simple, should same sex couples be allowed to marry. Yes or No. No 'ifs' or 'buts' or 'what about safe schools'...the question is on marriage equality.

Where is the proof that it won't force churches to marry homosexuals? Why weren't these conditions included in the vote? I may have voted yes. What if it is deemed hateful to deny the homosexuals their legal rights?

The draft bills state it, and it is likely they will tighten up on some of the provisions. Both parties have also indicated that this is a key provision to protect religious freedom. A lot of 'yes' voters, including myself, agree that churches shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples.

From memory, you weren't too fond of the Macedonian parliament specifically amending the constitution to define marriage as between a 'man and a woman.' I'm not being smart, I'm genuinely interested in your reasons for strongly rejecting the substance of this vote. I'll admit I'm actually surprised, it's not something I thought we'd be in strong disagreement about.

I think the comparison with denying the Macedonian identity is not comparable in any way.

It's relevant in the sense that identity is comprised of more than ethnic origin. It defines who we are. Macedonians have and continue to have their identity and rights denied. Homosexuals have and continue to have their identity and rights denied. Take the context out of each scenario, and both are largely fighting for the same thing, just to different degrees based on where they reside.

[Pelagonija]

That's just a load of scaremongering and propaganda. People have claimed stuff like that back when no one bat an eye to the killing and ostracisation of anyone who was public about having a different sexuality than what society arbitrarily decided was the only acceptable one. A number of other civilizations had no such problem. I think we all know quite well in some form that terrible things have been done in the name of religion as well as other, more political belief systems.

So all that sexual content and sex jokes children are constantly exposed to, assumptions that if a girl and a boy so much as glance at each other they must be having a crush and some parents outright speculating on a hypothetical relationship and future wedding is ok? But heaven forbid if we acknowledge that sometimes boys like boys and girls like girls. The simple act of existing as a publicly gay person or telling people that they do is considered too extreme, hence the lie in the petition. Children don't even care. In fact, many would question why adults can't just marry each-other regardless.

And how about sex education? It's a perfectly normal part of the school curriculum, provided around the time students reach puberty as it's kinda important to make sure people who are now physically capable of having children understand how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, the responsibilities of having children, how to protect themselves against STDs and the importance of consent, such as when a person isn't capable of consenting to sexual acts. No, schools do not in fact role-play those scenarios. That was completely made up and I remember hearing that claim before. People need to stop getting so affronted at the thought of people acknowledging that sometimes men have sex with other men. You have no right to control whether or not two consenting adults simply because you don't believe marriage rights should apply equally regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Given the notion of separation of church and state, any particular religion isn't even supposed to have any say on the running of the country to begin with.


Given that people can have sex without sexual attraction, so long as they're fertile they're entirely capable of finding someone willing to bear a child they won't raise if they want a biological child. In any case, same sex relationships serve the purpose of raising orphaned children. That's what same sex pairs in other species do. Additionally it's possibly to experience sexual attraction to more than one gender.

Also when you account for trans and intersex people yes, sometimes two men and two women can have a child biologically related to them. And why remove someone from a conversation simply for pointing out the problem with your reasoning? That's a rather fundamental part of discussion.

Risto, marriage is fundamentally a contract. While culturally we associate marriages with the religious ceremony, you just need to sign some paperwork to officiate it. While people are entirely capable of living together pretty much the same with or without marrying, what makes it a big issue is that the government processes certain things differently based on your marital status. For example if a couple isn't married they don't get visitation rights to their partner should they be hospitalized, may not be declared next of kin should they die and lack pretty much any legal benefit that comes with marriage. This also makes the process of adoption more difficult aside from the prejudice that favours a less suitable heterosexual couple before they choose a same sex couple that more than meets all the requirements. Priests are only involved regarding marrying couples as per religious customs, where forcing them to would be a matter of anti-discrimination laws more than anything.

Also the comparison about the Macedonian identity is more a matter of finding commonality in your own experiences, which is how we develop empathy. If we don't have a 1:1 equivalent for what we're attempting to relate to, then looser comparisons such as differing forms of discrimination tied to identity are applicable.

SS couples serve the purpose to raise orphans?? Wow.. OMG we are dead and buried..

Some here knock the Greeks for being Gays, I reckon the fyromers are much bigger pederi..

Fn brainwashed..

[Pelagonija]

No, actually 12/17 electorates that had a majority ‘no’ vote were in Western Sydney, where there is a substantial Muslim population. But judging from your post on the 1st page, you dislike Muslims just as much as homosexuals. Maybe your prejudice against gays can mitigate your hostility towards Muslims lol. I feel sorry for you mate.

I love Islam.. and thank god for Islam.. I'd choose the Muslims over the liberal left any day.. Islam is the lefts cure..

Btw I don't hate gays either.. you can't stop them.. but we shouldn't promote that crap.. that's my angle

Read this.. are you related to that person?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/why-the-axing-of-roz-ward-does-not-mean-we-are-safe-from-safe-schools/news-story/1931b300c72537094bc18e9ccf43644b