# Same sex marriage - Yes or No?



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

no sitting on the fence yes or no?


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

22 views and 3 votes


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

Yes for me.  It will not have a negative impact on anyone's life if a same sex couples can marry.  People need to stop making this into an issue its not, it's not political correctness to give a minority group the same right the rest of us have.  It's not about children at all because same sex couples already can adopt children.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2017)

I am strongly opposed to bullying in all forms and consider that discrimination on the basis of sexuality only encourages that sort of behaviour from some.

So it's a definite YES from me.

As others have noted this issue is about adults not children.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Exactly
These adults will have children who will in turn be adults 
No from me 
I've seen enough of kids who have no idea who they are.
They don't have a choice 
We do.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Exactly
> These adults will have children who will in turn be adults
> No from me
> I've seen enough of kids who have no idea who they are.
> ...



What is stopping them from having children now?  
Nothing changes here and you're really just deflecting this onto an issue its not.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Nothing
But with it legalised it will be widely accepted.
More kids bought up in mixed partner families.
More kids who will eventually become teenagers 
Who will become adults

I don't know if you or many here have had experience with kids who don't have to influence of either a mum or dad 
I have extensively from broken families.
These kids are broken and generally stay broken.
Ve seen and still see 2 couples with kids in same sex partnerships 
Cute kids but ----- 
Great parents to but ----

What's normal 
Same sex 
Mixed sex all NORMAL 
If same sex becomes the new normal then we will
Have solved the world over population.

Anyway the way things are going soft countries will become fodder for the stronger ones.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Nothing
> But with it legalised it will be widely accepted.
> More kids bought up in mixed partner families.
> More kids who will eventually become teenagers
> ...




No it really won't, nothing will change.  If you're so worried about broken families then your concern should be the ever growing divorce rates.  If you're so concerned about children then your concern should be the high rate of youth that kill themselves because they're gay.  You can vote no but stop the straw man arguments and just admit you have a problem with gays.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Divorce won't be hetrosexually exclusive.
Nor is or will suicide.
Widen your view.
This decision affects way more than 2 people who wish to marry.
Your trying to pigeon hole me so you can justify my own independent opinion which I'm as entitled to as anyone else---including yourself.

I don't have a problem with gays I have some as friends.
But I do have concerns as I have voiced


----------



## Wyatt (13 August 2017)

Yes

While I don't understand why some people are attracted to the same sex, it seems that their behaviour is not choice, but hard wired. I have met plenty in tourism and they are as normal as you and I. They are statistically a minority and I don't see why the majority should feel they have the solemn right to make decisions for other folk they do not know. Live and let live.

Ignorance is bliss, but only for the ignorant.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Divorce won't be hetrosexually exclusive.
> Nor is or will suicide.




Nor should it be.  But for some reason homosexuals kill themselves at much higher rates than heterosexuals, one might think it's because of people that hold views like yours that have made them feel like freaks their whole life.  But if you want to champion the family is number 1 then your target should be heterosexuals divorcing and not a few gays signing a bit of paper to say they love each other.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

*People hold views like yours*

Sorry but I see this a lot.

It's generally thrown up when a concern is turned into
Views and worse predjuces by those who don't want
To see ANYTHING that places a road hump in front
Of their own narrow view.
Often they don't want to consider the concern.
They find it confronting.

If it was as clear cut as 2 people then I agree but it's NOT!

Blindness / ignorance / apathy?


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

There is no other side, the only way your no side wins is to frame a falsified position to the Australian people that SSM is something it's not.  You can't even name anything that will change negatively but you have some warped perception how it alters the fabric of our society and it's all about the children.  That ship sailed some time ago when same sex couples were given the right to raise children.  If 2 people declaring their love for each other is an issue that concerns you then it says more about you than it does about them.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

So you don't see any issues with kids bought up in same sex relationships married or otherwise?

It's these kids who will impact on the future of us all 
Not all but many. 

But hey my vote will make little difference to the whole


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> So you don't see any issues with kids bought up in same sex relationships married or otherwise?
> 
> It's these kids who will impact on the future of us all
> Not all but many.
> ...




I do see issues, I hate children being brought up with the sole intention of deliberately being deprived of their biological parent/parents.  This goes for same sex couples that seek out donors or a single lady that can't find a man and chooses IVF.  Adoption is slightly different because providing a child with a loving stable home is more important than keeping that child with their abusive or otherwise biological parents so on that front I would rather that child have a loving same sex couple than druggy deadbeat parents that just want their next hit and yes my preferred option would be to have the child adopted by a loving heterosexual couple. 

But even though I hold that view I don't see how same sex couples getting married will impact that issue.  It would only be complete speculation on my behalf to believe that SS couples will now raise children when they wouldn't have already.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Ok 

I'll agree to disagree 
All of the horrors of heterosexual issues with children
Will also occur in same sex marriages.

To think otherwise---


----------



## orr (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> What's normal
> 
> 
> Anyway the way things are *going soft* countries will become fodder for the stronger ones.




I'm not to decide 'What's normal'.. The facts of lived experience are not  The Biblical male/female binary. When or if they ever are, objections to same sex anything? May have some area for debate; To be sure, that will be about the twelfth of never. 

 'Going Soft' ???... Gary Jack knows all about what it feels like to have a little 'going soft' going on, on him, courtesy of an Australian front row forward Mr I Roberts.
You'll never want to be on the wrong side of Mick McGill, hardest East End Publican I ever had the good fortune to meet, and proudly as queer as a cats fart.

How many Broken Families started on the assumption of two hetro partners where one or possibly both were not hetro; Just to placate 'social norms' strike them out of your metric.

Your stated position looks to be on areas of shaky ground.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

Yes I do agree there, I would think same sex couples would divorce at a similar rate to hetro's.  I would think that children will still be abused at similar rates who are raised by same sex couples.

I'll agree to disagree and if this postal plebiscite was about SS couples raising children I would be right there with you.


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

Well you should consider it because the kids of tomorrow can't speak for themselves in a plebiscite but you and I can.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Ok
> 
> I'll agree to disagree
> All of the horrors of heterosexual issues with children
> ...




I agree with you tech/a. 

Refer to the video posted by Tisme in the other thread.



The LGB lobby like to say everything is fine with "their" kids, but most of them are just growing up now and some are saying gay parents is not all its cracked up to be.

Studies have shown that gays on average have far more sexual partners than hets, so I fear for the kids on a constant merry-go-round of "who is my father/mother this week".


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Well you should consider it because the kids of tomorrow can't speak for themselves in a plebiscite but you and I can.



If I thought SS couples getting married would increase children being raised in SS relationships I would vote no but frankly I can't see how it will alter that figure.  I encourage you to see that and vote yes and actually send a message to those teens that are having difficulty accepting their sexuality that they are normal and will have the same rights as the rest of us.  Voting yes will save more kids than ruin imo.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

To reiterate this position 


> US research released this week found the rate of youth suicide attempts among gay and lesbian youths dropped by 14 per cent where same sex marriage was made legal.
> 
> There was also a 7 per cent drop in suicide attempts among young people more broadly where the laws were introduced.



http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...h/news-story/0c05f24fdd0bfa8e8a87e985ac4b5b14

I think it's fair to say that legalising SSM will save lives.


----------



## Tink (13 August 2017)

My answer is no.

In our society, there are many different relationships, but we should be encouraging parents, mother and father to be with their children, and raise them.
That is the best out come for the children.
That is why the GOLD standard of Marriage has been a part of our country.
One man and one woman.

What does same sex marriage contribute in our society?
They can do as they please in their homes but why is it that they need our acceptance.

Marriage is not a right.

I always thought the family -- family unit (father mother child) was protected in society.

This changes marriage to genderless - no gender, which then starts a whole new ball game.

Any one that talks about traditional marriage is considered hate speech.

This is my view.

--------------------------
_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/gay-marriage.3680/_


----------



## tech/a (13 August 2017)

*Anyone that talks about traditional marriage is considered hate speech.*

It's ok to have an opinion provided it's supportive.


----------



## overhang (13 August 2017)

Tink that concept of marriage ended a long time ago.  I have more friends with divorced parents than those that remained married.

How do you look at the statistics I linked above that shows it will save lives and yet still vote no?

And btw you're wrong marriage is a right 







> Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right to marry


----------



## Tink (13 August 2017)

I put this up a while ago


----------



## crackajack (13 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Tink that concept of marriage ended a long time ago.  I have more friends with divorced parents than those that remained married.
> 
> How do you look at the statistics I linked above that shows it will save lives and yet still vote no?
> 
> And btw you're wrong marriage is a right



right to sponge more money lol


----------



## skc (13 August 2017)

I like this segment


----------



## So_Cynical (14 August 2017)

I want to vote - i dont care.


----------



## greggles (14 August 2017)

Those who oppose gay marriage are no different from those who opposed interracial marriage. The arguments are largely the same. It's an attack on "traditional" marriage. The children who will grow up in these "unnatural" marriages will be stigmatised. It's a "slippery slope". 







Those opposed to gay marriages are on the wrong side of history, just like those who opposed interracial marriages. Children need love and support, and that can come from any two people irrespective of gender or race. There are plenty of abused and neglected children born into "normal" heterosexual marriages.


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2017)

I voted YES for a few reasons...

It has no effect on my life. I've always believed in freedom of choice.
If it goes through as a NO it will then hijack the next election which really should be the bigger issues and not a moral issue.

May the best... individual win


----------



## Tink (14 August 2017)

Inter racial is still man and woman.

Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.

No, overhang, marriage is not a right, unless you are prepared to accept the above also, as that is discrimination on their part.

The GOLD standard is the TRUTH - the family unit.

The attack on the family and our forefathers is disgraceful, imv.

Maybe we should give marriage back to the community, and out of the hands of the state.

---------------------------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4_


----------



## overhang (14 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Inter racial is still man and woman.
> 
> Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.
> 
> ...




Tink just because you say something isn't a right doesn't make that true.  I have pointed out to you that article Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right to marry.  I would actually call it quite equal that regardless of sexuality you can't marry multiple couples, and it turns out you can marry your first cousin so you're a bit later on the incest train.

The gold standard of society was when women couldn't vote which was a tradition then went back a long time, it was fundamental to our children that we lived in a society that women couldn't vote.  Would children think women were equal to man if women were allowed to vote?  Would they be confused about their gender seeing women in the polling booth?


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

overhang said:


> The gold standard of society was when women couldn't vote which was a tradition then went back a long time, it was fundamental to our children that we lived in a society that women couldn't vote.  Would children think women were equal to man if women were allowed to vote?  Would they be confused about their gender seeing women in the polling booth?




You are ignoring the facts that men in the street couldn't vote until extremely recently compared to traditional marriage either. e.g over 21 yearold men in 1895 and women in 1899 in Western Australia.

Your arguments should be based on facts not cherry picked myths


----------



## Bill M (14 August 2017)

Definite yes from me. Anyone should have the right to be who they are and marry who they love, nothing more needs to be added from me.


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Inter racial is still man and woman.
> 
> Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.
> 
> ...




A couple of articles that might interest you Tink:

https://realtruth.org/articles/070831-002-ssoafn.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html


----------



## overhang (14 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> You are ignoring the facts that men in the street couldn't vote until extremely recently compared to traditional marriage either. e.g over 21 yearold men in 1895 and women in 1899 in Western Australia.
> 
> Your arguments should be based on facts not cherry picked myths




Ok lets use the facts and see how traditional marriage is. 



> In convict Australia the government assumed control over who the majority of white Australians married and used this control for overt ideological purposes. Governor Philip wanted to create a native Australian yeomanry and rewarded those convicts who exhibited appropriate traits with permission to marry.





> Governments across different jurisdictions have administered marriage laws in Australia since European settlement. These laws were not immutable. In fact, at various points in time, governments have seen fit to legislate on citizens’ eligibility to marry. Those considered minors by today’s standards were permitted to marry, and restrictions were placed on Indigenous Australians’ right to marry whom they chose.





> A person’s eligibility to marry could change from one state to another at different points in time. For example, the marriageable age in Australian states and territories was the same as the age of consent: 14 for men and 12 for women. However, in 1942, Tasmania raised the marriageable age for men to 18 and for women to 16; Western Australia followed suit in 1956 and South Australia in 1957.3





> *November 18, 1966*
> The bar on employment of married women in the Commonwealth Public Service is abolished.
> 
> Introduced at the beginning of the 1900s, the "marriage bar" was intended to keep women from "stealing" men's jobs and also to boost the birth rate. It meant many women kept their marriages a secret.



http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...es?url=spla/bill marriage/report/chapter2.pdf

So you're ignoring facts by insinuating that marriage is a long standing tradition in our country when it's been a very fractured policy from get go where many demographics have had to fight for their right to marry.  So my voting example is actually similar to marriage.


----------



## Logique (14 August 2017)

If there was to be an honest discussion, and an open and democratic process, available to _all_ Australians of voting age, I'd be prepared to think about it.

But as a nation, we haven't yet had that balanced discussion. Just slogans and propaganda.  And name calling, eg you're an '---_ist' _and a '---_phobic'_

I won't be voting yes at the point of a figurative gun, aimed at me by the inner-city elites and the political class.  SSM lobby - make us a better offer than you have so far.  So this time - No.


----------



## overhang (14 August 2017)

Logique said:


> If there was to be an honest discussion, and an open and democratic process, available to _all_ Australians of voting age, I'd be prepared to think about it.
> 
> But as a nation, we haven't yet had that balanced discussion. Just slogans and propaganda.
> 
> I won't be voting yes at the point of a figurative gun, aimed at me by the inner-city elites and the political class.  SSM lobby - make us a better offer than you have so far.  So this time - No.



Way to stick it to the inner city latte sipping Greenies, that will teach them to fight for the rights of a small minority group.


----------



## dutchie (14 August 2017)

*



*

*Britain's FIRST gender fluid family: Father who's transitioning to be a woman and mother who identifies as male and female are raising their son, not to get 'hung up' on being a boy*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4786350/Britain-s-gender-fluid-family.html#ixzz4pgHvUW9E
What are the chances that this "boy" will be given a fair go to a "normal" life.


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2017)

At least I know I'm a DUCK


----------



## Knobby22 (14 August 2017)

There have been a few women who have married their dog overseas.

Frankly I will vote yes because I don't see why the government should not let people do what they want.
I will never fully respect gay marriage but that's my problem, not theirs.


----------



## Logique (14 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Way to stick it to the inner city latte sipping Greenies, that will teach them to fight for the rights of a small minority group.



Not the slightest personal issue with this group.  It's when they presume to speak on my behalf , and to bypass the democratic process, that I call them out.

Anyway, when they've bullied this through, they're coming after our cars next, and I want to delay that as long as possible.


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> Frankly I will vote yes because I don't see why the government should not let people do what they want.




You don't mean that literally do you.
You'd be happy with Guns
Anarchy
Lawlessness
Paedophilia.

You don't have a line?


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> You don't mean that literally do you.
> You'd be happy with Guns
> Anarchy
> Lawlessness
> ...




Before something should be banned, it needs to be shown that the act is harmful.

Personal freedoms should be maximised.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Exactly
> These adults will have children who will in turn be adults
> No from me
> I've seen enough of kids who have no idea who they are.
> ...




Gay parenting is a different topic, if you want to stop gay parenting, ban gay parenting (but be sure to have valid reasons)

You don't need to married to have kids, and you don't need to have kids to be married.

Banning gay marriage stops people that don't even want kids getting married, while doing nothing to stop gay people having children.


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Before something should be banned, it needs to be shown that the act is harmful.
> 
> Personal freedoms should be maximised.




And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
on generations going forward?

Guns were thought to be a right and still are in some societies.
Multiple wives and child brides accepted in others---who by the way will stone Homosexuals.

The world is so Ducked up Ducking it up further seemingly is of no concern.
The do gooders will be the first ones screaming.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> You don't mean that literally do you.
> You'd be happy with Guns
> Anarchy
> Lawlessness
> ...




It has to be legal.

I don't reckon many of the gays will get married anyway. They just want the right. It wil mainly be a few lesbians.

We all know hetero couples that never bothered to get married and couples that co habit for 10 years and then split (bad for the girl). Australian Society is a bit  ffffed on marriage but this won't make it any worse.


----------



## overhang (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
> on generations going forward?
> 
> Guns were thought to be a right and still are in some societies.
> ...




With that logic we never would have progressed, indigenous Australians still wouldn't have the right to marry, thankfully there are enough people who think differently to you and they can marry.  The Netherlands have legalised SSM since 2001 and they seem to have a normal functioning society so it appears there are no negative long term effects.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
> on generations going forward?
> 
> .




The default position should always be to maximise personal freedoms, until it can be shown that a certain thing is harmful in some way that justifies reducing personal freedoms in relation to it.



> who by the way will stone Homosexuals.




Do you think they should be stoned?

Even most Christians are willing to ignore the Bible versus that call for them to be stoned, because it is generally agreed that Homosexuality is not a crime that deserves death, and its not even thought of as a crime in secular society anymore, allowing them to marry is just the next logical step.


----------



## Junior (14 August 2017)

Yes.

If two people love each other, and they want to get married, then go for it.  The people who are anti, generally do not associate with homosexuals, and their marriage will not be impacted in any way.  No one is forcing you to attend or witness a same-sex wedding.

Any argument based on religious beliefs are irrelevant.  This is a legal definition.  The largest religious group in this country is 'no religion', and they can get married and divorced as many times as they want.

It's not about children, that is a separate issue.  I'd much rather a gay couple adopt one child, then the family out in Melton West who has 7 kids running around, soaking up taxpayer-funded healthcare & welfare benefits.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

I probably don't mind SSM as much as I mind the increasing degradation of our free speech rights that will follow.

If we dare to criticise a lifestyle that resulted in the spread of a deadly epidemic called AIDS, or if we dare to criticise the fact that children are being brought up in a environment that is contrary to their basic instincts, if we dare to suggest that LGBTI marriage degrades the traditions of our society, will we be hauled up before the courts for hurting someones feelings and be accused of hate speech ? 

That seems to be the way it has gone in Canada as someone else posted before. We need to be able to discuss anything in this society in a civil manner. The PC brigade on a number of fronts is getting more shrill and aggressive by the day, whether it be the LGB's, the migrant Mafia, the indigenous army or the feminazis, they seem to think that they are the only people that matter and the majority can get stuffed.


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you think they should be stoned?
> 
> Even most Christians are willing to ignore the Bible versus that call for them to be stoned, because it is generally agreed that Homosexuality is not a crime that deserves death, and its not even thought of as a crime in secular society anymore, allowing them to marry is just the next logical step




Just pointing out that a ducked up group with a set of accepted principals in their society
doesn't accept Homosexuality in theirs.
That's how stuffed the world is.

By the way I'm atheist.




Junior said:


> It's not about children, that is a separate issue. I'd much rather a gay couple adopt one child, then the family out in Melton West who has 7 kids running around, soaking up taxpayer-funded healthcare & welfare benefits.




*Its not being treated as a separate issue!!*
Get married have kids.
If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!

By the way the Melton couple wouldn't get past the adoption process.


----------



## McLovin (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> *Its not being treated as a separate issue!!*
> Get married have kids.
> If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
> I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!




Gays can already adopt/IVF/surrogate.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> Gays can already adopt/IVF/surrogate.




They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.


----------



## overhang (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I probably don't mind SSM as much as I mind the increasing degradation of our free speech rights that will follow.




I do see where you're coming from but just wish people wouldn't choose SSM as the platform to have this fight as there are people who will be effected by this.  We'll get our chance to wage that war when they try and shift the date of Australia day, try and change the Australian flag etc.  But I really hope that SSM and euthanasia are left out of this PC fight.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Just pointing out that a ducked up group with a set of accepted principals in their society
> doesn't accept Homosexuality in theirs.
> That's how stuffed the world is.




And your answer is to follow this "Ducked up group" and join them in denying rights to The LGBT members of our community?



> *Its not being treated as a separate issue!!*
> Get married have kids.
> If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
> I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!




As pointed out, It is not currently illegal for gay people to have children.

And banning couples from Marrying does nothing to stop them breeding.

You argument is actually a logical fallacy, called the "Slippery slope argument"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.



it means its not a valid argument to use against gay marriage.

How hard is it, If gay marriage is bad, state the reasons its bad without deferring to other things which are already legal.


----------



## McLovin (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.




I'm not debating it's merits. Just stating a fact, in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children. To be honest, I don't know why there is yet another thread on this topic. It's not like anyone will change anyone's mind on here.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> I'm not debating it's merits. Just stating a fact, in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children. To be honest, I don't know why there is yet another thread on this topic. It's not like anyone will change anyone's mind on here.




Why is it a faulty premise/?


----------



## McLovin (14 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Why is it a faulty premise/?




Because if they can already adopt children then gay marriage has nothing to do with them wanting to adopt children.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children




It's further legitimising something that isn't very legitimate in the first place, ie it wasn't openly discussed and was decided behind closed doors for the very reason that LGB's want to avoid a plebiscite; ie it's a lot easy to bludgeon a few people in Parliament than the whole population.


----------



## crackajack (14 August 2017)

greggles said:


> Those who oppose gay marriage are no different from those who opposed interracial marriage. The arguments are largely the same. It's an attack on "traditional" marriage. The children who will grow up in these "unnatural" marriages will be stigmatised. It's a "slippery slope".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you obviously have a twisted definition of marriage. Why bother marrying? I never have. Just more attention seeking waste of space and time rubbish. Honestly some people really need to get a life.


----------



## crackajack (14 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> No offence But i would never marry that so I guess they have no option lol



looks like the kid has downs as well. wow way to go same sex marriage lol


----------



## Junior (14 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> looks like the kid has downs as well. wow way to go same sex marriage lol




If that is the case, then it is very kind, caring and brave of those two to adopt a kid with such a condition.


----------



## Tink (14 August 2017)

Recognition of same-sex relationships

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsi...ervices/recognition-of-same-sex-relationships


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> it wasn't openly discussed and was decided behind closed doors for the very reason that LGB's want to avoid a plebiscite; ie it's a lot easy to bludgeon a few people in Parliament than the whole population.




It seems strange to me people are happy with the parliament making and adjusting all sorts of laws, and even to declaring war on other nations, but some how think they can't be trusted with decisions about gay marriage.

If a plebiscite is the only way to make the change, so be it, But it shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite, because popular opinion does not give society the right to take rights away from minority groups.

Eg, if society voted to retain slavery in a plebiscite, it would not make slavery moral, and the government would still have the obligation to abolish it.

So a "No" vote in the plebiscite, is irrelevant.


----------



## Tink (14 August 2017)

The laws are adjusted where they have the same rights, therefore, imv, there is no reason to change the definition of marriage.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2017)

I would have historically voted against SSM but I'm presently undecided. While I'm not that way inclined myself, what two consenting adults wish to do is a matter for them.

One of the key things I'll be looking for in the proposal will be whether it will be forced on institutions that don't endorse SSM. I don't see it as my right to determine what others do in a bedroom and in the same light, I don't, for example, see is as the right of a cause to impose their way of life inside the walls of a religious institution where it doesn't fit with their values and beliefs.

What I'm very much in favour of is the public vote on what is a major social change to what is an accepted definition of marriage over a very long period of time and that's regardless of the specific wording of the Marriage Act in the past and how that's been changed.

I'll reserve my vote in this poll until I decide which way to vote in the postal poll assuming that passes the scrutiny of the High Court.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So a "No" vote in the plebiscite, is irrelevant.




As would be a No vote in Parliament ?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 August 2017)

Does anyone know if people living on welfare can adopt children?  Or single males/females?  I don't feel like they should be able to.

I'm starting to see now that politicians are turning to us to be the law makers, which I find difficult.  There's quite a responsibility, and a feeling like I'm interfering in others' lives.  I guess that's what law making is.  How many people would even think before they vote?  Very few, I'd guess.  They'd just watch The Project and do what they're told.


----------



## McLovin (14 August 2017)

drsmith said:


> One of the key things I'll be looking for in the proposal will be whether it will be forced on institutions that don't endorse SSM. I don't see it as my right to determine what others do in a bedroom and in the same light, I don't, for example, see is as the right of a cause to impose their way of life inside the walls of a religious institution where it doesn't fit with their values and beliefs.




The law doesn't force the Catholic Church to re-marry divorcees who have not been granted an annulment by Rome. I would also object to any law that forced religious orgs to do anything that goes against their own beliefs.

Section 116 would probably pick up any law forcing religious orgs to marry gays as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As would be a No vote in Parliament ?




correct, so they should just do their job and get it done.


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Ok lets use the facts and see how traditional marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 I'm not ignoring any facts, just correcting them as they incorrectly being applied to bolster you argument. I'm insinuating nothing and fully aware of how marriage works, how long its been used in the British empire and before and that rights are conferred by the people who govern, not a birthright


----------



## Tisme (14 August 2017)

McLovin said:


> The law doesn't force the Catholic Church to re-marry divorcees who have not been granted an annulment by Rome. I would also object to any law that forced religious orgs to do anything that goes against their own beliefs.
> 
> Section 116 would probably pick up any law forcing religious orgs to marry gays as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.





I'll think you'll find a Labor Govt will force marriage celebrants and god jockeys to wed gays. It's already resulted in one official getting her marching orders in the USA and the doctrine of precedent in Oz does draw on the US system when it wants to qualify and argument.


----------



## pixel (14 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'll think you'll find a Labor Govt will force marriage celebrants and god jockeys to wed gays. It's already resulted in one official getting her marching orders in the USA and the doctrine of precedent in Oz does draw on the US system when it wants to qualify and argument.



You may find the case in the US to be a little different:
The officer was a public servant, employed as a registrar and required to do her job in accordance with the Law. She had even received a Court Order to the effect, but chose to ignore it. So she was sacked and rightly so. She might even have been jailed for contempt of court - and should've been.

Your allegation what a Labor Government might do seems to infer that god jockeys (do you refer to priests?) could be forced to wed gays* in a church service*. I'd find that hard to enforce, and no Labor Cabinet would be silly enough to go that far. However, a marriage celebrant on the public purse and performing a public function may well be obliged follow the Law.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

Back in the days when I did a bit of commercial law we were taught that advertising a particular good or service (eg the wedding cake) did not compell the advertiser to sell it. The advertisement was an invitation to treat, not a firm offer. This was contract law, so whether that still applies in these PC days I don't know.


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2017)

Interesting result so far... 70/30, a bit more YES than I expected and I wonder if that reflects the community in general? In that "email" from the ABC to staff they claimed it to be 60/40 in favour.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Back in the days when I did a bit of commercial law we were taught that advertising a particular good or service (eg the wedding cake) did not compell the advertiser to sell it. The advertisement was an invitation to treat, not a firm offer. This was contract law, so whether that still applies in these PC days I don't know.




But do you feel people have the right to discrimiate, eg can I refuse to serve blacks at my place of business?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> But do you feel people have the right to discrimiate, eg can I refuse to serve blacks at my place of business?




Basically yes. If a person puts effort into producing a product they actually own that product and should have a RIGHT to sell it to who they want.

I don't believe that they SHOULD discriminate, but that's their choice.

Basically, anyone who wants to make money will sell to whoever wants to buy.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Basically yes. If a person puts effort into producing a product they actually own that product and should have a RIGHT to sell it to who they want.
> 
> I don't believe that they SHOULD discriminate, but that's their choice.
> 
> Basically, anyone who wants to make money will sell to whoever wants to buy.



That's where I disagree and I think the law does to, if you are open to the public, you have to serve the public, you can't discriminate.

Sure you can refuse to do special orders, e.g. You can say no we don't stock the cake toppers with two brides or two grooms, but if someone wants to buy something "off the rack" and it's forsake, it's wrong to not sell just because if the customers race or sexuality etc.

It's just better for society that way, if we all avoid discriminating against each other we will all have a better time.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> That's where I disagree and I think the law does to, if you are open to the public, you have to serve the public, you can't discriminate.
> 
> Sure you can refuse to do special orders, e.g. You can say no we don't stock the cake toppers with two brides or two grooms, but if someone wants to buy something "off the rack" and it's forsake, it's wrong to not sell just because if the customers race or sexuality etc.
> 
> It's just better for society that way, if we all avoid discriminating against each other we will all have a better time.




I think that the number of times businesses would refuse to serve anyone providing they weren't drunk or abusive would be very small, and it could be dealt with by publicity, boycotts etc rather than oppressive legislation.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> if we all avoid discriminating against each other we will all have a better time.



Yes, but two problems:
1) discrimination is almost constantly active in the mind, but because it's unconscious, people don't know they're doing it.  The human mind is designed to discriminate and judge, constantly. 
2) non-judgment is not easy to practice. The only way to do it is to switch off the critical/analytical aspect of the mind, and that takes massive commitment to practice.

We all judge and discriminate.  Minority groups perhaps more so than the mainstream.


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

in my uneducated opiono all this is about is work generation for boring unemployed people. In all serious who give a rats about same sex marriage? I for one do not but however some jerks will be making lots of money off all the propaganda and postal votes... what a waste of time effort and money. Go away losers and screw yourselves in the bush or watever.


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes, but two problems:
> 1) discrimination is almost constantly active in the mind, but because it's unconscious, people don't know they're doing it.  The human mind is designed to discriminate and judge, constantly.
> 2) non-judgment is not easy to practice. The only way to do it is to switch off the critical/analytical aspect of the mind, and that takes massive commitment to practice.
> 
> We all judge and discriminate.  Minority groups perhaps more so than the mainstream.



lo yep last resort, plead discrimination, just what the world needs, more attention seekers like that half wit in North Korea.


----------



## tech/a (15 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> in my uneducated opiono all this is about is work generation for boring unemployed people. In all serious who give a rats about same sex marriage? I for one do not but however some jerks will be making lots of money off all the propaganda and postal votes... what a waste of time effort and money. Go away losers and screw yourselves in the bush or watever.




Kim Jung 
Is that you?


----------



## Tink (15 August 2017)

Just like The Green's Councils in Melbourne

The ones that constantly talk about changing Australia Day.

Christmas, and anything to do with Western Culture.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/...n/news-story/b4976b48ec38f866461913b81017fa5f

_Darebin Council will give free office space to same-sex marriage campaigners — while blacklisting opponents of marriage equality.

Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage.

It will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage._

-------------------------
And as I mentioned in Tasmania

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4320710.htm

-------------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4_


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2017)

I'm guessing the mods are keeping an eye on the IP address conflicts in this poll ...if you get my drift.


----------



## Tink (15 August 2017)

The Marriage Act in Australia is one man and one woman.

So I would like to question how that person could take someone to an anti discrimination board when the Church was talking about Marriage as it is in the law.


----------



## overhang (15 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm not ignoring any facts, just correcting them as they incorrectly being applied to bolster you argument. I'm insinuating nothing and fully aware of how marriage works, how long its been used in the British empire and before and that rights are conferred by the people who govern, not a birthright



They weren't incorrectly applied, as my facts proved voting rights have had similar changes to marriage rights in this country and we actually don't have a long history of traditional marriage as you seemed to suggest.  The gold standard society Tink talks about is when women couldn't vote.


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Kim Jung
> Is that you?



well he has a bad hair day every day


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

Besides which there has always been gays in Australia and I have no problem with that, but now they are chirping on about equality bla bla bla. Who really gives a rats?
The entire issue is a waste of time and taxpayers money. as is marriage and divorce. Jerks.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Besides which there has always been gays in Australia and I have no problem with that, but now they are chirping on about equality bla bla bla. Who really gives a rats?




Change the word "gays" in the sentence above to Blacks, and see how it sounds.

But, if you don't "give a rats", give them equality, and move on, simple.


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

On


Value Collector said:


> Change the word "gays" in the sentence above to Blacks, and see how it sounds.
> 
> But, if you don't "give a rats", give them equality, and move on, simple.



Only reason for this gay marriage thing i so they claim government benefits. How about single people without kids? Do they get any rorts.. no. I vote NO.


----------



## Junior (15 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> On
> 
> Only reason for this gay marriage thing i so they claim government benefits. How about single people without kids? Do they get any rorts.. no. I vote NO.




This is incorrect.  A gay couple is already treated as a couple for Centrelink purposes.  Marriage makes no difference here.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2017)

overhang said:


> .  The gold standard society Tink talks about is when women couldn't vote.




None of us could have.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2017)

Junior said:


> This is incorrect.  A gay couple is already treated as a couple for Centrelink purposes.  Marriage makes no difference here.




The reason for the marriage equality is so the family court skips the steps of loving relationship and union, rather than dispassionate cohabitation. It's a jump queue ticket


----------



## overhang (15 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> None of us could have.




In Victoria we had 51 gold standard years where women couldn't vote in state elections from 1857 to 1908 but yet men could.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 August 2017)

I am much in favour of Same Sex Marriage and had planned to vote Yes, but am concerned by all the loonies bullying people who say they may vote No.

They appear to be Left Fascists. I am unsure now whether to vote Yes or No as the consequences of Left Fascism may be worse than the status quo. 

Then again I empathise with gay people who wish to marry.

I'm a swinging voter on this issue.

gg


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

Junior said:


> This is incorrect.  A gay couple is already treated as a couple for Centrelink purposes.  Marriage makes no difference here.



so why bother this gay marriage bs another way to waste money


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am much in favour of Same Sex Marriage and had planned to vote Yes, but am concerned by all the loonies bullying people who say they may vote No.
> 
> They appear to be Left Fascists. I am unsure now whether to vote Yes or No as the consequences of Left Fascism may be worse than the status quo.
> 
> ...



hey gigar smoker what is marriage all about ? you tell me...


----------



## crackajack (15 August 2017)

WHY GET MARRIED FULLSTOP IT IS YOUR DOOM lol


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> hey gigar smoker what is marriage all about ? you tell me...




I am wise, but not wise enough to answer that caj.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am much in favour of Same Sex Marriage and had planned to vote Yes, but am concerned by all the loonies bullying people who say they may vote No.
> 
> They appear to be Left Fascists. I am unsure now whether to vote Yes or No as the consequences of Left Fascism may be worse than the status quo.
> 
> ...




I understand the problem for you because I have the same.

I think that there is a group possibly as you described but maybe also anarchists who will protest at anything if it makes the status quo look bad. People like those idiots who invaded Parliament last year wearing burkas. People who will defend Islam as "feminist", even when it is patently not and will invade churches making loud noises and talk over anyone who defends the status quo. They are getting louder as I said before.

I think we still need standards in this country, because we are going downhill in many ways; science, education, civil unrest, domestic violence, family breakdowns, immigrants who don't care about our values etc.

Maybe defending the traditional family is a start to restoring the standards that we have lost through the uprising of groups who want to tear  them down .


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2017)

Don't forget, a "NO" vote is a free kick to Bill Shorten at the next election


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Don't forget, a "NO" vote is a free kick to Bill Shorten at the next election




And a free kick to Tony Abbott's revenge on Fizzer.


----------



## Muschu (15 August 2017)

Why redefine accepted vocabulary in a world where new words  are created as times change?
I'm comfortable with recognising the solemnity and dignity of a same sex union and full legal equality with a heterosexual union, but let's create a new word to describe it...... 
And, yep, I am probably on a loser...... And I'm not religious and have been around for over 70 years.... And have same sex couples in my family and care for them equally.


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> The reason for the marriage equality is so the family court skips the steps of loving relationship and union, rather than dispassionate cohabitation. It's a jump queue ticket



What queue is being jumped?


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2017)

Muschu said:


> Why redefine accepted vocabulary in a world where new words  are created as times change?
> I'm comfortable with recognising the solemnity and dignity of a same sex union and full legal equality with a heterosexual union, but let's create a new word to describe it......
> And, yep, I am probably on a loser...... And I'm not religious and have been around for over 70 years.... And have same sex couples in my family and care for them equally.



Or why not just call it what it is eg marriage


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> so why bother this gay marriage bs another way to waste money



It could equally be said that not allowing it is a waste of time and taxpayer funds on the debate versus the alternative of just letting the market (that is, people who want to get married) decide.

A century or so it was women voting. Then it was aboriginals. Then it was the legality of homosexuality in the first place. Now it's gay marriage. 50 years from now this whole debate will be seen in much the same way as any of those are today. We'll likely have gotten our minds around the concept of euthanasia by that time too.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What queue is being jumped?




You need to reed the legislation rather than question it through me.

This is the real situation isn't it. The public have little concept of the legals, but focus on the egalitarian aspect they have been spoon fed over the last 30 years


----------



## Muschu (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Or why not just call it what it is eg marriage




You could attach some reasoning.........  "What is, is" is an old cliche...


----------



## Tink (16 August 2017)

Marriage is about the family unit
I see this as an attack on families and our heritage.
Mother and Father
Boy and Girl.

Children want their parents.
Not to be bought and sold.

This is about destroying our language, our culture, our Christian foundations, imv.

Marriage should not be changed at all.
It has always been one man and one woman, whether you are black, white, whatever.

You can self identify however you like, but you are still a man or a woman.
And it takes a man and a woman to have a child.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is about the family unit
> I see this as an attack on families and our heritage.




How exactly would it affect any heterosexual marriage?

How is it an attack?


----------



## overhang (16 August 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Don't forget, a "NO" vote is a free kick to Bill Shorten at the next election



Is it?  Depending on how big the no majority wins by I think it would put Shorten in a tricky spot as swinging voters may consider that Shorten should listen to the will of the people and alter Labors policy stance on SSM.


Tink said:


> Marriage is about the family unit
> I see this as an attack on families and our heritage.
> Mother and Father
> Boy and Girl.
> ...




Those same Christian values that allowed children to be abused and covered up within the Catholic church, I want no part in your christian values as they have done more damage to children than a few gays getting married ever will.

100 years ago Tink you most likely would have said marriage is between a white man and white women but thankfully others at the time saw that indigenous Australians too have a right to marry.


----------



## Tink (16 August 2017)

Can homosexuals have children?

Why would we over ride marriage.

Marriage is about the family.


----------



## overhang (16 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Can homosexuals have children?
> 
> Why would we over ride marriage.
> 
> Marriage is about the family.



Marriage is about commitment, plenty of people are married without children and plenty of people with children aren't married.


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Is it?  Depending on how big the no majority wins by I think it would put Shorten in a tricky spot as swinging voters may consider that Shorten should listen to the will of the people and alter Labors policy stance on SSM.



Way too late for that. They own SSM regardless of any baggage that comes with it. IMO

Just out of morbid historical curiosity I looked at the parliament bill for SSM five years ago which was defeated 42-98 under the Gillard Govt.

Yes votes 



Spoiler



Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Mr S Jones Ms Roxon
Mr Bandt Mrs Elliot Dr M Kelly Ms Saffin
Ms Bird Ms Ellis Ms King Mr Shorten
Ms Brodtmann Mr Garrett Ms Livermore Mr Sidebottom
Mr Butler Mr Georganas Ms Macklin Mr S Smith
Mr Champion Mr Gibbons Mr Marles Ms Smyth
Mr Cheeseman Mr Gray Mr Oakeshott Mr Snowdon
Mr Clare Ms Grierson Ms Parke Mr C Thomson
Ms Collins Mr Griffin Mr Perrett Mr Wilkie
Mr Combet Ms Hall Ms Plibersek Mr Crean
Mr Jenkins Ms Rishworth


No votes


Spoiler



Mr Abbott Mr Entsch Mr McCormack Mr Rudd
Mr Adams Mr Fitzgibbon Mr Macfarlane Mr Ruddock
Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Marino Mr Schultz
Mr K Andrews Mr Forrest Mrs Markus Mr Scott
Ms K Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr Matheson Mr Secker
Mr Baldwin Ms Gambaro Mr Melham Mr A Smith
Mr Billson Mrs Gash Mrs Mirabella Mr Somlyay
Ms B Bishop Ms Gillard Mr Morrison Dr Southcott
Ms J Bishop Mrs Griggs Mrs Moylan Dr Stone
Mr Bowen Mr Hartsuyker Mr Murphy Mr Swan
Mr Bradbury Mr A Hawke Mr Neumann Mr Symon
Mr Briggs Mr Hayes Mr Neville Mr Tehan
Mr Broadbent Mr Hockey Mr O'Dowd Mr K Thomson
Mr Buchholz Mr Hunt Ms O'Dwyer Mr Truss
Mr A Burke Mr Husic Ms O'Neill Mr Tudge
Mr Byrne Mr Irons Ms Owens Mr Turnbull
Mr Chester Dr Jensen Mrs Prentice Ms Vamvakinou
Mr Christensen Mr E Jones Mr Pyne Mr van Manen
Mr Ciobo Mr Katter Mr Ramsey Mr Vasta
Mr Cobb Mr Keenan Mr Randall Dr Washer
Mr Coulton Mr C Kelly Mr Ripoll Mr Windsor
Mr Crook Mr Laming Mr Robb Mr Wyatt
Mrs D'Ath Ms Ley Mr Robert Mr Zappia
Mr Dutton Mr Lyons Ms Rowland Dr Emerson
Mr McClelland Mr Roy



Quite a change from then to today and it tells me the YES is inevitable..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Marriage is about commitment, plenty of people are married without children and plenty of people with children aren't married.




Marriage to you is commitment, but traditionally it was about having legitimate kids, avoiding going to hell, having taxation benefits, taking the two of them off the available market, obeying the law, avoiding the community scorn, ostrasisation and disdain ....  I'm not sure banns and marriage were primarily based on licencing love and pretty sure it wasn't based on homosexuality .... that was reserved for the odd priest here and there.


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

Sadly the future is full of reactive popular decisions to suit maintenance and Control of power. 

Trump
Global warming
Kim Jong
Same sex marriage.
Immigration
Australia Day
Sale of Australian Asset.
Paid Maternity leave.
Green Energy.

blah---------------

So be it.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Can homosexuals have children?





Yes, they can.

But kids are a red herring, Because you are ok with an infertile couple marrying aren't you?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, they can.




Based on what science ?

TWO homosexuals cannot bear a child together, they need a third person. That's why they want to destroy the family system because one of "their childrens " parents are no longer on the scene of the child's upbringing.


----------



## MrChow (16 August 2017)

I'm surprised ASF poll is in line with the wider population.

I've always had the feeling from reading stock forums around the place it was filled with right wing nutters, maybe they're just the loudest.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Based on what science ?




Firstly, as I said, the marriage debate is separate from the parenting debate.

But, a lesbian couple need nothing more than a sperm donor, just like any other couple that uses IVF, Also the technology is pretty much there that would allow an egg to be fertilised with the genetic material from another egg, meaning no need for a sperm, and allowing a baby to be produced from two biological female parents.

Also there is adopting etc, which they have the same rights to as straight couples already.


> TWO homosexuals cannot bear a child together, they need a third person. That's why they want to destroy the family system because one of "their childrens " parents are no longer on the scene of the child's upbringing.




Thats the same for many infertile straight couples.

Do we ban infertile mariage?


----------



## basilio (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Based on what science ?
> 
> TWO homosexuals cannot bear a child together, they need a third person. That's why they want to destroy the family system because one of "their childrens " parents are no longer on the scene of the child's upbringing.




Much the same way that infertile married couples at the moment have children. Sperm doners, IVF. In fact with the overall problems with male infertility, late marriages, single women wanting to have a child I reckon the % of "natural" childbirths would have to be falling.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

basilio said:


> Much the same way that infertile married couples at the moment have children. Sperm doners, IVF. In fact with the overall problems with male infertility, late marriages, single women wanting to have a child I reckon the % of "natural" childbirths would have to be falling.




IVF in general causes more problems than it creates, there is no reason for it to exist.

The other problems are the result of economic pressure, couples can't afford a house let alone children. 

Make housing affordable and reduce the cost of living and people will have children. Artificial birth methods are just papering over a wider problem.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> IVF in general causes more problems than it creates, there is no reason for it to exist.
> 
> The other problems are the result of economic pressure, couples can't afford a house let alone children.
> 
> Make housing affordable and reduce the cost of living and people will have children. Artificial birth methods are just papering over a wider problem.



Do we ban infertile mariage?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do we ban infertile mariage?




Red herring. 

Whether TWO people (man and woman) can or want to have children is up to them. The point is that they are biologically equipped to do so. Homosexuals are not.

Three people cannot legally marry each other.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 August 2017)

> Marriage is about the family.



Yes. Mum, dad  and the kids. Stop the appeasement of minority groups running their own agenda.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Whether TWO people (man and woman) can or want to have children is up to them. The point is that they are biologically equipped to do so.





Not always, many straight couples get married who know that one of them is Not Biologically equipped, either by disease, age, birth defect, accidents etc etc

If you are willing to allow these people to marry, it is not rational to use the "can't have babies naturally" argument when discussing gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Not always, many straight couples get married who know that one of them is Not Biologically equipped, either by disease, age, birth defect, accidents etc etc




Splitting hairs.


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

*Yeh perfectly normal.






*


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Splitting hairs.




Not at all, "they can't have Babies" seems to be a prominent argument here against gay marriage.

I am just turning it around to see whether people would also use this argument to prevent the straight couples it applied to from marrying.

If it isn't seen as a problem to allow straight couples who can't or won't have children to marry, how can the argument be used to stop gays from marrying?


> Yeh perfectly normal.




Seems ok to me.


----------



## grah33 (16 August 2017)

interesting pic tech/A...
what about people who are genuinely attracted to children, but would never hurt them (e.g "virtuous pedophiles")? i would expect there would be  a good number of them out there.  are both groups normal  , or is one group normal and the other not?  i think 'normal' is whatever we define it to be.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> *Yeh perfectly normal.
> 
> 
> View attachment 72267
> *




I may have to report you for that.


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

This is Normal.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> This is Normal.
> 
> View attachment 72268




Even ducks form same sex marriages.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/gay-ducks-derail-repopulation-plan/


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

Not this little Black Duck!


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Not this little Black Duck!




No, But I respect your right to should you choose to.


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

The line of respect of peoples rights to do a whole host of things is severely blurred.
What's right for a paedophile isn't right for me---should I respect his rights?
Should I respect the rights of a family who kill in the name of family honour.
Or accept that child brides are ok to many societies.
So to is multiple marriages.

The line it seems is drawn but the loudest voices.
And supported by those who benefit most in power.


----------



## Junior (16 August 2017)

tech/a, some of those other examples are criminal acts which cause harm to children.

We are talking about two consenting adults expressing their love through a marriage ceremony.

The example you give about child brides is interesting, as it used to be acceptable in many cultures (and still in some) to marry a female as young as 12....this fit in with the accepted definition of marriage.  Hence I don't buy the 'traditional definition of marriage' argument - it has changed over time.  

It can and will change again.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> The line of respect of peoples rights to do a whole host of things is severely blurred.
> .




Not really when you make your judgements based on a rational assessments of the facts, and base your morals on wellbeing of fellow humans rather than dogma.


> What's right for a paedophile isn't right for me---should I respect his rights?




Which rights are you talking about?

Does a paedophile have the right to cause harm to a child? No.

Does a paedophile have the right to live peacefully in society provided he/she never acts on his/her urges? yes



> Should I respect the rights of a family who kill in the name of family honour.




That would infringe on the rights of others, so they don't actually have the right to perform an honour killing.



> Or accept that child brides are ok to many societies.




Again, that infringes on the rights of the child, so they don't have the right to have child brides.



> So to is multiple marriages.




provided its a choice between consenting adults, I can't see the harm, so I am fine with it.



> The line it seems is drawn but the loudest voices.




No, its a rational decisions based on facts about human wellbeing and harm.


----------



## tech/a (16 August 2017)

Yet irrational voices allow them----countries that allow it are wrong we and our morals are right according to us

Many countries won't allow same sex marriage -- yet we are right and they wrong 

They allow the above child brides and honour killings but they are morally wrong according to us

We of course have the highest moral ground!


----------



## grah33 (16 August 2017)

>>So to is multiple marriages.
provided its a choice between consenting adults, I can't see the harm, so I am fine with it.>>
even if it is a choice, those adults don't have enough sense to make the decision, so it shouldn't be allowed...


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> Yet irrational voices allow them----countries that allow it are wrong we and our morals are right according to us
> 
> Many countries won't allow same sex marriage -- yet we are right and they wrong
> 
> ...




Do you think the things you listed above are wrong?

If so, why? how do you make your decisions?

If you make your decisions based on human welfare and harm, then it is based on facts, which can be proven, its not a simple matter of opinion.

Ofcourse each topic will have plenty of debate, but provide you stick to the facts rather than dogma, we should be able to get to the bottom of most things and have better morals than those that simply refer to old books.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> even if it is a choice, those adults don't have enough sense to make the decision, so it shouldn't be allowed...




who are you talking about?
which adults?


----------



## grah33 (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> who are you talking about?
> which adults?



maybe i was thinking of some funny women  out there who are silly,  and maybe rich men too. no one in particular.  but i realize now there are other religious groups  who for them it's a practical and viable way to do it. IMO, polygamy isn't good though for society, and i think the Australian people have always thoughts so , so they don't allow it.


the other factor is how will this effect society?  is it okay if you get "not born gay "kids in playgrounds experimenting with the same sex?


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> IMO, polygamy isn't good though for society, and i think the Australian people have always thoughts so , so they don't allow it.




As you stated thats your opinion, but to outlaw something like polygamy I think you need to be able to demonstrate that its is actually harmful to people outside of the relationship before it should be outlawed.

But polygamy would be a topic for another thread.




> the other factor is how will this effect society?  is it okay if you get "not born gay "kids in playgrounds experimenting with the same sex?




Is children "experimenting in playgrounds" really cause for concern enough to ban marriage between consenting adults?

I mean what are you worried about, that Jimmy will say "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" to Jack instead of Jill???


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I mean what are you worried about, that Jimmy will say "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" to Jack instead of Jill???




Who knows what children are taught in schools.

If it is taught that homosexuality is "normal" then children may well decide to experiment that way. 

Homosexuality is a small minority and always has been. Best not to teach kids anything about sexuality and let them find their own way.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Who knows what children are taught in schools.
> 
> If it is taught that homosexuality is "normal" then children may well decide to experiment that way.
> 
> Homosexuality is a small minority and always has been. Best not to teach kids anything about sexuality and let them find their own way.




Again this is a separate topic from gay marriage.

However, I do feel it's worthwhile discussing sexuality with children around the time they will hit puberty, kids are smart, you could easily teach them that most people are going to be attracted to the opposite sex, but some will be attracted to the same sex, and both options are ok, and it's normal for both to exist.


----------



## Sean K (16 August 2017)

I'm a natural homophobic, because of my parents and sociatal upbringing. But, I have grown up, and I am more educated than I was 30 years ago. 

The institution of marriage has served it's historical purpose in Australia. It has been a bedrock of our society and thus, we have an almost innate, inbred, genetic predisposition to keep the status quo that has created the society we have. We are one of the most incredibly successful cultures of the 21st century. So, why change? Change is hard when life is so great.    

But, we know without question that sexual attraction and love is fluid. 

Anyone who watches Games of Thrones knows this.

So, we are all on a spectrum, and always have been.

Go where your heart and happiness desires!!


----------



## eNyce (16 August 2017)

Contrary to popular belief, there's valid arguments for and against gay marriage. I think Ben Shapiro's view is that most valid and agree that the government shouldn't even be involved.

I would like to see it legalized and then forgotten so we can focus on more pressing topics.


----------



## grah33 (16 August 2017)

another thing not discussed much is religious freedom.   you can't expect a religious person to marry them if they don't want to.  or a wedding cake baker (see US news) to bake cakes if to him it's "unclean"  (conscience problem).  nor could you force a jew (or muslim) to do something "unclean" to them based on their beliefs, such as eating pork at e.g work (or marrying 2 men).  from memory one of the amendments (key democracy principle) is you can't have laws that meddle with the mind of a religious person.  otherwise it's not democracy but something else.  Why? because you're gonna get something like this happening:
" we need a wedding cake" (gay person)
"ahh... sorry can't do that . it's against my religion.."
"but you have to , the law requires it "
"but i've got to follow God's law. man's law is  flawed. and my god will punish me.it's easier to go prison then to go hell"
it's a bit crude my example, but you get the point.  so the religious guy is sent to prison or fined 100K.  not a pretty world to live in... that's why i think the parliament isn't doing it's job properly by wanting to force gay marriage on religious entities/individuals.  they know what democracy is about, or are supposed to, and that includes religious freedom.anyways, my 2 cents...but i wouldn't be surprised if (like in the US) christian orphanages shut down /other charities also close down.  overseas they are already compelling religious entities to marry men.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 August 2017)

Marriage is dead. Hijacked by another minority group seeking self satisfaction and recognition.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (16 August 2017)

It's still unknown whether homosexuality is a healthy human variation or a learned, coping mechanism.

It's certainly possible that a lack of bonding between the child and the same sex parent is the cause of homosexuality.  Since childhood bonding is a very powerful dynamic in the child's life, a lot of the information around this topic will remain locked away in the unconscious, therefore hard/impossible to access.

A child deprived of basic safety needs will tend to become hypervigilant.  In the same way, a child deprived of same sex bonding in the early years will have a tendency to seek intimate relationships with adults of the same sex, in order to attempt to fill that very important need.  Because the drive is unconscious, it's correct to say it's not a conscious choice.  But that doesn't mean it's genetic.

All I know from a small sample size of gays I have met is that most of them had poor, distant or absent relationships with the same sex parent.  That doesn't constitute evidence, obviously, but it's worth considering.  If that's a causative factor, then treatment might actually be appropriate.  Some have attempted to do this, but they have usually had religious reasons.  Obviously, this sort of approach is going to be harmful. 

I certainly won't be voting 'no' because that could be very psychologically damaging if it happened on a big scale.  I'll either vote 'yes' or not at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> However, I do feel it's worthwhile discussing sexuality with children around the time they will hit puberty, kids are smart, you could easily teach them that most people are going to be attracted to the opposite sex, but some will be attracted to the same sex, and both options are ok, and it's normal for both to exist.




Fair enough, but some Lefty Loonies want it bought in in primary school. Far too early.


----------



## Dazzy33 (16 August 2017)

Nope I don't support.


----------



## Value Collector (16 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Fair enough, but some Lefty Loonies want it bought in in primary school. Far too early.



 Children start hitting puberty at 9, and often there sexuality is already developing by then.


----------



## Tink (17 August 2017)

VC, so you would give your children to the state to be raised?

You don't think children should be raised by their parents?

How much is the taxpayer paying for these peoples lifestyles?

Too many rights and not enough responsibilities.


----------



## overhang (17 August 2017)

Tink said:


> VC, so you would give your children to the state to be raised?
> 
> You don't think children should be raised by their parents?
> 
> ...




I certainly wouldn't give them to the Catholic church to raise.
But lets not forget that this debate is not about children as much as the anti-SSM crowd would love to make it about children.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2017)

Tink said:


> VC, so you would give your children to the state to be raised?
> 
> You don't think children should be raised by their parents?
> 
> ...




As over hang said, this isn't about children, but yes I trust the education system to provide education, it's impossible for parents to teach their children everything.

Eg. I doubt your kids received a balanced view on sexuality from you, I sure hope none of your children or grandchildren are born gay, other wise you are going to mess them up.

Also, your organization has already let children down, while your complaining that we want to teach adolensents theory lessons on different sexualities, your church has been giving them practical lessons on paedophile behaviours.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> but yes I trust the education system to provide education, it's impossible for parents to teach their children everything.




I certainly wouldn't trust people like this to educate children.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/s...founder-roz-ward-removed-20161216-gtctgs.html


----------



## Tink (17 August 2017)

I already added this from the ABC
http://www.mamamia.com.au/the-coupl...for-the-sole-purpose-of-sexually-abusing-him/

--------------------------

Off topic - are the state schools running our traditions/public holidays in the schools?
They are a part of our nation.
If not, make them private.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2017)

Thanks for the reference Tink to the couple who bought a child to abuse it. Ugly....
For the record I think it is worth quoting what Mia Freedman had to say about the story.

_*Note from Mamamia Publisher, Mia Freedman:* The depravity and pure evil of this story is hard to comprehend. You are probably reeling right now – just as we are. And you should be. What happened to this little boy almost defies words. _

_But let’s be very clear that this post is in no way reflective of the vast majority of same-sex parents who adopt children or have them via surrogates. _

_Mark Newton and Peter Truong illegally ‘purchased’ a child and falsified birth documents in order to adopt him and remove him from Russia. For the sole purpose of sexually abusing him from the first weeks of his life. _

_Tragically, there are evil people in the world who should never have access to children. Sexuality is a seperate issue. Evil people come in all shapes, sizes, sexualities and genders. There have been heterosexual couples who have been convicted of similar heinous crimes as Newton and Truong. So while as a society we must do whatever we can to protect children and this story raises some hugely distressing and disturbing questions about how such a thing could happen, we will not allow any comments on this post that imply that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/the-coupl...for-the-sole-purpose-of-sexually-abusing-him/_


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2017)

basilio said:


> we will *not allow *any comments on this post that imply that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.




Isn't that pre judging the issue a bit ?

What if someone came up with a scientific correlation ?

I'm not saying there is one, but everything has to be looked at on its merits imo.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Isn't that pre judging the issue a bit ?
> 
> What if someone came up with a scientific correlation ?
> 
> I'm not saying there is one, but everything has to be looked at on its merits imo.




Interesting observation Rumpy. What Mia Freedman was doing was running an absolutely appalling story of how two gay guys bought a  baby and proceeded to turn it into a sexual plaything. 
I can easily see how such a story would enable many people to conflate homesexuality with pedophilia - and  Mia was totally determined that this wouldn't happen on her website.

Be interesting to see the response here..


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Isn't that pre judging the issue a bit ?
> 
> What if someone came up with a scientific correlation ?
> 
> I'm not saying there is one, but everything has to be looked at on its merits imo.




Pre judging would be assuming causation, before you had the scientific  evidence that suggest causation (or correlation)

However, given that most child molestation cases involve straight males abusing females, would you seek to ban straight parenting?

I mean if it were shown scientifically that paedophiles tended to be straight men, would you seek to stop straight marriage? If not why not?


----------



## basilio (17 August 2017)

That was a devestating response VC. Certainly would make a rational person think very carefully before jumpng from gay parents to paedophiles..


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I mean if it were shown scientifically that paedophiles tended to be straight men, would you seek to stop straight marriage? If not why not?




Look at my post carefully. I made no correlation between paedophilia and marriage, or paedophilia and homosexuality, that was your typical straw man diversionary tactic.

My point was about self censorship on an issue even when evidence may exist to support a position that the owners of a blog may not like.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> even when evidence may exist to support a position that the owners of a blog may not like.





Evidence already exists that there is a correlation between straight men and paedophillia, do to the fact that most cases of child molestation are straight men abusing younger girls.

However, nobody accepts this as an argument against straight parenting.

But, the unfounded claim that gays are somehow more likely to be paedophiles is constantly thrown around, to the point that its exhausting, so I can see why a blog owner gets sick of addressing it, and would just ban it from the conversation.

I mean look at this thread, not a single valid argument against gay marriage has been raised, only claims about parenting and paedophillia and other red herrings, I can understand someone that wants to get to the bottom of a subject wanted to rule out the red herrings, and the end of the day it's their blog.


----------



## Tisme (17 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Evidence already exists that there is a correlation between straight men and paedophillia, do to the fact that most cases of child molestation are straight men abusing younger girls.
> 
> However, nobody accepts this as an argument against straight parenting.
> 
> ...





You are very quick to defend homosexuals because they can't help what they are. so I'm guessing the same basis works for pedophiles?



> he study in Springer’s journal _Archives of Sexual Behavior_ adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests pedophilia develops prenatally, around the same time that such physical flaws develop.
> 
> “Evidence is steadily accumulating to support a neurodevelopmental basis of pedophilia,” says Dyshniku. “If we find that pedophilia has a biological basis, with a very early, even prenatal onset, this will influence and hopefully improve methods of treatment for this group.”
> 
> Facial anomalies could, among others, include having non-detached earlobes, malformed ears, or a high or steepled palate. These features develop during the sensitive first and early second trimesters while a baby is still in the womb, from the same primary embryonic tissue layer that gives rise to the central nervous system. They could develop because of prenatal exposure to viruses, alcohol or drugs, obstetric complications, or nutritional deficiencies. Such features are more prevalent among men, which might mean that the male brain is more susceptible to disruptive events during prenatal development.




https://www.springer.com/gp/about-s...likely-to-have-physical-irregularities/376770


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I can understand someone that wants to get to the bottom of a subject wanted to rule out the red herrings, and the end of the day it's their blog.




I guess it depends on whether PC should prevail over truth.

So if you ran a blog and a peer reviewed scientific paper was published that showed <insert minority group here> had a greater tendency towards pedophilia, would you publish it ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> You are very quick to defend homosexuals because they can't help what they are. so I'm guessing the same basis works for pedophiles?




I already addressed this, I said someone who is a pedophile, has the right to life and to live free in society provided they never act on their urges, if they do assault a Child they should go to jail, perhaps for life.

But again, this is nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So if you ran a blog and a peer reviewed scientific paper was published that showed <insert minority group here> had a greater tendency towards pedophilia, would you publish it ?




Yes, but it would depend where it was peer reviewed, e.g. it has to be a credible reviewing organisation.

But until such a study existed, I might ban certain claims if they were constantly being brought up and were unfounded and had been debunked a 1000 times.

I mean what is the point of continually stating the same nonsense, certain claims can be delt with in a disclaimer linking you to a pre done explanation of why that claim is not accepted.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I mean what is the point of continually stating the same nonsense, certain claims can be delt with in a disclaimer linking you to a pre done explanation of why that claim is not accepted.




Were all those Catholic priests who assaulted boys homosexuals do you think ?


----------



## grah33 (17 August 2017)

V C, what do you think about this?

should a christian minister be compelled to marry gays, or forward them to another minister who will, when both actions to him are against his religion?  as i said before it is a bit like a jew having to eat pork .

this is happening overseas. christian charities have had to shut down e.g. christian orphanages, and  christian marriage counseling services. the 'pious' wedding photographer who just can't take pics of 2 men together is getting in serious  trouble with the law.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> should a christian minister be compelled to marry gays, or forward them to another minister who will, when both actions to him are against his religion?  as i said before it is a bit like a jew having to eat pork.




My personal view is that all this should be about removing anyone from being forced into any particular action.

So no churches being forced to marry gays if they're opposed to that but equally no forcing their religious views on others (eg gays) who disagree.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 August 2017)

Be interesting to see what the television ratings were if the The Batchelor was a group of blokes vying for the big boy.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Were all those Catholic priests who assaulted boys homosexuals do you think ?



I don't know, but remember a lot of little girls were abused also.

I think with the priests it is caused by a life of sexual repression that causes them to opportunistically act out.

It's a bit like other wise straight men in jail raping other men, or wanting blow jobs etc from other men.

Sexual repression does strange things.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> V C, what do you think about this?
> 
> should a christian minister be compelled to marry gays, or forward them to another minister who will, when both actions to him are against his religion?  as i said before it is a bit like a jew having to eat pork .
> 
> this is happening overseas. christian charities have had to shut down e.g. christian orphanages, and  christian marriage counseling services. the 'pious' wedding photographer who just can't take pics of 2 men together is getting in serious  trouble with the law.




Religious marriage is a separate topic to legal marriage, we are discussing the rights of gays to have their marriages recognized by our government, whether a church recognizes it is irrelevant.

But churches already can deny people for any reason they want, because they are a private club.


----------



## Tink (18 August 2017)

That is not the case, VC, as I mentioned in Tasmania.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Sexual repression does strange things.




Sexual repression could well be a factor, but it's also possible that some or many of these priests could have been pedophiles to start with and joined the church because it gave them an easy living and access to their victims.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sexual repression could well be a factor, but it's also possible that some or many of these priests could have been pedophiles to start with and joined the church because it gave them an easy living and access to their victims.



True, but gay doesn't = paedophile any more than straight = paedophile. 

If your going to point to male to male pedophilla and say this is what gay men do, but you don't judge straight men in the same way, based on male to female pedophillia, then you are committing a logical fallacy.


----------



## Bill M (18 August 2017)

Every time I check the voting on here it's showing 2/3rd's in favour and 1/3rd against. However on an entirely different forum it is 2/3rd's the other way. It's going to be a close vote.


----------



## againsthegrain (18 August 2017)

Haha asf have really gone down when threads like this are at the top,  what happened to property thread or at least some speccy stock breakouts


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> True, but gay doesn't = paedophile any more than straight = paedophile.
> 
> If your going to point to male to male pedophilla and say this is what gay men do, but you don't judge straight men in the same way, based on male to female pedophillia, then you are committing a logical fallacy.




I was simply making an observation about pedophiles in the church, kindly don't conflate that to somehjing different.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that gays are more or less disposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals, but if there is evidence it should be allowed to be published without accusations of homophobia.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I was simply making an observation about pedophiles in the church, kindly don't conflate that to somehjing different.
> 
> .




I think its an assumption more than an observation.


> I've seen no evidence to suggest that gays are more or less disposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals,




Nor do I, but some how every thread related to gay marriage some how ends up introducing the red herring of children, and then an article about those pedophiles that adopted that kid always pops up.



> but if there is evidence it should be allowed to be published without accusations of homophobia




Yes evidence, but not repeated unfounded claims that have been dealt a 1000 times.


----------



## Tisme (18 August 2017)

Bill M said:


> Every time I check the voting on here it's showing 2/3rd's in favour and 1/3rd against. However on an entirely different forum it is 2/3rd's the other way. It's going to be a close vote.




Yes the trend here is topsy turvy to most other polls. I suspect we have visitors or multiple personalities in one body.


----------



## overhang (18 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yes the trend here is topsy turvy to most other polls. I suspect we have visitors or multiple personalities in one body.



The result on here I find surprising but the results do seem to be in line with the general population.  I'm curious what other polls have opposite results?


----------



## Tisme (18 August 2017)

overhang said:


> The result on here I find surprising but the results do seem to be in line with the general population.  I'm curious what other polls have opposite results?





Yes well of course I should have added a caveat, that "most other polls" as witnessed by me. Of course if John Howard had structured the poll question, it would be 90% against and 10% for, coz no one f#4ks with our flag, our monarch and our constitution


----------



## grah33 (18 August 2017)

u lot are probably on facebook (almost everyone is). why don't a few of you do your own poll , then tally yourselves together (update it as you get more comments)... 10 people here X 30-50 face page  comments . vote either Yes, NO, or will not vote



VC: what about the religious wedding cake baker? and wedding photographer?  should the law compel him to do something that is a a serious violation to his faith?  as i said before, to the religious types out there e.g. christians it's like a jew eating pork.  the reality is , they are being compelled overseas.


----------



## Logique (18 August 2017)

Bill M said:


> Every time I check the voting on here it's showing 2/3rd's in favour and 1/3rd against. However on *an entirely different forum it is 2/3rd's the other way*. It's going to be a close vote.



You don't need to say the name Bill, just curious, is it a stocks based forum?


----------



## Logique (18 August 2017)

againsthegrain said:


> Haha asf have really gone down when threads like this are at the top,  what happened to property thread or at least some speccy stock breakouts



Just biding our time, waiting for those profits to roll in mate! 

More haste, less speed. We understand this at ASF.


----------



## Logique (18 August 2017)

overhang said:


> The result on here I find surprising but the results do seem to be* in line with the general population*.  I'm curious what other polls have opposite results?



Overhang, where is you evidence for that?

The Coalition were elected on the promise of a plebiscite. That's clear evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> VC: what about the religious wedding cake baker? and wedding photographer?  should the law compel him to do something that is a a serious violation to his faith?




Did they advertise themselves as a religious or christian wedding cake baker or wedding photographer? Did they have signs up the clearly stated their rules?

Did they market themselves to only a selected club, or did they just act like they were open to the public?

As I said if they are open to the public, anyone from the public should be able to buy the products, if they don't want to serve certain groups, then market yourself that way.



> as i said before, to the religious types out there e.g. christians it's like a jew eating pork.  the reality is , they are being compelled overseas.




would you accept a Mormon who refused to serve an interracial couple in a resturant, just because his silly religion taught him marriages between whites and blacks were cursed?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> As I said if they are open to the public, anyone from the public should be able to buy the products, if they don't want to serve certain groups, then market yourself that way.




So a simple sign outside a cake shop saying "We don't serve gays" would satisfy you ?

Obviously churches could do the same thing.


----------



## Logique (18 August 2017)

Fairfax press are fair and balanced at all times, they don't have vetting procedures.
As this article displays:







> 17 August 2017 - *This is why I'll be voting 'no' to same-sex marriage*
> Guest author: Kevin Donnelly
> http://www.smh.com.au/comment/this-is-why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-20170817-gxy6np.html


----------



## grah33 (18 August 2017)

VC: fair enough with your view. it means you don't believe in religious freedom.  then democracy isn't for you.  you would prefer a different government system which compels people to go against their deeply held religious views, even if it puts them in a state of inner turmoil.  and you're not the only one like this. many  in the parliament are.  they would prefer a different kind of system , which isn't democracy but something else, which they feel is a better.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So a simple sign outside a cake shop saying "We don't serve gays" would satisfy you ?
> 
> Obviously churches could do the same thing.




Maybe a sign that said.



> "This business follows christian teachings, We will not serve couples that have any of the following traits.
> 
> 1, Are not virgins, (Bride must be a virgin on the wedding day)
> 2, Have previously been married, (the bible rules out divorce)
> ...




That way it doesn't look like they are just discriminating against gays, and are taking all the marriage rules seriously.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> VC: fair enough with your view. it means you don't believe in religious freedom.




Actually I am a big supporter of religious freedom, but part of religious freedom is not forcing your religion on other people.

Also having a religion doesn't give you the right to break laws.

As I said, I would be fine with any business clearly stating it is not open to the public, but instead exists to serve a certain club, but when you open your self to the public, you are accepting the responsibility of serving the public, you don't have the right to discriminate.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> That way it doesn't look like they are just discriminating against gays, and are taking all the marriage rules seriously.




The church is a club and can make it's own rules about who it serves.


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The church is a club and can make it's own rules about who it serves.



yep, I have never said they can't.

The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage anyway.


----------



## Hodgie (18 August 2017)

Bill M said:


> Every time I check the voting on here it's showing 2/3rd's in favour and 1/3rd against. However on an entirely different forum it is 2/3rd's the other way. It's going to be a close vote.




The poll results would largely reflect the demographic of each type of forum or group being asked. e.g. I'm 27 and the majority of my peers of similar age who I grew up with have told me that they will vote yes (I cant actually think of anyone I know personally who will vote no). My younger sister who is in her late teens also told me that many of her friends are registering to vote for the first time specifically for the vote on SSM (who think that it should be allowed).

I'm sure that the results of a poll would vary greatly for other age groups, religious groups, socioeconomic status, education etc.


----------



## Bill M (18 August 2017)

Logique said:


> You don't need to say the name Bill, just curious, is it a stocks based forum?



Close, more Gold and Silver orientated. Called Sil**r St**kers.


----------



## pixel (18 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage anyway.



Not quite truem, VC:
A priest or padre can well become a licensed Marriage Celebrant, thus killing two birds with one stone. See https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Becomingamarriagecelebrant.aspx
and note in particular this advice: 







> *Before you apply*
> Many marriage celebrants perform few or no marriages each year as there are:
> 
> more than 8 000 Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (18 August 2017)

pixel said:


> Not quite truem, VC:
> A priest or padre can well become a licensed Marriage Celebrant, thus killing two birds with one stone. See https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Becomingamarriagecelebrant.aspx
> and note in particular this advice:




Yes, but it's the part about being a "licensed marriage celebrant" that's important, not the priest/pardre bit, without that any religious service is nothing.

We are discussing the right of gays to have their marriages legally recognized by the Australian government, whether the church recognizes it is irrelevant.


----------



## Hodgie (18 August 2017)

pixel said:


> Not quite truem, VC:
> A priest or padre can well become a licensed Marriage Celebrant, thus killing two birds with one stone. See https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Becomingamarriagecelebrant.aspx
> and note in particular this advice:



You can get married without anything to do with the church is the point.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> VC: what about the religious wedding cake baker? and wedding photographer?



If you work in a pub then you're going to be serving alcohol.

If you work as a butcher then you're going to be cutting up dead animals.

If you work as a wedding photographer then you're going to be photographing weddings.

Presumably someone with religious or other ideological opposition to what's involved in any particular job wouldn't choose to be employed in that industry.

That said, there's no law so far as I'm aware forcing a baker or photographer to provide their services to any particular client. Just like nobody's forcing xyz plumbing to fix your taps and nobody's forcing someone to cut your hair.


----------



## Hodgie (19 August 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you work in a pub then you're going to be serving alcohol.
> 
> If you work as a butcher then you're going to be cutting up dead animals.
> 
> ...



Wasn't  the point that if you choose to work in the industry and be open to the public that you should serve all costomers?


----------



## pixel (19 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but it's the part about being a "licensed marriage celebrant" that's important, not the priest/pardre bit, without that any religious service is nothing.
> 
> We are discussing the right of gays to have their marriages legally recognized by the Australian government, whether the church recognizes it is irrelevant.



You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.

Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.


----------



## Hodgie (19 August 2017)

pixel said:


> You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.
> 
> Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
> After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.



Alot of assumptions t here


----------



## Value Collector (19 August 2017)

pixel said:


> You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.
> 
> Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
> After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.




My comment was more about that "marriage" as we are discussing here is a legal concept, not a religious one, so you don't actually need any religion to "bless you" or perform any rituals etc.

I wasn't trying to imply that a lot of priests etc aren't also marriage celebrants.

Some dress up as Elvis or darthvader to do ceremonies, others dress up as religious figures, it doesn't matter to the government which themed wedding you choose, that's my point when I say that religion doesn't matter.


----------



## Tink (19 August 2017)

My answer is NO.
Marriage is one man and one woman.

This is changing marriage completely to genderless, not just two people.
This is about the transgender movement.

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_

--------------------------

The Orwellian nightmare of transgender politics

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...re-of-transgender-politics/20116#.WZdB5bgnIiw


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> Wasn't  the point that if you choose to work in the industry and be open to the public that you should serve all costomers?




That may not be practical in some circumstances. A plumber may not be able to serve you because he has too much other work, should you be able to sue him ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2017)

From a purely business perspective in most situations it's wise to not turn away paying customers unless you are unable to cope with the additional work.

The exception is where you're trying to create some sort of image surrounding the business and simply don't want certain types of people as your customers. Anywhere that has a dress code policy is doing that very openly. 

Those (and there are plenty) who use their intentionally vague dress code policy as a means of turning away anyone who isn't their target demographic (regardless of what they're wearing) are doing it less openly but working around the law to keep out of trouble with discrimination etc. Nightclubs are the obvious example there.

If a marriage celebrant wants to turn down work then nobody's actually going to sue them if they simply say they're too busy.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

So why not this:-

* Make a copy of the Marriage Act

* Change the title to The Gay Marriage Act

* Cross out "between a man and a woman", replace with "between two people of the same gender"

* Pass the Gay Marriage Act through Parliament.

Gays could get then married under their own Act, men and women can get married under the original Marriage Act, and both have the same rights under the law.

Everyone is happy.

Comments ?


----------



## dutchie (19 August 2017)

Way too simple. You can't use common sense.


----------



## pixel (19 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Comments ?



You must have been watching too much "Common Sense", Rumpy 
That would be far too easy. Therefore, it won't be happening.
Besides, not "everyone" would be happy: Many god-botherers would want the term "marriage" be patented for their narrow interpretation. And some in the rainbow brigade would still cry "Discrimination" because they're covered in a separate act.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

pixel said:


> Besides, not "everyone" would be happy:




Oh yes, I forgot, everyone is happy right now aren't they ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2017)

Had an interesting conversation with a friend (one half of a same sex couple) on this subject.

She sees the whole thing as a legal formality and nothing more. In a practical sense well they already both use the same surname (officially changed for one of the two), already wear a wedding ring, they had a ceremony albeit not with any legal status, nobody has stopped them registering their details anywhere as Ms and Mrs and so on.

So they see the whole thing as a legal formality and nothing more.

As for those worried about same sex couples raising children, well they have two (same mother for both) and as she puts it they were conceived "in the normal way". Suffice to say that nothing I've seen with their family gives me any concerns and I'd say they're doing a better job of parenting than quite a few heterosexuals I can think of. They see their father (no it's not me by the way!) far more than a lot of kids do that's for sure.

No doubt there would be dud relationships among gays but then there are dud relationships among heterosexual couples too. Only today I head of yet another marriage breakdown from someone I know and yes they have children. And that's a man + woman marriage in the traditional sense.

I share my friend's view that the marriage issue a symbolic formality rather than something with a real practical impact. It won't change how anyone lives no matter what their sexual, religious or other preferences.

FWIW - They've been together 24 years so that counts as stable in my view.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> Suffice to say that nothing I've seen with their family gives me any concerns and I'd say they're doing a better job of parenting than quite a few heterosexuals I can think of.




I'd like to get the opinion of the kids after they leave home as to how they felt during their upbringing. They may turn out very well socially and educationally etc but still feel that they missed out on something. This stuff will come home to roost in the next generations imo. 

Of course you can say that good gay parents are better than bad straight parents, but lets compare like with like otherwise comparisons are invalid.


----------



## Value Collector (19 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So why not this:-
> 
> * Make a copy of the Marriage Act
> 
> ...



Why not just change the marriage act to "between two people" and be done with it?


----------



## luutzu (19 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd like to get the opinion of the kids after they leave home as to how they felt during their upbringing. They may turn out very well socially and educationally etc but still feel that they missed out on something. This stuff will come home to roost in the next generations imo.
> 
> Of course you can say that good gay parents are better than bad straight parents, but lets compare like with like otherwise comparisons are invalid.




Then compare those kids raised by gay parents to gay kids raised by straight parents in a society that discriminate against their queerness. 

Haven't you seen what it did to Chris Cooper's character?

I know, father figures are important. But so are mother figures. So are loving parents. Those without a "strong, silent, no nonsense" father figure can always have the same from their mum/s. Those without loving parents will have to rely on DOCS, CentreLink and their MPs?


----------



## SirRumpole (19 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Why not just change the marriage act to "between two people" and be done with it?




Because gays are fundamentally different in the way they choose their partners.


----------



## Tink (20 August 2017)

Mothers and Fathers Matter
Marriage is a pro-child institution



Rainbow fascism - not allowing opponents to speak


----------



## Tink (20 August 2017)

_Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. 
And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. 
History has stopped. 
Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right._

- George Orwell, 1984.


----------



## Logique (20 August 2017)

My expectation:

If Plebiscite says 'Yes' - will be accepted by the rainbow coalition as fair and reasonable

If Plebiscite 'No' - the rainbow coalition will undermine and discredit the result at every turn, and simply renew their activism


----------



## SirRumpole (20 August 2017)

Logique said:


> My expectation:
> 
> If Plebiscite says 'Yes' - will be accepted by the rainbow coalition as fair and reasonable
> 
> If Plebiscite 'No' - the rainbow coalition will undermine and discredit the result at every turn, and simply renew their activism




I think that will be the case, but I don't think the other side will act any differently either.


----------



## satanoperca (20 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Mothers and Fathers Matter
> Marriage is a pro-child institution
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, children - man and women.

Well produced video, so i assumed paid performers.

The ONLY thing 
I say it again, the ONLY thing a child requires
It is not a man and a women, but 

LOVE. That is it.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 August 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Interesting, children - man and women.
> 
> Well produced video, so i assumed paid performers.
> 
> ...




I'd rather have the love of two biological parents than one and a test tube.


----------



## Tisme (20 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd rather have the love of two biological parents than one and a test tube.




That would be Mummy and Pyrex?


----------



## Macquack (20 August 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Well produced video, so i assumed paid .



That's what I was thinking.
Those two gay guys were so convincing that I am looking forward to their next video where they will talk themselves "straight".


----------



## Value Collector (20 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Because gays are fundamentally different in the way they choose their partners.



What do you mean by that?


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That may not be practical in some circumstances. A plumber may not be able to serve you because he has too much other work, should you be able to sue him ?



Indeed. I tell people to stick their work up their khyber for all sorts of reasons.

Especially endurance racers, theyre all freakin idiots. If I get an enquiry,  its no no no.

Is that discriminatory?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What do you mean by that?




95% of the population choose partners of the opposite gender.


----------



## Tisme (21 August 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Interesting, children - man and women.
> 
> Well produced video, so i assumed paid performers.
> 
> ...





I don't think their is anything about "LOVE" in the Bible. Koran, etc etc being the foundation of marriage is there?

I was brought up to just accept marriage as a thing that people do to make their own nest and to prevent out of wedlock births. I have a feeling that is a tradition that goes back many thousands of years for manifold reasons ... love is merely a transitive phase between lust and pipe/slippers.


----------



## Tisme (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 95% of the population choose partners of the opposite gender.




That the figure is reducing goes to prove the tommy rot of congenital/genetic sexual bias is in fact a learned response and once the fad is over come another generation, will their be a conscience vote to reverse the insanity that has swept the masses?

My solution is rather simple. Give "marriage" to the 2%ers and get the religious institutions to invent a new coupling "thing" and lobby the govt to give special status to the new "thing" that exclusively respects the sanctity of evolution, survival of the fittest and skyfairies.


----------



## Tisme (21 August 2017)

If two tansgender people marry is that:

1)  two marriages person Σƒn(½P1 + ½P1 =1) + (½P2 + ½P2 =1) = 2
or
2) one marriage of four people Σƒn(½P1 + ½P2 + ½P1 + ½P2)/2 = 1


----------



## Tisme (21 August 2017)

From Tony Abbotts facebook page:


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 95% of the population choose partners of the opposite gender.




So what?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So what?




So it means that traditional marriage and same sex unions are different things and should be dealt with separately.


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> traditional marriage and same sex unions are different things and should be dealt with separately.




Why though?

they aren't that different, they can be easily be dealt with the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Why though?
> 
> they aren't that different, they can be easily be dealt with the same.




Because a lot of people are getting sick of a minority pushing the majority around.

A same sex union Act would preserve the tradition of marriage but still allow SS couples to have their partnerships recognised in law.

It would also solve the question of religious freedom. Churches could choose only to perform marriages under the Marriage Act, other celebrants could choose either or both. Everyone should be happy.


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Because a lot of people are getting sick of a minority pushing the majority around.




So when blacks protested against being forced to seat in the back of the bus, was that the "minority pushing the majority around", 

Was it enough to say, "well the blacks still get to ride the bus, and go to all the same places, so they have nothing to winge about"



> It would also solve the question of religious freedom. Churches could choose only to perform marriages under the Marriage Act, other celebrants could choose either or both. Everyone should be happy.




Pretty weak reasons to me.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So when blacks protested against being forced to seat in the back of the bus, was that the "minority pushing the majority around",




That's pretty weak.

Under a separate act, SS couples would have the same rights under the law as straight couples.

Your problem with that is ?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Pretty weak reasons to me.




I thought you were a great supporter of religious freedom ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I thought you were a great supporter of religious freedom ?



Yes but part of that is not denying rights to others, I thought I had explained that already.



> Under a separate act, SS couples would have the same rights under the law as straight couples.




So why have two acts???


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes but part of that is not denying rights to others, I thought I had explained that already.




LGBTI's will have the same rights as others to have their partnerships recognised in Law. 



> So why have two acts???




GOTO 233


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> LGBTI's will have the same rights as others to have their partnerships recognised in Law.





Except they won't have the right to marriage.

any way this is going around in circles, and still no one has shown a single way same sex marriage causes harm, it all seems based around protecting the feeling of the religious crowd, or unrelated red herrings.


----------



## Logique (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So when blacks protested against being forced to seat in the back of the bus, was that the "minority pushing the majority around",
> Was it enough to say, "well the blacks still get to ride the bus, and go to all the same places, so they have nothing to winge about"
> Pretty weak reasons to me.



Gays are perhaps 1-2% of the Aussie population. Those who would actually want to get married, at best, perhaps half of that.

There is no real comparison with % of 'blacks' in the US.


----------



## tech/a (21 August 2017)

OK

Have you noticed how Women are becoming more Masculine and
Males are becoming more Feminine.

Making marriage of like sexes just adds to the acceptance that
society is happy with this move toward Equality.

Problem is that there are areas that wont ever be equal no matter
you package it.

Frankly I'm glad I've lived in a world full of REAL men and REAL women 
Men who are men and women who love a door opened or a few Roses.
Rather than the one in the car park at the shopping centre at lunch who
with a Bieber hair cut and overalls gave me the fingers--- told me to
Duck off as she came towards me in her Pick up going the wrong way.

OR the Advertising guy that came down the other day wearing a pair of
Sunnies that Paris Hilton would have been proud of. But when asked if
he'd like to come on site to understand what we do declined--it was too wet
muddy and cold.

In the long run I'm sure it will cause way more harm than imagined and the
gender gap closes and the meaning and role of real men and women is blurred
possibly lost to some.
But if that's a world you want---that's what you'll have.

Now you have the possibility (and will be more so soon) of Husbands leaving
marriages for another man and Women for another woman.
A night out with the girls/boys brings on a whole new meaning!
Are you sure your JUST friends?

I can see baby showers when genders are known sporting both sex gifts.
Single cubicles in men's locker rooms.
Sexual harassment cases going same gender.
The list goes on and on.



Value Collector said:


> no one has shown a single way same sex marriage causes harm




No one is game to speak up ---too afraid of being seen as Biased/Bigoted.
Pussies.


----------



## Logique (21 August 2017)

To the SSM lobby, I don't think lesbian _in vitro _treatment should be entitled to the Medicare rebate.

Kids like a Mummy and a Daddy. The taxpayer dollar should be spent where it can provide both.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Except they won't have the right to marriage.




It's pretty obvious that you are just playing word games. If separate legislation gives equal rights under the law then I thought that was what the gay lobby wanted, but if not it seems to be a political strike at "normal" society, trying to pretend that they are just the same as the rest when in this case they are not.


----------



## tech/a (21 August 2017)

'' Dad why are those two men Kissing?

Because they are attracted to each other.

Its totally normal
Nigel --- You know Uncle Gary well Daddy went out with him
before I married your mother.

Yes Mummy is attracted to Aunty Sophie. She comes around
a lot.

Totally normal Nigel."


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> '' Dad why are those two men Kissing?
> 
> Because they are attracted to each other.
> 
> ...




Nigel


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

Logique said:


> Overhang, where is you evidence for that?
> 
> The Coalition were elected on the promise of a plebiscite. That's clear evidence.



The coalition were elected on many promises they have broken, not sure why this one matters so much.  But I never really like that argument anyway,  I support SSM but it's low down on my priorities that dictate my vote, I'm sure many others are the same.
Here is your evidence.


> In a clear sign a plebiscite would pass the legalisation of same-sex marriage, a Fairfax Ipsos poll of 1377 voters on Sunday night to Wednesday night found 70 per cent of people supported legalised same-sex marriage
> http://www.afr.com/news/politics/el...iage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z#ixzz4qMjn102z






> *An SMS Morgan Poll shows a clear majority of Australians (76%) say gay people should have the right to get married in Australia while only 24% say they should not. This special SMS Morgan Poll was conducted last week, February 25-26, 2016 with a cross-section of 1,572 Australians.
> http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6...gay-marriage-february-march-2016-201607191635*




And just today 


> The poll, conducted for _The Australian _less than a month out from the postal plebiscite, shows 63 per cent of Australians are planning to vote ‘Yes’.
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...s/news-story/933f730174ea69a3a2b51bc60b5fb77f




Do you have evidence to the contrary?


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So it means that traditional marriage and same sex unions are different things and should be dealt with separately.




I hope the majority of Australians don't support your opinion on that.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

overhang said:


> I hope the majority of Australians don't support your opinion on that.




Why ?


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Why ?



Because the no vote would win


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2017)

People keep talking about the right to marry. Well yes,  men and women have a right to marry. People of the same sex have never had that right as it must engineered inro existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling. 

If we're fair there probably should be a legal facsimile of marriagewith some exclusions regarding children etc, but I'm wirh others,  call it something different. 

Then everyone is happy.

As it stands, I'm still a firm no.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Because the no vote would win




It doesn't look like that will happen if the surveys are correct, but who knows in today's world ?


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> People keep talking about the right to marry. Well yes,  men and women have a right to marry. People of the same sex have never had that right as it must engineered inro existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling.



Well it appeared they actually had the right to have their marriage recongised but then Howard changed the definition without any plebiscite or postal survey.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It doesn't look like that will happen if the surveys are correct, but who knows in today's world ?



After Brexit I wouldn't be gain to bet on a yes win


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

Logique said:


> Gays are perhaps 1-2% of the Aussie population
> There is no real comparison with % of 'blacks' in the US.




So if blacks only made up 2% of the population it in 1950's America, then in your opinion the racist legislation was ok, I disagree.


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> No one is game to speak up ---too afraid of being seen as Biased/Bigoted.
> Pussies.




You are speaking up, why don't you provide a valid reason to show how recognising gay marriage causes harm and should be banned.


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's pretty obvious that you are just playing word games.




No its you playing word games, your whole position is 

"lets give them all the rights, but lets not let them use our word" that is a word game.


your argument is like saying, "why should blacks use our drinking fountains?, their fountains are supplied by the same water source, what does it matter, they have the same rights to water"


----------



## Value Collector (21 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> People keep talking about the right to marry. Well yes, men and women have a right to marry. of the same sex have never had that right as it must engineered inro existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling.
> 
> .




You can say the same thing about most other progressive human rights movements.

e.g.

_"People keep talking about the right to Vote. Well yes, men have a right to Vote. people of the female sex have never had that right as it must engineered into existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling."_


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> No its you playing word games, your whole position is
> 
> "lets give them all the rights, but lets not let them use our word" that is a word game.




They can call it "Same Sex Marriage" for all I care.



> your argument is like saying, "why should blacks use our drinking fountains?, their fountains are supplied by the same water source, what does it matter, they have the same rights to water"




Black people drink water the same as white people, gay people don't choose their partners the same as straight people.


----------



## tech/a (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You are speaking up, why don't you provide a valid reason to show how recognising gay marriage causes harm and should be banned.




I did
It's written above your quote in my post
You just don't call anything opposed to same sex marriage as " valid "
It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You can say the same thing about most other progressive human rights movements.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> _"People keep talking about the right to Vote. Well yes, men have a right to Vote. people of the female sex have never had that right as it must engineered into existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling."_



Nonsense,  you are conflating completely difference concepts.

There had never been any logical or moral impediment to equal voting rights, equal pay, equal opportunity etc.

With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage,  ie raising families etc


----------



## satanoperca (21 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> N
> With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage,  ie raising families etc




That is incorrect, a gay couple can raise a family, they just cannot create life.


----------



## tech/a (21 August 2017)

It's not a family it's missing a component
Huge.
A Mother or Father 
And if more than one child 
Blood Brothers or sisters.

Nothing stronger


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

You like the idea of two males together don't you tech/a.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> I did
> It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.




There has to be a point where someones view is not worthy of acknowledgement.  Freedom of speech allows everyone a view but freedom of speech also allows those with invalid views to be ridiculed for what they are, often people mistake this for political correctness.  Personally someones view becomes invalid when it can be proven incorrect by statistics, scientific research etc (think flat earth).  It also becomes invalid when their view impedes the rights of others that has no tangible negative repercussions.  SSM is the latter, no one is forcing anyone to have a SSM, this isn't at all about children, it's merely opposing what someone else can do because opponents believe marriage is between a man and a women.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2017)

Who gives a crap anyway. 

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

overhang said:


> it's merely opposing what someone else can do because opponents believe marriage is between a man and a women.



As you quoted, facts are important. Marriage between a male and a female in Australia is not a belief, it is a fact. People are defending what is marriage in Australia against changes to suit a minority group that have a different sexual orientation.

To add, no one is preventing queers from marrying, it simply isn't formally recognised and from the perspective of religious types, not a ritual they will perform.

To add more, if we were all poofs, lesbo's or whatever then there would be no issue.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> As you quoted, facts are important. Marriage between a male and a female in Australia is not a belief, it is a fact. People are defending what is marriage in Australia against changes to suit a minority group that have a different sexual orientation.
> 
> To add, no one is preventing queers from marrying, it simply isn't formally recognised and from the perspective of the religious types, not a ritual they will perform.
> 
> To add more, if we were all poofs, lesbo's or whatever then there would be no issue.




It's a law, that's what it is, laws always change and always will change as has marriage in this country many times.    We would have never progressed as a society if laws couldn't be changed because that's just what they were and what we believed at the time.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

overhang said:


> It's a law, that's what it is, laws always change and always will change as has marriage in this country many times.    We would have never progressed as a society if laws couldn't be changed because that's just what they were and what we believed at the time.



Well all consideration should be focused on whether a law change will progress or regress society.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage,  ie raising families etc



I'll argue that society has already largely rejected any link between marriage and raising a family.

Sure, some get married and then have children. Others do it in the reverse order. Other parents don't get married at all.

There was a link in the past most definitely but it's substantially gone these days. In 2017 whether or not the parents are married is a matter of fact question rather than something which, if the answer is no, will be looked down upon.

Whether or not a couple is married has no practical effect on their ability to raise a family in Australia in 2017 and that applies regardless of the sexual preferences of the adults involved.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> Whether or not a couple is married has no practical effect on their ability to raise a family in Australia in 2017 and *that applies regardless of the sexual preferences of the adults involved*.



Interesting Smurf. Should consideration be given to the psychological effect on the raised being. No mother/father, two male or female or whatever parents while other families have a natural arrangement. 
People are self serving by nature, the survival thing, but this could be seen as taking selfishness to a new height.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well all consideration should be focused on whether a law change will progress or regress society.



Which it is, no valid reason has been given that it will regress society.  I have already linked a study that indicates attempted suicide rates drop amongst youth in states that have SSM legalised.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Which it is, no valid reason has been given that it will regress society.  I have already linked a study that indicates attempted suicide rates drop amongst youth in states that have SSM legalised.



Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll argue that society has already largely rejected any link between marriage and raising a family.
> 
> Sure, some get married and then have children. Others do it in the reverse order. Other parents don't get married at all.
> 
> ...



All agreed, (and I think that's a bit of a shame really) but that was the purpose of marriage when it was devised, it's very definition.

And I have no objection to ss couples or unmarried couples raising families, nor a legal structure for union and commitment, as I've said before.

For me it's about resisting the extreme left PC grievance industry at every opportunity. I want to say yes in essense, that's only fair, no on the nomenclature. But I won't be given that choice.

So it's still a no from me.


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.



I see where you're coming from but as you said it's different because it has quite obvious negative side effects to society, for example alcohol and THC combined are a deadly cocktail on our roads, far worse than alcohol or THC alone.


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> For me it's about resisting the extreme left PC grievance industry at every opportunity. I want to say yes in essense, that's only fair, no on the nomenclature. But I won't be given that choice.
> 
> So it's still a no from me.




Why not pick each fight on their merits?  The extreme left aren't right about everything but they're not wrong about everything either.  Same as the extreme right, one can be opposed to the extreme right while still supporting offshore detention and tight borders.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.




Let me tell you first hand how hooch does not equate to a reduction in violent behaviour. That is a myth and really  parallels the observation that Rum makes many people merry, but quite a few extremely violent.  It is a drug that destroys the part of the brain that controls self control and heavy prolonged use results in sociopathic behaviour and eventually schizophrenia in quite a few cases.

You want to see them enmasse go visit a mental ward at the hospital nearest you where they are are hidden away for a few weeks at a time between episodes


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Why not pick each fight on their merits?  The extreme left aren't right about everything but they're not wrong about everything either.  Same as the extreme right, one can be opposed to the extreme right while still supporting offshore detention and tight borders.





That would be meritorious for sure. But you are suggesting something that even your good self won't tolerate when it comes to logical discussions about e.g. SSM.

e.g. let me state a *fact *and see if you will agree without trying to satisfy your need to defend your entrenched position:

Q. there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic or congenital  yes/no ?


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> That would be meritorious for sure. But you are suggesting something that even your good self won't tolerate when it comes to logical discussions about e.g. SSM.
> 
> e.g. let me state a *fact *and see if you will agree without trying to satisfy your need to defend your entrenched position:
> 
> Q. there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic or congenital  yes/no ?




I have already provided links to you in another thread that indicates that we do in fact have enough proof to say that homosexuality has biological deviations outside of the norm for heterosexuals. 



> The midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure in homosexual men was 18% larger than in heterosexual women and 34% larger than in heterosexual men.



https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf


> Dean Hamer finally feels vindicated. More than 20 years ago, in a study that triggered both scientific and cultural controversy, the molecular biologist offered the first direct evidence of a “gay gene,” by identifying a stretch on the X chromosome likely associated with homosexuality. But several subsequent studies called his finding into question. Now the largest independent replication effort so far, looking at 409 pairs of gay brothers, fingers the same region on the X.



http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

So to ask you the question you never answered with a simple yes or no

Do you believe that being gay is a conscious decision?


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

overhang said:


> I have already provided links to you in another thread that indicates that we do in fact have enough proof to say that homosexuality has biological deviations outside of the norm for heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf
> ...





My point is proven. People, all people are analogues using binaries to argue in favour of an opinion and analogues to disagree.

I already answered your question, but if you want a succinct answer to a "do you still beat your wife"  cliche then yes of course  being gay is a cognitive decision, and off course it's a choice to act out those desires, but as I explained previously there are alternatively those who have an unconscious drive to be gay. In the absence of proofs that it's genetic or congenital, it must be the brain at work consciously or sub consciously, chemically or imprinted. No one makes anyone actually perform their sexual cravings, we actually insist that youth abstain through laws, girls and women voluntarily remain chaste regardless of their desires and some religious orders insist their pastors do the abstinence dance too.


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> My point is proven. People, all people are analogues using binaries to argue in favour of an opinion and analogues to disagree.
> 
> I already answered your question, but if you want a succinct answer to a "do you still beat your wife"  cliche then yes of course  being gay is a cognitive decision, and off course it's a choice to act out those desires, but as I explained previously there are alternatively those who have an unconscious drive to be gay. In the absence of proofs that it's genetic or congenital, it must be the brain at work consciously or sub consciously, chemically or imprinted. No one makes anyone actually perform their sexual cravings, we actually insist that youth abstain through laws, girls and women voluntarily remain chaste regardless of their desires and some religious orders insist their pastors do the abstinence dance too.




Your point isn't proven at all, you reject scientific evidence that counters your preconceived notion that being gay is a choice.  Of course acting on sexual urges is a choice but the point is that they don't choose to have those urges, I've never had sexual urges for another man, maybe you're suppressing yours.

I can't believe in the 21st century there are still those that believe being gay is a choice.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Here's a good question to ponder.  It sort of relates to the adoption issue which I still can't figure out.

Did you choose your own parents?  (hint: the answer is 'no').  So what process made that decision?  In other words, why did you end up being born in Australia instead of in the slums of New Delhi, to parents who had nothing and didn't care for you?  The process must involve both energy and an encoding of information.  So... what is it?

It's quite possible that the same info/energy that decides who/where you are born is deciding where/why you were abandoned, and to whom you might be adopted.  Mind bending possibilities.  We really have no idea how life works, do we?

If free will is real (and it may well not be), then we probably should try to ensure we are living in tune with whatever this decision making process happens to be.  This is not a judgmental religious statement.  More like - a plant needs water, light and nutrients.  Should we try to ensure all plants get what they need?  Or leave it to Nature and stop stressing about stuff we can't control?  I don't have the answers.


----------



## tech/a (22 August 2017)

*GB*
A question I have asked in the presence of a few Scientists.
The answer was this.

In laymen's terms

The same way all life came to being a very long process of things coming together
at a point in time to then come together with other things to form the events that
we recognise as life.

The odds of actually being born if you consider the number of eggs and Sperm that
just live and then die without fertilization is billions to 1.
The odds of being YOU are Quadrillions to one.
Place time no choice---it just happens.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/infographic-the-odds-of-being-alive-2012-6?r=US&IR=T

The last thing one of them said I found profound.

"When you realise how impossible it is to experience life
you should seriously consider how you live it!"


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Black people drink water the same as white people, gay people don't choose their partners the same as straight people.




Not all straight people choose their partners the same,.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> I did
> It's written above your quote in my post
> You just don't call anything opposed to same sex marriage as " valid "
> It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.




A valid reason to ban something would prove harm, So far I haven't seen any of your arguments state how allowing gay marriage wold be harmful.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage,  ie raising families etc




Thats a red herring, because Men and women who are not able to biologically have children and those that simply don't want to are still allowed to marry.

Also, gays already have the right to adopt, so they are already forming families.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Your point isn't proven at all, you reject scientific evidence that counters your preconceived notion that being gay is a choice.  Of course acting on sexual urges is a choice but the point is that they don't choose to have those urges, I've never had sexual urges for another man, maybe you're suppressing yours.
> 
> I can't believe in the 21st century there are still those that believe being gay is a choice.





Look the thing is that you are welded to an opinion that has no foundation of proof. 

Your post seem to denigrate choice as some kind of evil, but then proceed to propel your choice in promoting gay activities. I'm not blaming you for making those choices, it must be agony for you coming up against people who are comfortable enough to have a position counter to your own. Personally I couldn't give a rats what gays do, so long as they observe discretion and cleanup/disinfect afterwards.

I think I came in for lots of stick a while back for professing I thought marriage was a secondary effort to the bond a couple has and I certainly didn't subscribe to it for years until kids were on the horizon and their birthright to know their biological parents were legally bonded for their welfare and belonging. NO kids, why get married I say.

Other than that I have intimated it before and I'll repeat Marriage has become a side show occasion and should probably be hived off to gay people and a new 2017 version introduced for hetrosexuals who want top shelf , first grade organic kids rather than synthetic off the shelf versions


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

tech/a said:


> *GB*
> A question I have asked in the presence of a few Scientists.
> The answer was this.
> 
> ...




Yes I like that sentiment, in the sense that it generates feelings of gratitude for just being here.  But I'm not sure how easy that would be for the child born in a rubbish tip, abandoned to die within its first year.  Because stuff like that happens, as you know. 

Life certainly does "just happen", and the more I learn about it, the more ignorant I feel.  The big questions remain unanswered.  Life is a total mystery.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Here's a good question to ponder.  It sort of relates to the adoption issue which I still can't figure out.
> 
> Did you choose your own parents?  (hint: the answer is 'no').  So what process made that decision?




Mostly luck (either good luck or bad luck depending on your opinion)

Basically, you are the result of a single sperm entering a single egg.

If on the day you were conceived another sperm had entered the egg, you wouldn't exist, had through random chance another egg been in the womb, you also wouldn't exist.

Given the thousands of sperm that could have entered the egg the day you were conceived but didn't because yours got there first and possible different combinations with your mothers other eggs, you stand in the place of millions of potential people that could have existed, but won't see the light of day.

we are indeed lucky to be alive.


----------



## tech/a (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes I like that sentiment, in the sense that it generates feelings of gratitude for just being here.  But I'm not sure how easy that would be for the child born in a rubbish tip, abandoned to die within its first year.  Because stuff like that happens, as you know.




Absolutely.
It just highlights the randomness of life.
We are all fooled by Randomness!


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes I like that sentiment, in the sense that it generates feelings of gratitude for just being here.






> Life certainly does "just happen", and the more I learn about it, the more ignorant I feel.  The big questions remain unanswered.  Life is a total mystery.




I wouldn't say its a total mystery, many questions have been answered, and some of the "Big questions" are not as big as those that want to keep you mystified make out.


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Thats a red herring, because Men and women who are not able to biologically have children and those that simply don't want to are still allowed to marry.
> 
> Also, gays already have the right to adopt, so they are already forming families.



It's not a red herring at all and your argument is entirely fallacious.  I said the **purpose of marriage,  whether that is fulfilled or not.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> It's not a red herring at all and your argument is entirely fallacious.  I said the **purpose of marriage,  whether that is fulfilled or not.




Which part of the marriage act states children is the purpose, I can't find it?


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

"When we institutionalize same-sex marriage... we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires." -Katy Faust


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Which part of the marriage act states children is the purpose, I can't find it?




 The section about legitimacy


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Look the thing is that you are welded to an opinion that has no foundation of proof.
> 
> Your post seem to denigrate choice as some kind of evil, but then proceed to propel your choice in promoting gay activities. I'm not blaming you for making those choices, it must be agony for you coming up against people who are comfortable enough to have a position counter to your own. Personally I couldn't give a rats what gays do, so long as they observe discretion and cleanup/disinfect afterwards.




Your posts in summary are all your opinion, you ask for scientific proof homosexuality isn't a conscious choice.  I provide it, you reject it without providing any evidence yourself.  I doubt any amount of evidence could convince you otherwise.  Maybe you need to go out and talk to some gays and tell them you think they chose to be this way, or maybe you could run a successful gay conversion clinic, it may be quite lucrative if you happen to be correct.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I wouldn't say its a total mystery, many questions have been answered, and some of the "Big questions" are not as big as those that want to keep you mystified make out.




Do you know who you are?  No.  (I can prove this much using logic).
Do you know who/what you were before being conceived?  No.
Do you know what happens after you die?  No.
Do you know the purpose of life?  No.
Do you know why you are in this body as opposed to that body?  No.

I don't know either.  I have no idea and nor does the likes of Dawkins (science zealot).  Big questions.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Are these the "Big questions" you were talking about? because I think they aren't that big at all, some are even pointless.



Gringotts Bank said:


> Do you know who you are?




I am me, and thats all I can be (rather silly answer, but the question is also rather silly and pointless)


> Do you know who/what you were before being conceived?



.

Before I was conceived I was a sperm and an egg.



> Do you know what happens after you die?




Yes, your brain ceases to function, and you decompose. All the evidence points in the direction that "You" e.g. your mind and personality is an emergent property of your physical brain, and there is no evidence to suggest that any part of "You" exists outside your brain



> Do you know the purpose of life?




It's up to you to decide what the purpose of your life is.

Asking "what is the purpose of life(in general)?" is a silly question, it's like saying "What is the purpose of mountains?", well mountains exist because the natural forces of nature caused them to exist, but they have no "predesignated purpose" they are what we make of them, if you love skiing then there purpose for you is skiing, just like the purpose of your life is for you to decide and what you make of it.



> Do you know why you are in this body as opposed to that body?




Because this is the body that was the result of genes from the sperm and the egg that I came from



> Big questions.




there are so many more interesting questions about the universe and how we got here that have been solved, I don't know why you think these questions you asked are interesting or hard


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> and there is no evidence to suggest that any part of "You" exists outside your brain




Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



Sometimes it is, But the time to believe something is when you have evidence.

And there is a whole lot of evidence that suggests "You" e.g. your personality and your consciousness is directly linked to your physical brain.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I am me




I am me?

You might have well have answered "I am I" and thought that was acceptable.  Because now I'll ask what is the 'me' to which you're referring?  The body?  The personality?  Something else?

When you existed as a sperm _and _an egg, you're telling me you existed as two separate things in two separate locations?  Can a tree be both a tree and a cloud?


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Because now I'll ask what is the 'me' to which you're referring?  The body?  The personality?  Something else?




The personality, which is an emergent property of my physical brain, which is part of and supported by my physical body.



> When you existed as a sperm _and _an egg, you're telling me you existed as two separate things in two separate locations?




Well if we talking about "Me" as in my personality, I didn't exist until after my brain formed and started working, this happened long after the sperm and the egg met.

But if you are just asking "what was the pancake before it was a pancake" then the answer is it was a bunch of separate ingredients e.g. flour and eggs, just like the sperm and egg were separate before conception.




> Can a tree be both a tree and a cloud?




the state of being a "Tree", is temporary. Before the tree was a tree its various components would have been clouds, and as they came together at a certain point you would label it a "tree" and then at the end of its life as it ceases being a tree its components may return to being a cloud.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

overhang said:


> Your posts in summary are all your opinion, you ask for scientific proof homosexuality isn't a conscious choice.  I provide it, you reject it without providing any evidence yourself.  I doubt any amount of evidence could convince you otherwise.  Maybe you need to go out and talk to some gays and tell them you think they chose to be this way, or maybe you could run a successful gay conversion clinic, it may be quite lucrative if you happen to be correct.





I never suggested I could cure the homosexual malaise, did I?

You haven't provided any proofs, merely axioms predicated on the absence of knowledge = suppositions.

There is a vast difference between incontrovertible proof and fantastic stories and you know I have only posted proofs and you haven't so far as I can ascertain. You too easily take the word of the "victims" rather than scientifically eliminate the intangibles and phantoms.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The personality, which is an emergent property of my physical brain, which is part of and supported by my physical body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I exist so therefore I am.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The personality, which is an emergent property of my physical brain, which is part of and supported by my physical body.




So if your identity is the personality - _if that's really who or what you are_ - then realize that when you're in slow wave sleep, the personality is non-existent.  It's completely absent in any form.  Are you happy to concede that you die - and I mean _literally_ die - every night?


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

overhang said:


> I see where you're coming from



I see where you're coming from yet my will is strong and it won't be changed by any pro same sex marriage (including disruption fanatics) whittlers.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> So if your identity is the personality - _if that's really who or what you are_ - then realize that when you're in slow wave sleep, the personality is non-existent.  It's completely absent in any form.  Are you happy to concede that you die - and I mean _literally_ die - every night?




These are philosophical questions that have little to do with the title of the thread, although quite interesting in themselves.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Gringo, I saw your last post. I meant no offence and please carry on. Maybe your wanderings will determine why some people are gay and therefore have some relevance to this thread.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Gringo, I saw your last post. I meant no offence and please carry on. Maybe your wanderings will determine why some people are gay and therefore have some relevance to this thread.



I know you meant no offense and none was taken... I was fooling around also.

I think philosophy is related in the sense that none of us can say who we are anyway,... that's quite a stumbling block.  And as for free will... I mean, it just gets too hard.


----------



## overhang (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> I never suggested I could cure the homosexual malaise, did I?
> 
> You haven't provided any proofs, merely axioms predicated on the absence of knowledge = suppositions.
> 
> There is a vast difference between incontrovertible proof and fantastic stories and you know I have only posted proofs and you haven't so far as I can ascertain. You too easily take the word of the "victims" rather than scientifically eliminate the intangibles and phantoms.




There is also a huge difference between identifying anomalies and understanding the reasons for those anomalies.  As I have shown there is proof that gays have biological anomalies but why these occur are unknown.  This is vastly more relevant than your theory you have put forward and I emphasise that this is your theory as you're yet to provide any proof or any shred evidence to support your claims.  Frankly if I wanted to hear "you know I'm right" without any supporting evidence then I'd have this conversation with my 8yo nephew.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> So if your identity is the personality - _if that's really who or what you are_




That is who we are, think about when peoples brains have died, and there is no chance they are ever going to wake up, family and doctors will switch off life support allow the body to die and then bury it in the ground.

the whole concept of the "soul", leaving the body is just an ancient  attempt to explain why a dead body no longer has a personality, its obvious to every one that something that existed inside the body before is now gone, turns out its just the brain stopped working, so the brains emergent property e.g. our consciousness ceased to exist.




> - then realize that when you're in slow wave sleep, the personality is non-existent.  It's completely absent in any form.  Are you happy to concede that you die - and I mean _literally_ die - every night?




I wouldn't describe it as death, but yes I would call certain phases of sleep unconsciousness, But other phases of sleep parts of your personality are present, e.g. during dreaming.

I would describe "dying or death" as a process which results in a state that makes a return to consciousness not possible, a brief spell of unconsciousness isn't death.

Even when your brain is shut down due to anaesthesia you aren't dead, your are just paused, and provided your brain doesn't suffer damage, the emergent property we call consciousness and "you" will return.




*But as Rumpole said, this is not related to this thread, feel free to send a link to another thread if you with to continue this discussion.*


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> now gone, turns out its just the brain stopped working, so the brains emergent property e.g. our consciousness ceased to exist.




Right, so the identity is consciousness itself?  And this same consciousness is not a stable identity in the sense that it comes and goes as we sleep.  I like it, but...

I can be aware of my consciousness happening.  I can describe that process in language and say "I am aware of being conscious".  So, what is the 'I' in that statement?  It can't be more consciousness because the subject cannot simultaneously be the object.  What is it?

[If anyone complains, I'm sure Joe will split it off and create a new thread for us].


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Right, so the identity is consciousness itself?  And this same consciousness is not a stable identity in the sense that it comes and goes as we sleep.  I like it, but...




Not only that, as I said it is an emergent property of the physical brain. Damage or change the physical Brain and the identity can change. you can lose the ability to feel certain emotions, you can lose memories etc.

To me this is a clear sign that personality is directly linked to the physical brain, the two are one in the same so to speak.




> I can be aware of my consciousness happening.  I can describe that process in language and say "I am aware of being conscious".  So, what is the 'I' in that statement?




to me you are just describing being self aware, which apart from word games that try to make it more esoteric, I can't see why its hard to understand that a physical brain, which has the emergent property of consciousness, can be self aware and describe itself.



> the subject cannot simultaneously be the object.




why not?



> [If anyone complains, I'm sure Joe will split it off and create a new thread for us].




I would prefer if you moved to another thread


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> To me this is a clear sign that personality is directly linked to the physical brain, the two are one in the same so to speak.
> 
> to me you are just describing being self aware, which apart from word games that try to make it more esoteric, I can't see why its hard to understand that a physical brain, which has the emergent property of consciousness, can be self aware and describe itself.



I don't know how to move it.  Joe, are you there?

The brain is definitely not the mind.  The brain is the hardware, the mind is the running software.  The brain is real, the mind is ephemeral and intermittent.  If they were the same then unconsciousness would not be possible.  

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing - describing self-awareness.  But you already said that the 'me' is consciousness.  Now you're adding another layer - a meta-consciousness - one which is capable of observing normal consciousness.  So normal consciousness cannot be me if 'I' am observing it.  I must be the meta-consciousness, right?  

It's not word games.


----------



## Tink (24 August 2017)

Competing Rights in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/08/15/4718836.htm

_Deciding whether to legalize same-sex marriage involves dealing with a clash between adults' claims and children's rights._


Children need a mother and a father.
No to changing Marriage.


-----------------------------------
_
http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/_


----------



## overhang (24 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Competing Rights in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/08/15/4718836.htm
> 
> ...




The opinion piece would have merit if same sex couples required marriage to raise children but it's not the case, marriage or not they can already raise children so its a moot point.


----------



## Tink (24 August 2017)

The Gold Standard of 'man and woman' and as stated in the UN - Marriage - one man and one woman to have a family.

That should be protected for the next generation.


----------



## overhang (24 August 2017)

The gold standard society was when women couldn't vote but we've past that point and must settle with the society we have.

The next generation are already deciding and in overwhelming numbers they seem to be deciding that same sex couples should have the right to marry.


----------



## Tisme (24 August 2017)

Tink said:


> The Gold Standard of 'man and woman' and as stated in the UN - Marriage - one man and one woman to have a family.
> 
> That should be protected for the next generation.




The inevitable rise of untreatable STDs, as the next generation realise enmasse they are all homosexuals as dictated by the nanny state, will see a rethink of why homosexuals were sent out of the tribe in the first place.

Rose coloured glasses seem to have obscurated the clarity of why and how AIDS spread through the gay community and why SSM is a trojan horse designed to empower a relative few to determine the agenda of community, politics, wealth and influence of the future....why you ask, because for the first time in modern history the relaxation of guards at the moral gates means they can and keep up the rampant promiscuity with a whole turned generation into the bargain.


----------



## Tink (24 August 2017)

There is no 'right' to marry.

Marriage is about children and raising those children.

Taking responsibility for the children, not handing them to the state.

The state should have no business in same sex marriage.

It goes against children.

Same sex unions - they have all the same rights.

The Gold Standard should stay.


----------



## overhang (24 August 2017)

Marriage is a right, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right to marry.  

The state has no business in denying same sex couples the right to marry.

The gold standard society has been and gone, sadly women can vote.

The meaning of marriage for you isn't what it is for everyone else just like the meaning of mine isn't either, that's what the survey is for.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 August 2017)

The age of disruption.


----------



## Tisme (24 August 2017)

Tink said:


> The Gold Standard of 'man and woman' and as stated in the UN - Marriage - one man and one woman to have a family.
> 
> That should be protected for the next generation.




loud, but you might enjoy Tink:


----------



## Logique (25 August 2017)

332 posts - for 72 poll votes. Is the outcome - indifference?

Or are people reluctant to vote to make both Christianity & Islam illegal. Because that's where it's headed on a Yes vote. Against your beliefs to conduct a SSM? See you in court buddy.


----------



## Tisme (25 August 2017)

Logique said:


> 332 posts - for 72 poll votes
> 
> Is the outcome - indifference?





I think the silent majority has convinced itself that the outcome is inevitable and getting on with about the only thing left that hasn't been clawed away from them and isn't dictated or regulated by govt and the PC patricianists = breathing in public. I'm sure I just broke a law that says I shouldn't presume to think for myself, let alone hold my own views.


----------



## basilio (25 August 2017)

There will be a change of social landscape if the Marriage Equality Bill is passed. Gay married relationships will have a legal acceptance as being a valid part of the community. 
Does that mean that relationships between men and woman will somehow be seen as strange or unusual?  It seems that is the fear of advocates for a No vote.  That acceptance of the other will lead to suspicion and derision of the current only legal form of marriage.


----------



## Tisme (25 August 2017)

basilio said:


> There will be a change of social landscape if the Marriage Equality Bill is passed. Gay married relationships will have a legal acceptance as being a valid part of the community.
> Does that mean that relationships between men and woman will somehow be seen as strange or unusual?  It seems that is the fear of advocates for a No vote.  That acceptance of the other will lead to suspicion and derision of the current only legal form of marriage.




It's simply an insult to those who consider marriage a sacrosanct union, that will be sullied and devalued by a fallacious carnival of deliberate vandalism. No biggy, just another rite of passage that will be relegated to history leaving yet another vacuum of social cohesion for our future robotic offspring. 

Parenting will be next to transition away from biological bonding.


----------



## Logique (25 August 2017)

Sis tells it like it is.







> 23 August 2017 - *As a 30-year-old woman, everyone expects me to vote 'yes'. But I won't be  - *Katherine Harper:  http://www.smh.com.au/comment/as-a-...o-vote-yes-but-i-wont-be-20170823-gy2aar.html
> I am a 30-year-old woman of liberal upbringing and no particular religious affiliation. Among my peers it is a foregone conclusion that I will be voting "yes" in the upcoming postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. To admit otherwise would be akin to confessing that I am secretly a homophobe or hate preacher.
> The fact is: I will be voting "*no*"....In my experience, the debate in the lead up to this postal plebiscite has been characterised by this sort of prejudice by the "yes" voters and their intolerance of genuine discussion around the issues. Legitimate debate is being drowned out; anyone who whispers a doubt to voting "yes" is immediately shunned ....What I'm not OK with is the shutting down of our right to sensible public debate and considered decisions.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 August 2017)

The age of zealotry.


----------



## Tisme (25 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The age of extremism.




You get the likes of Virginia, the self appointed voice of the people on ABC Breakfast sneering about the age of entitlement, but constantly promotes the rights of the individual's comfort as the expense of the community. She is one of those living ironies that is topsy turving community attitudes for no aother reason than because she can.


----------



## moXJO (25 August 2017)

I'm leaning towards no.

The debate has been hijacked, politicized, warped into an attack on free thinking and turned into something a long way where it should have been.
If it was passed with minimal fanfare or hype, I would have been fine.

US has gone mad with its PC BS. Now knocking over statues to try and erase history. 
Equality is now only for those standing on your ideological side.


----------



## basilio (25 August 2017)

This is all crazy xhit and  this thread probably pulls together the range of issues surrounding the conversation.

The No camp seems to have taken the view that marriage for gays is effectively the end of civilizatiuon as we know it. We will see our religious rights lost, our Freedom of Speech  challenged, our children indoctrinated by Marxist, separatist, feminist, nazi lesbians and a new world of gender fluid aimless pleasure seekers.

The Yes camp has watched the advance of civil society over 40 years that has recognised gay people as  just another form of normal as distinct from being perverts, sickos, mentally diseased or simply unfortunate. In my view society has tried to "normalise"  (accept perhaps?) many previously  suspect   groups. Think non whites, disabled, autistic,( women ?)  gender uncertain ? slaves (that was a long time ago - but not really folks)

The Church was the bastion of sexual normality for a long, long time.  If one took Christian sexual teachings literally people only ever had sex with one person, of the opposite sex,  when they were duly married and chiefly to have a child. This epitime of sexual "normality" somehow didn't fit the reality of peoples desires.  But never mind - from The Churchs perspective they were doing Gods Work and that is a noble fight to evangilise the world for God and Truth and keeping Heretics, Witches, Perverts at bay with whatever tools are deemed necessary.

In 2017 the influence of the traditional Christian Churches has fallen to all time lows. The disconnect between zealous religious teachings and a pluralistic world has become a chasm. The realisation that almost all religious groups have  widely abused their power by allowing  sexual exploitation against children and the weak has resulted in a catastophic loss of moral authority. _( The Church does shine when it teaches a Gospel of Love, acceptance, social justice, practical support for the poor and disadvantaged. Much like Jesus Christ actually preached. Unfortunately religious leaders with such teachings are viewed as Marxists and Revolutionaries. ) 
_
So in the real world we watch as gay friends, their partners, our children, our politicans, our workmates live lives just like us. Same problems, same joys, same triumphs. They just happen to live with people of the same sex.  And the world hasn't ended. It many ways it seems happier and healthier and more accepting. 

I suggest that is why the vote for Marriage Equality on this thread runs 2 to 1 in favour. In the real world many  people, Conservative and Liberal alike, are seeing that homosexuality is not a deviance or a curse that needs to be feared or crushed in the name of normality. In that context allowing gay relationships the recognition of marriage simply seems fair and just.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 August 2017)

So endeth the first lesson.


----------



## basilio (25 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So endeth the first lesson.




WTF ?? Is that as dismissive as it sounds Rumpy ? Should I have used less words and being a bit simpler ? Perhaps Gays Great - Straights Awful ? God is Dead ? Burn the  Witches and Heretics ? Cardinal Pell for Pope ?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 August 2017)

basilio said:


> WTF ?? Is that as dismissive as it sounds Rumpy ? Should I have used less words and being a bit simpler ? Perhaps Gays Great - Straights Awful ? God is Dead ? Burn the  Witches and Heretics ? Cardinal Pell for Pope ?




Probably a bit too flippant, sorry.

Look I agree than in 99% of things gays are no different to anyone else.

In one way that affects relationships they are vastly different in the way they choose their partners.

The distinction should be made. I've argued that they should be able to marry under a different legislation while leaving traditional marriage alone..

So I will be voting no untill the option of alternative legislation is available.


----------



## grah33 (25 August 2017)

<<The No camp seems to have taken the view that marriage for gays is effectively the end of <<civilization as we know it.
perhaps because gays were around, very common place 2000 years ago.  and society back then was dysfunctional, even dumbed down. the "end of civilization " viewpoint is that if you don't value and practice 'purity' (ie sexual restraint, one of several  classic western values), society starts to go 'wild'.  Gay marriage will help destroy the notion of what true marriage is, and encourage behavior that leads to instability in society.  hence the "end of civilization", or regressing to the way of life 2000+ years ago.  and if that happens, there will definitely be less money flows for us to get into.  dysfunctional societies will struggle to work 9-5 every day.


----------



## basilio (25 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably a bit too flippant, sorry.
> 
> Look I agree than in 99% of things gays are no different to anyone else.
> 
> ...




That seems puzzling. "They are vastly different in the way they choose their partners" From my experience, limited as it is, gay people people choose a relationship partner from the same broad pallete as straight people. For example how hot are they ? Do they like me ? Are they fun ? interesting,  share similar interests? Perhaps they are challenging ?  I struggle to see how they are "vastly different " and I'm wondering how this affects the issue of them choosing to make a public marriage committment.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 August 2017)

basilio said:


> That seems puzzling. "They are vastly different in the way they choose their partners" From my experience, limited as it is, gay people people choose a relationship partner from the same broad pallete as straight people. For example how hot are they ? Do they like me ? Are they fun ? interesting,  share similar interests? Perhaps they are challenging ?  I struggle to see how they are "vastly different " and I'm wondering how this affects the issue of them choosing to make a public marriage committment.




So you see nothing different whatever in choosing a partner of the same sex as themselves in contrast to 95%+ of the population ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 August 2017)

So I am starting to think natural attraction, male / female, is actually a learned human function. Learned firstly from our one to one mother and father relationship then the circle of influence as our sensory input is broadened. My heteronormativity is waivering. Maybe I am gay, maybe I am a female trapped in a male's body, maybe I am both male and female at once.
Will a boy new to the world be confused by the (possibly) new sexual normality or will they understand that world population needs to be controlled and same sex relationships contribute to the greater cause for humankind.


----------



## Value Collector (25 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> So I am starting to think natural attraction, male / female, is actually a learned human function.





According to the anti gay crowd it is, they are the ones that try to say "Being gay is a choice".


----------



## grah33 (25 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> According to the anti gay crowd it is, they are the ones that try to say "Being gay is a choice".



yes and no.  it's true that some young people start realizing that they have some different tendencies within themselves, deep seated sexual attractions for the same sex, and they don't like it one bit (it makes them feel depressed).  i won't deny that. that's very true.  all anti gay marriage people should be able to recognize this, or they're really not getting it.  even the catholic church understands that.  And, as i said before, there are also many adults who are strongly attracted to children, though they would never harm them. both are abnormal conditions imo.  but so what ??  it doesn't have to be the end of the world.  they just need support and understanding.   on the other hand though, it's also a choice if one chooses to live out the gay lifestyle.  it's also a choice for a married person, whether he wants to pursue an affair or not.  

also, what about all the other people out there who can't have a partner because they're sick or disabled or whatever, or nobody just wants them.  it's hard for them too.  i think all these groups just need more support and understanding.  but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.


----------



## satanoperca (25 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.



 WTF, really. 

Society will be worse if people don't have four basic things; air, water, food, shelter. \

Please provide an example of how society will be worse if gay marriage is allowed?

Gay married is a long way down the list for destroying society.

What does it matter to you who want to f--k who or in this case who want to marry who.

Tired of society being tied to the religious right, they don't own society nor do they own marriage.

If the debate was, should a gay couple be allowed to be married in a church, we that is up to the church, but that is not the debate. 

Should they be recognized under the current law of the land as legally married, YES.

In 100 years time, this debate will look farcical, there will be no two camps, gay or straight, there will only be shades of grey from straight - bisexual - gay. 

It is only religion that has told us we need to be straight, what a joke.

As for you need a man and a woman to procreate to create life, not even true today and in the future you will not even need full able males and females, just parts of, but we have enough bacteria destroying the planet, homo sapiens.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> also, what about all the other people out there who can't have a partner because they're sick or disabled or whatever, or nobody just wants them.  it's hard for them too.  *i think all these groups just need more support and understanding*.  but bringing in same sex marriage will revolutionize society for the worse.



Highlighted part to me is the wrong direction society is going. I don't want to support and understand everyone in the world with mental or physical issues. The government imposes laws and taxes on the majority of society to support everyone and everything with mental or physical issues. At an extreme, the government could strip its paid working people of all income and free will in order to maintain a society where everyone is regarded "equal". At present it nibbles the fringes and occasionally goes for a bigger bite.


----------



## Tink (25 August 2017)

Political Correctness is its own religion.

Legislation went through in 2008, where same sex and hetero have the same rights.

Marriage is one man and one woman.
A father and a mother.
It is about the children,
Parents taking responsibility and raising their children.

Article 16.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

mother and father
husband and wife
ladies and gentlemen

They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.

---------------------------------
_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_


----------



## grah33 (25 August 2017)

satan:
on this forum i don't think anyone will be able to give any solid proof to you about anything.  here it's about what we think and feel.


----------



## Logique (25 August 2017)

basilio said:


> ..homosexuality is *not a deviance or a curse* that needs to be feared or crushed in the name of normality



Bas, apologies for the cherry-picking, but who ever said it was?  SSM lobby - just allow the community time to catch up. Australians don't like being told what to do.

And by the way, an iron-clad guarantee of immunity from prosecution for Christian and Muslim clerics wouldn't hurt. That's a deal breaker. And for the bakers too.


----------



## pixel (25 August 2017)

Tink said:


> mother and father
> husband and wife
> ladies and gentlemen
> 
> They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.



you're treading on thin ice here, Tink.
In "our language", you also find word origins like "woe-man", which is a poor (woeful) copy of a man. Or more recently, when your allegedly "best civilisation ever" brought their culture to the nobodies (the "nulls" in "Terra Nullius"), note the distinction between Oak and She-Oak. The former remained reserved for the proud and strong British tree, while the latter was coined for the Casuarina, an Australian timber that has a similar pretty grain, but which splits very easily and was therefore considered inferior - hence the prefix "she-".

If you want to maintain origins of language as part of our culture, thus banning society to move towards a more humane and updated society, by all means say so. But don't pick and choose.
*Move on!*​


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 August 2017)

Tink said:


> mother and father
> husband and wife
> ladies and gentlemen
> 
> They are a part of our culture, our language, our foundations.



Defining in so many ways beyond sexual preference. I am with you Tink, say no to redefining what marriage is.


----------



## satanoperca (25 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Defining in so many ways beyond sexual preference. I am with you Tink, say no to redefining what marriage is.




I have appreciated your contribution for many years, Wysiwg, but given someone has a moniker, of "Everyone wants money", you lack of understanding and acceptance is I cannot accept, I little bit disappointed, I thought you were of greater understanding that you showed


----------



## cynic (25 August 2017)

In years gone by, despite my cultural upbringing, I had considerable sympathy for the homosexual community, largely on account of the needless verbal and physical abuse to which I know that many had been subjected. Our society has become noticably more supportive of the needs of that community and it seems that roles have reversed with the  once persecuted now transmuting themselves into persecutors.

Recent developments have alerted me to the tendency, of some members of that community, to overlook the fact that society doesn't only exist to accomodate the needs of homosexuals - heterosexuals of all ages and backgrounds also have needs!

If this issue is truly about remedying a perceived inequality, then I fear that society may be making the error of pandering to the whims of "career victims" whilst neglecting to notice the various ways in which those "career victims" have now licensed themselves to persecute others.

This assault, on a long established institution, looks suspiciously like it may be merely one symptom of a much deeper problem.

Until there is more transparency about the true motivation/s underlying this issue, and the likely ramifications, I consider it unwise to entertain any proposed amendments to the marriage act.


----------



## Macquack (25 August 2017)

Logique said:


> Sis tells it like it is.



That is the flimsiest comment I have read on this thread.

Boo hoo, Sis is going to vote NO because everyone else is voting YES, Sis is expected to vote YES, but Sis does not have a brain of her own which if she did she could make up her own mind.

To make a protest vote of NO, without any substance what so ever, because YES is probably going to win is utter nonsence.


----------



## Hodgie (26 August 2017)

It will be interesting to see the general opinion on forums (or the general public) such as this in 20-50 years time once the law is inevitably passed. My prediction is people will look back at these times and think why on earth did we worry about it so much. Society isnt going to break down as a result.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> Society isnt going to break down as a result.




That's your opinion.

But if we continue to stretch the boundaries of what marriage and families are to include artificially manufactured children, then who knows where that will take us.

Societies don't degenerate suddenly, they get eaten away over time. Already the cry is "gays can have children so why can't they marry ?" . The discussion of whether gays should be allowed access to parenting schemes like adoption and IVF was done behind the scenes with no public discussion. Had it been widely known that we were going to allow manufacture of children to satisfy the inferioty complexes of gays, I believe there would have been wide objections.


----------



## Hodgie (26 August 2017)

But you are just speculating with a comment like "who knows what could happen" 

There are many other countries around the world which have already passed similar laws and I haven't seen any unbiased evidence to show that it had a negative impact on their society.

I understand your concern (whether i agree or not is irrelevant) with the parenting factor but if thats already occuring than what will ssm change?

It seems like your assuming the worst without any solid evidence to support that argument.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> It seems like your assuming the worst without any solid evidence to support that argument.



You're predicticting the best without evidence. We don't know how Australians will deal with homosexuality going mainstream. That being television and movies shows featuring homo's. Homo's walking down the street holding hands and kissing. Homo's pushing a stroller along the footpath. The sexuality unsure swinging to the gay camp.

Acceptance could take a generation or two as the present day 'old school marriage practices' dies off and the adopted or surrogate children of homo's see their father and father, mother and mother, transexual and transexual and whatever you like  as a natural and normal parentage.


----------



## Hodgie (26 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> You're predicticting the best without evidence. We don't know how Australians will deal with homosexuality going mainstream. That being television and movies shows featuring homo's. Homo's walking down the street holding hands and kissing. Homo's pushing a stroller along the footpath. The sexuality unsure swinging to the gay camp.
> 
> Acceptance could take a generation or two as the present day 'old school marriage practices' dies off and the adopted or surrogate children of homo's see their father and father, mother and mother, transexual and transexual and whatever you like  as a natural and normal parentage.




It sounds like your saying its not ok for gay people to be in public. 

If a law is changed there wont suddenly be more homosexuals around. They just wont have to feel like there is something wrong with them.


----------



## Hodgie (26 August 2017)

Also there are plenty of "homo's" already in mainstream television. Most of what we watch comes from abroad anyway so our laws are kind of irrelevant in that regard.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> It sounds like your saying its not ok for gay people to be in public.



They do what they want as far as I care. The issue to me is they are not male and female for marriage as per the timeless tradition, cultural norm, lawful union, father/mother parentage and definition. Why change it?      


> *If a law is changed there wont suddenly be more homosexuals around*. They just wont have to feel like there is something wrong with them.



I bet there are thousands waiting at closet doors for the government's green light. The coming out generational explosion.


----------



## cynic (26 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> It sounds like your saying its not ok for gay people to be in public.
> 
> If a law is changed there wont suddenly be more homosexuals around. They just wont have to feel like there is something wrong with them.



I am wondering whether, decades from now, society might experience an emergence of closet heterosexuals as a consequence of the likely confusion that could potentially ensue for children adolescing in predominantly homosexual family environments.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2017)

Pickering's take

http://pickeringpost.com/story/we-are-coming-for-your-marriage-act-boys-and-girls/7500


----------



## Tisme (26 August 2017)

basilio said:


> This is all crazy xhit _................._
> So in the real world we watch as gay friends,............... live lives just like us.




No they don't. You need to get out more often and mix it up with the gay community. They are promiscuous, they have a different value system, they favour their own in business and social dealings and they must* each *have hundreds of thousands of hetro friends because every hetro that defends them talks about having homo "friends".......... which just goes to show how many bandwagon liars there are out there.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> Pickering's take




Rolling on the floor laughing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> No they don't. You need to get out more often and mix it up with the gay community. They are promiscuous, they have a different value system, they favour their own in business and social dealings and they must* each *have hundreds of thousands of hetro friends




As with anything it will vary between individuals.

There's plenty of men who see that having had sex with a huge number of women is some sort of badge of honor. And for that to be happening there must be plenty of women willing to go along with it. Likewise there are others of both genders who have had far fewer sexual partners.

As for friends, well if homosexuals are a small % of the population then it stands to reason that the average gay person is going to be friends with quite a few heterosexual people whilst the reverse will not be true. That's just basic maths there and no different to saying that there's hundreds of potential drivers of every Holden Kingswood still on the roads or that there's a million + people in Australia for every water slide at Sea World.

Personally I don't choose to be friends with someone based on their sexuality. That's relevant only if I intend having sex with them. Suffice to say I've never had sex with most of my friends and I expect that situation would apply to most people.


----------



## grah33 (26 August 2017)

other countries may not have SSM, but their view of marriage is different than the western version ( they have polygamy).  and living in those countries isn't  ideal for many of their citizens.


----------



## pixel (26 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> other countries may not have SSM, but their view of marriage is different than the western version ( they have polygamy).  and living in those countries isn't  ideal for many of their citizens.



Bollocks!!
You have just slighted the bulk of European countries.


> Malta and Germany have become the latest European countries to legalise gay marriage, joining more than a dozen others on the continent.
> 
> The Netherlands became the first in the world to allow homosexual couples to tie the knot at the turn of the century.
> 
> ...


----------



## grah33 (27 August 2017)

u misunderstood me.
note: sometimes my words and tone don't actually reflect what i mean, same for everyone else i guess (the limitation of forums)...

but as for those countries, it's too soon.  but form what little i just saw they already going downhill :
"IRELAND'S WARNING: FIRST GAY MARRIAGE, THEN YOUR FREEDOMS WILL FALL"
_On Tuesday night the latest bastion against religious intolerance was swept away, as the Dáil voted unanimously to repeal Section 37 of the state’s Employment Equality Act. Section 37 granted specific exemptions for “religious, educational or medical institutions” when it came to gay rights, allowing them “to maintain the religious ethos of the institution”._

and that will mean that lots of charities will no longer operate which is bad for society.  when you have religious institutions  inspired by their faith to help needy people (clothing, food , medical etc.), the government ought to leave them alone.  with less charity going on over there, it will be a worse place .


----------



## Tink (27 August 2017)

imv, we will end up the same as the US, Pixel.

Most of Europe stand by their traditions.

------------------------

Just have a look at all the statues they are trying to pull down.

Margaret Court is mobbed everytime she walks out the door by these terrorists in Melbourne.

Even to the extent of trying to wipe her name from the Margaret Court Arena that she achieved.

Stalinists, imv.


----------



## Tisme (27 August 2017)

Tink said:


> imv, we will end up the same as the US, Pixel.
> 
> Most of Europe stand by their traditions.
> 
> ...





If the Japs has succeeded taking Australia, there'd be no aborigines left, no whities, no English language, no christianity, etc, just Bushido law and giant ore pits feeding the Chinese and SE Asian Nippon colonies.


----------



## Logique (27 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> Pickering's take
> http://pickeringpost.com/story/we-are-coming-for-your-marriage-act-boys-and-girls/7500



Not far wrong either.







> We Are Coming For Your MARRIAGE ACT, Boys and Girls - Harry Richardson: http://pickeringpost.com/story/we-are-coming-for-your-marriage-act-boys-and-girls/7500
> ...I just don’t think the Government gives a dam about you or your partner. I think this issue is being used as part of some larger agenda.
> I don’t know exactly what that agenda is, but if Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten and Sarah Hanson-Young are all in favour, then I’ll be voting no on principle.


----------



## ghotib (27 August 2017)

Tink said:


> ...Marriage is one man and one woman.
> A father and a mother.
> It is about the children,
> Parents taking responsibility and raising their children.



When we married I was beyond child-bearing age, and I don't appreciate the suggestion that the status of my marriage depends in any way on our ability, or wish, to have children. If there's any argument against same sex marriage that would not also denigrate my marriage, I'll listen to it. But if such an argument exists naysayers have had a long time to find it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 August 2017)

I viewed a same sex marriage advertisement on television. The question was asked "so why can't we get married?" The reason is so obvious it alludes the desperate minority. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 August 2017)

To correct my spelling. The reason is so obvious it eludes the desperate minority.


----------



## basilio (27 August 2017)

It appears that a substantial majority of Catholics and Christians are supportive of same sex marriages - despite the directives of Church officials.

* Catholics defy church leadership to become biggest backers of same-sex marriage: poll *







*Michael Koziol*
 Contact via Email 
 Follow on Google Plus 
 Follow on Twitter 

172 reading now

A majority of Catholics, Christians and other religious groups support same-sex marriage and are inclined to vote for it in the forthcoming postal survey, according to new polling commissioned by advocates.

The "yes" side starts the campaign with the backing of 66 per cent of all Australians, with support among the non-religious at 79 per cent, compared with 58 per cent among people of faith, the research shows.

Catholics and non-Christian religions were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with two thirds of both those groups indicating they were in favour. For Anglicans, Uniting Church and Church of England, the figure was 59 per cent.

Marriage equality advocates will use the findings to encourage Australia's 5 million Catholics to ignore directives from the church's leadership and instead vote with their conscience.

*Archbishop Denis Hart wants Catholics to vote ''no''.  Photo: Darrian Traynor*
The polling was commissioned by the Equality Campaign. It was conducted last week by Jim Reed of Newgate Research, formerly of Liberal-aligned Crosby/Textor, and surveyed 1000 people online.

They were asked: "If you were to vote, do you think that you would vote 'yes' or 'no' to allowing same-sex couples to marry in Australia?" Respondents had to choose between "yes" and "no".

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...of-samesex-marriage-poll-20170825-gy49ea.html


----------



## grah33 (27 August 2017)

interesting. the number of people who believe in God is much higher than what I thought. explains why the no camp is trying to preach compatibility with Christianity to get more votes. which is nonsense (based on biblical texts) when you think about it. it would be the non practicing Christians that would be voting yes, while active church goers would be in the no group.


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2017)

Most of the no group in my sphere of acquaintances are not religious at all, just awake.


----------



## tech/a (28 August 2017)

Morning!


----------



## Tink (28 August 2017)

Stand up for the FAMILY -- Vote NO.
_(Father and Mother I Love You)_

Your parents, your grandparents.
They have all contributed in our society.

No more putting our forefathers down.

Marriage is about the FAMILY.

One man and one woman.


----------



## Logique (28 August 2017)

A poll of 1,000 people online, commissioned by the "Equality" campaign, and publicized in the Canberra Times. 

Yes I'm really believing that!


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2017)

There must be a lot of two faced people out there, because go onto any construction site and all the workers seem to have a loud voice of anti SSM. Go to a public bar and same disdain, but less loud.

These are the real Australians who do all the real things for our once great nation, while the cafe latte set sit at desks scribbling useless unproductive stuff and posting pro devil Memes on social media to keep busy in between barracking for the other team at art shows and alternative film venues.

Mother hen women and hen pecked men don't deserve a vote .... they haven't earned it


----------



## grah33 (28 August 2017)

Logique said:


> A poll of 1,000 people online, commissioned by the "Equality" campaign, and publicized in the Canberra Times.
> 
> Yes I'm really believing that!



good point.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> These are the real Australians who do all the real things for our once great nation, while the cafe latte set sit at desks scribbling useless unproductive stuff and posting pro devil Memes on social media to keep busy in between barracking for the other team at art shows and alternative film venues.



The true blues are still alive and well but are outnumbered in the large city multicultural melting pots.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The true blues are still alive and well but are outnumbered in the large city multicultural melting pots.





I hear you cobber.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2017)

```
https://www.facebook.com/breakfastnews/videos/10155101097068983/
```
 Check out the swarm of ABC tragics as they attack with quotes from the bible that don't exist, use bigotry and hate to get the SSM agenda across the line...the same irrational and false arguments used here the few.

Love it (find that (love) in the bible as a foundation for marriage)


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 August 2017)

ghotib said:


> If there's any argument against same sex marriage that would not also denigrate my marriage, I'll listen to it. But if such an argument exists naysayers have had a long time to find it.



Is there any reason for homosexuals, transvestites and bisexuals to marry? They don't meet the criterion.


----------



## Logique (28 August 2017)

Speaking of '_Farcebook_', love seeing it satirized, see from a Derbyshire poster, at link:


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2017)

See this proves that SSM won't make the distance, statistically speaking... that must have been like 1 in 2 SSM end in divorce right there.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/be0623da459df3006a92229f42f1bf67


----------



## bellenuit (28 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> See this proves that SSM won't make the distance, statistically speaking... that must have been like 1 in 2 SSM end in divorce right there.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/be0623da459df3006a92229f42f1bf67




I don't know where the 1 in 2 comes from, but one cannot simply compare the rates of divorce in SSMs to the rates of divorce in heterosexual marriages as the issues will not always be the same. For instance, I would assume that most SSMs at the moment are childless, but often it is for the sake of children that people endure broken down heterosexual marriages, which otherwise might have been better off dissolved. There are also pressures on SSMs that heterosexual marriages don't experience. 

And what distance do SSMs need to make? If it makes the couple happier for the few years they are married compared to just living together, isn't that a success in its own right?


----------



## Triathlete (29 August 2017)

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...beral-mps-reignite-push-for-marriage-equality

This poll is 65%  to 35% in favour of the NO vote


----------



## Tisme (29 August 2017)

See, SSM is a fallacious union, based on the fact homosexuality is a lifestyle choice:

https://stream.org/entire-lgbt-narrative-just-crumbled/


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2017)

The AIDS prevention campaign from late 80's. 

For the times they are a-changin'
B.D.

Read more: Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-changin' Lyrics | MetroLyrics


----------



## grah33 (29 August 2017)

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/535dcae290582136cb2445f3869ff820
(comercial add)

the times sure  are changing...


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2017)

It would be good to fact check if that information about school events is true and how widespread. Shorten has Penny Wong to support and is backing a win he votes for. The more I hear from Shorten, the less I like. Typical go where the momentum is and lie about what Labour can do for Australia. So fake. A lot of this stems from Turnbull not being able to or willing to say NO, this is the law. So weak.
You mob have forgotten about the 98% of Australians paying the way and spend a load of time and money on minority group wanters. Show me any of the minority group claimants not already getting a fair deal?


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

Here's another response on SSM from two leading catholic schools.  

Perhaps it's time for a total clean out of these schools as well ?

* 'Love is the primary gospel value': Elite Catholic schools defy church leadership on same-sex marriage *






Two of Australia's most prestigious Catholic schools have cautiously endorsed same-sex marriage in messages to parents, staff and students, directly rebuking recent statements from church leaders.

While stopping short of advocating a "yes" vote, St Ignatius' College in Sydney and Xavier College in Melbourne appealed to Pope Francis' teachings on love, mercy and non-judgment, and urged the school community to dwell on their own consciences.

The two Jesuit schools have educated generations of Australian politicians. St Ignatius', which is independent of the Catholic system, is the alma mater of former prime minister Tony Abbott and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten attended Xavier College.

Father Chris Middleton, rector of Xavier College, called on the church to reflect on the overwhelming support for marriage equality among young people, and cited an Irish archbishop who called for the church to take "a reality check".

*"In my experience, there is almost total unanimity amongst the young in favour of same-sex marriage, and arguments against it have almost no impact on them," Father Middleton wrote.

"They are driven by a strong emotional commitment to equality, and this is surely something to respect and admire. They are idealistic in the value they ascribe to love, the primary gospel value."*

The rector of St Ignatius', Father Ross Jones, outlined the rights already afforded to same-sex couples in Australia, adding many now wish to marry "for the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts".

He argued Catholic couples could "in good conscience" engage in sexual relationships for reasons other than procreation under the "order of reason" school of Natural Law, rather than a physicalist view.

"Presumably, same sex-couples, who make such a commitment to each other in good conscience, do so by reflecting on experience and on what it is to be human, using their God-given reason," Father Jones wrote.
*
In his August 24 letter, Father Middleton sought to downplay the role of religion in the upcoming postal survey. While maintaining the church had a right to participate in the debate, he noted: "The vote relates to marriage as a civil right, and is not in essence about the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage."*





Parents at Xavier College in Melbourne were asked to consider whether denial of same-sex marriage was "unjust discrimination". Photo: Wayne Taylor
Father Middleton also suggested the church exposed itself to charges of hypocrisy following the revelations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
*
"To be brutally honest, the church speaking out in controversial areas around sexuality risks being mired in vitriolic attacks on its credibility in the aftermath of the royal commission," he wrote.*

The Xavier College rector cited a letter by Archbishop Tim Costelloe of Perth, an opponent of same-sex marriage, who wrote that there should be no "unjust discrimination" against same-sex couples.

But Father Middleton turned that around and told parents: "For many Catholics engaged in the debate the critical question is whether the denial of the right to civil marriage is an 'unjust discrimination'?"

*In St Ignatius' newsletter Viewpoint, principal Paul Hine rejected a warning from Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart - revealed by Fairfax Media last Sunday - that staff at Catholic schools and parishes who entered same-sex marriages could be sacked.

Dr Hine said it was a difficult time for same-sex attracted people, who faced an "onslaught" from not only the media but also "religious institutions"*. 


"I do not know if Riverview has any LBGTQI teachers or parents in the college and if they have intentions of marriage: I won't be asking with a view to removing them from the school," he wrote.

"Those of same-sex orientation who are part of our community are welcomed and valued as part of the greater mission of the church, and that is to bring God's love to the world and those in need of it."





Paul Hine, principal of St Ignatius College, Riverview, cited Pope Francis in his letter to parents. 
A recent poll commissioned by same-sex marriage advocates found 66 per cent of Catholics said they were inclined to vote "yes" in the upcoming postal survey - the same proportion as the general population.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...ship-on-samesex-marriage-20170829-gy66eo.html


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

For those interested in one Catholic Theological POV on this debate perhaps this newsletter from the Rector of Xavier College is interesting.


From the Rector
The postal vote on same-sex marriage will no doubt generate much discussion within families and communities, and, in particular, will play on sensitivities in Catholic circles where an understanding of sacramental marriage is so strong.

At the outset it is important to argue for a sense of civility and respect to be shown in this national debate, lest the degree of polarisation that has blighted the United States scene afflict us. Already there are worrying signs of overheated rhetoric. Former Justice Michael Kirby has virtually equated opponents of same-sex-marriage with hate speech. There is a campaign among advertising agencies to deny their commercial services to the no campaign.  The ABC has had to instruct its staff to avoid partisanship. On the ‘no’ side the Australian Christian Lobby has made the hurtful claim that the children of same-sex couples are a new stolen generation. Offensive _‘Stop the Fags’_ posters have appeared in Melbourne. There can be a tendency on both sides to so frame the debate as to unavoidably demonise the opposing view that is destructive. And it seems to me to be in the interests of both sides to avoid this. The ‘yes’ campaign, in my reading of the polls, can only lose if a perception of suppressing alternative voices alienates many in the middle, and the ‘no’ campaign can risk all credibility for its proponents in Australian society if they are identified with prejudiced or hateful language.  

It is important to the understanding of the emotions generated already in this debate to recognize not simply the two different positions, but also to recognize the two different lenses through which the debate is seen. For many on the ‘yes’ side the issue is about equality and the human rights of the LGBTI community, and from this perspective a vote on whether they have such rights, or not, in itself seems offensive (especially now that so much of the Western world have already recognized same-sex marriage). It leaves some exposed and feeling vulnerable to attacks about the most intimate part of life. On the other hand, many in the ‘no’ campaign believe marriage to be integral to social structure, and therefore an issue of significant social policy that is deserving of debate. They fear that something they cherish is being diminished and society is weakened.

For many Christians another dimension to the debate is that there is an understanding of marriage that predates civil marriage. In our Catholic tradition, the marriage vows (the priest does not marry a couple) signal a mutual covenant, based in God’s creative and loving relationship with us, anchored by Jesus’ teaching that God created us male and female, and that the two become one body. It is not simply a social construct and thus has an extraordinary importance for the believer. There are related concerns about religious liberty, about the freedom of those who will continue to hold to an understanding of marriage as a spiritual ideal.

Our Church leaders face a difficult path to tread in discerning how the Church should have its voice heard in this debate, both from a pragmatic point of view (what is achievable in a pluralist society) and from an ethical view (what is right or desirable). And to be brutally honest, the Church speaking out in controversial areas around sexuality risks being mired in vitriolic attacks on its credibility in the aftermath of the Royal Commission.

Two reflections have been helpful for me. One Jesuit pastor notes that _“the Catholic Church has two distinct modes of teaching about marriage and they should not be confused. The far more important teaching is about marriage as a sacrament grounded in earthly realities; the second concerns the role of marriage in God¹s plan and so about its social aspects. Of course, these two sets of teaching are related. Whereas, most other Christian Churches don’t make the distinction, so that any threat is a threat to the whole.” _In our social history, understandings of marriage have evolved and changed as our culture has changed (arranged marriages, the role of women, divorce and so on).

A Jesuit theologian writes about _“the importance of the Christian ideal of marriage for society”, _but that_ “its power lies in being lived not in enforcement”._ Such an emphasis leaves room for the Church to respect those who believe or live differently, while still witnessing to its own belief in the meaning of marriage. It could be argued then that _“the vote is not for or against Christian marriage but about what definition of marriage best serves the harmony and unity of civil society in its imperfect state”._

In this context, the Church needs to find a voice that is appropriate to the secular sphere – after all, the vote relates to marriage as a civil right, and is not in essence about the Catholic sacramental understanding of marriage. There are of course legitimate public issues about the nature of marriage as an institution in civil society, for the relationship of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks in society that impacts the common good, for good or ill. But such discussion, in which the Church has every right to participate in, needs to be determined on the merits of the arguments rather than through appeals to authority, religious or otherwise. There are also important aforementioned considerations of conscience and religious liberty connected with important social change, but they are more likely to be respected if the Church is not seen as an uncompromising enemy of same-sex marriage in civil society. At the same time, some proponents of same-sex marriage are disingenuous in reducing concerns about religious liberty to excusing religious marriage celebrants from requirements to officiate as same-sex marriages. Will, for example, Catholic school be free to teach a traditional approach to marriage? Will religious bodies be open to all kinds of civil suits if they only recognize traditional marriage in their specific religious contexts?

As one who works in a school and who is charged with witnessing to our faith to the young, it is clear that the debate exposes a real disconnect between the Church’s public opposition to same-sex civil marriage and the attitudes of young people. In my experience, there is almost total unanimity amongst the young in favour of same-sex marriage, and arguments against it have almost no impact on them. This has been the experience in many similar countries. In Ireland, Archbishop Martin of Dublin picked this up with his comments after the Irish referendum delivered a result in favour of same-sex marriage:

_I think really that the Church needs to do a reality check, a reality check right across the board, to look at the things it’s doing well, to look at the areas where we really have to start and say, ‘Look, have we drifted away completely from young people?’ _

Again it is important to draw the distinction between the argument about public policy in a secular state and our own moral positions. As Archbishop Martin commented further, _“That doesn’t mean that we renounce our teaching on fundamental values on marriage and the family. Nor does it mean that we dig into the trenches. We need to find...a new language which is fundamentally ours, that speaks to, is understood and becomes appreciated by others.”_ The Archbishop added that:

_We tend to think in black and white but most of us live in the area of grey, and if the Church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it. But all of us live in the grey area. All of us fail. All of us are intolerant. All of us make mistakes. All of us sin and all of us pick ourselves up again with the help of that institution which should be there to do that. The Church’s teaching, if it isn’t expressed in terms of love - then it’s got it wrong._

I believe that this last sentiment by the Archbishop is critical in how we communicate our views in areas like sexuality. It is a challenge for the Australian Church in our debate today, where the rhetoric of political discourse and partisanship can over-ride a pastoral priority.   Pope Francis’ call needs to be heeded:_“Let the Church always be a place of mercy and hope, where everyone is welcomed, loved and forgiven.”_

Whatever of the postal vote, the Church needs to reflect on why there such strong support for same-sex marriage among the young. They are driven by a strong emotional commitment to equality, and this is surely something to respect and admire. They know the reality of homophobia, and the destructiveness that it, like racism and sexism, can have in the lives of people, and especially on the young. They are idealistic in the value they ascribe to love, the primary gospel value. Any argument against same-sex-marriage must respectfully address these core values, or they will fail a basic test of credibility with our young. Such arguments must appeal to believer or non-believer alike.

A start is made by Archbishop Costelloe of Perth who in a pastoral letter written in defence of a traditional view of marriage articulates some carefully chosen words about a Catholic approach:

_This view presumes that marriage is about more than the mutual love between two people: it is also about the creation of a family. None of this suggests that there should be any unjust discrimination against same-sex couples. Nor does it suggest that legal protections and government benefits should be denied to same-sex couples._

_Many of us have family and friends in same-sex relationships: we love and respect them and want to see them treated with dignity,_

For many Catholics engaged in the debate the critical question is whether the denial of the right to civil marriage is an _“unjust discrimination”?
https://xavier.vic.edu.au/xavier/bulletin-article/90791/459/469/692/89889_


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

How bright is Tony Abbot to try and pin the Liberal mast to a No vote in the SSM plebisite? Perhaps he is creating an elaborate anchor to take the Liberal Party into the deep..

*Abbott's opposition to marriage equality will cost the Liberals for years to come *
Tony Abbott and other Liberal conservatives still imagine they can build a winning constituency from the no side. Instead, he has wrapped the party in impossible tangles


@Jeff_Sparrow 
Tuesday 29 August 2017 15.01 AEST   Last modified on Tuesday 29 August 2017 21.25 AEST

Though he devised his plebiscite scheme to trap equal marriage advocates, Tony Abbott unwittingly created a snare for the Liberal party, one that’s wrapped them in impossible tangles.

With every poll showing public support for reform, a cannier conservative might have quietly passed the necessary legislation, thus taking the subject off the table.

Instead, as I argued back in 2016, by committing the Liberals to a popular vote, Abbott placed his disagreement with the majority of Australians right in the centre of public debate.

He linked support for marriage equality – something that conservative parties elsewhere have accepted without much fuss – to opposition to the Liberal party, and he forced those who want change (namely, most of the population) to become politically active so as to get it.

Already, Malcolm Turnbull’s version of the plebiscite has unleashed an extraordinary tide of sentiment.

*A few random examples: *

Triple M – a station you might once have associated with “Tony’s tradies” – has updated its logo to incorporate a rainbow flag.
Pubs and music venues across Sydney have staged an Equality Weekender to encourage people to enrol to vote.
Singer Meghan Trainor reacted to the use of her image by no campaigners by joining Miley Cyrus, Ellen DeGeneres, Stephen Fry and other stars in urging Australians to support reform.
The Officeworks chain has declared it won’t allow the printing of hate speech at its facilities.
In Sydney and Melbourne and elsewhere, town halls have been illuminated to urge a yes vote.
Some 20 000 people rallied in Melbourne.
......
*Look at Tony Abbott’s own career (The joys of being young and carefree..)*

In the Quarterly Essay entitled Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott, David Marr describes the young Abbott launching himself into Sydney University politics by attacking gay students for “perversion”.

Publicly identifying himself “an infrequently practising heterosexual and drunkard” (truly!), Abbott opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. His friends remember the way he baited lesbians during political arguments.

But that, of course, was a different time, an era in which prejudice could be taken for granted.

If Abbott repeated today the language he used when he was promoting the Heterosexual Solidarity Society (yep, seriously), his parliamentary career would be over...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lity-will-cost-the-liberals-for-years-to-come


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

grah33 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/535dcae290582136cb2445f3869ff820
> (comercial add)
> 
> the times sure  are changing...




Billy Shorten was quick out of the blocks. He must feel the pain and misery of LGBxyz



> Australian Labor Party and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told Fairfax Media the ad was “offensive and hurtful to LGBTI Australians and their families”.


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

Having kids in a household that includes just one of these people is dangerous to them. Put two of them together in a sanctioned marriage and God knows what the ultraviolet lamps and microscopes would reveal. Icky, squishy, habits .... yuck, double yuck



> Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. Patients' symptoms are non-specific and seldom helpful in diagnosing particular diseases. The practitioner must be prepared to identify a number of infections with similar presentations that may occur singly or together in gay men. Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men. Carriage rates as high as 50% have been reported, and extra-genital carriage is common; this necessitates culturing the urethra, rectum, and pharynx. Procaine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients; spectinomycin is probably the drug of choice in penicillin-sensitive patients. In contrast to other venereal diseases, syphilis may have a characteristic protoscopic presentation. Benzathine penicillin G is the treatment of choice for most patients. Lymphogranuloma venereum causes penile lesions and inguinal lymphadenitis in heterosexual men, whereas homosexual men are more prone to proctitis. The disease may mimic Crohn's disease. Recommended treatment includes tetracycline or sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Shigellosis usually presents as an acute diarrheal illness. Patients generally require only supportive treatment with fluids. Herpes simplex viral infection is difficult to diagnose and has several different presentations, including lumbosacral radiculomyelopathy. Symptomatic treatment with sitz baths, anesthetic ointment, and analgesics is recommended. Venereal warts are believed to be caused by the same virus that causes verrucous warts; they are usually found in the anal canal or around the anal orifice. They are commonly treated with 25% podophyllin solution. Parasitic infections include giardiasis, amebiasis, and pinworm infections. Metronidazole may be used in the treatment of symptomatic giardiasis and amebiasis, but it is not approved for the former indication; quinacrine is approved for giardiasis. Pinworm infestation may be treated with pyrantel pamoate or mebendazole. Cure of enteric diseases in homosexual men must be documented.


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2017)

The left seem to be pushing the notion that love is the only prerequisite for marriage. Isn't that a dangerous path?

Couldn't the same logic be used to justify that  other relationships are  qualified ro marry?


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> The left seem to be pushing the notion that love is the only prerequisite for marriage. Isn't that a dangerous path?
> 
> Couldn't the same logic be used to justify that  other relationships are  qualified ro marry?




I don't think love is a prerequisite or encouraged in the current marriage legislation nor in the bible regarding marriage? I'll stand corrected if someone proves me wrong.


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

*"Your boy can wear a dress to school ?*" This thought provoking/horrendous idea is part of the No campaign against the SSM postal vote.  

Was this suggestion actually made ? Does it matter anyway if it was because after all it *could *have been said  (and surely that possibility alone is enough tp concern parents.)
And of course there is no necessaity to make factual or relevant comments in this debate. That has become abundantly clear.

Back to the semi-real world the Principal of the school from which the comment was (allegedlly) made says it never happened (but of course it* could have..*)

* 'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress *

2,189 reading now
 Show comments
A Melbourne principal has disputed a mother's claim – aired in an anti same-sex marriage TV ad – that her son was told he could wear a dress to school.

Cella White, who has previously appeared in videos attacking the Safe Schools program and whose claims have been heavily promoted by the Australian Christian Lobby, is one of three mothers featured in the Coalition for Marriage's debut TV ad which aired on Tuesday night.

"The school told my son that he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted," Ms White says in the 30-second commercial.

But the principal of the school in question, Frankston High, said Ms White's claim had no substance.
"We checked with all the teachers, it never happened," John Albiston said.

"I have never had any complaints that we advised the boys they could wear dresses. We didn't offer them that option.

"Why would this so-called incident that never happened have anything to do with marriage equality?"
Mr Albiston said Ms White had raised concerns with him about the Safe Schools program, but the school's uniform had never cropped up as an issue.
"She has never spoken to me about it," he said.

"You would think if she was so concerned she would have raised it." 

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...hat-son-could-wear-dress-20170830-gy6ygk.html


----------



## grah33 (30 August 2017)

>>In St Ignatius' newsletter _Viewpoint_, principal Paul Hine rejected a warning from Melbourne >>Archbishop Denis Hart - revealed by Fairfax Media last Sunday - that staff at Catholic schools >>and parishes who entered same-sex marriages could be sacked.

Which may be the right thing to do. you're gonna get furious parents who pay good money to send their kids to those schools, because they want them educated in certain values. They'll be furious if the gov modifies values over there (should they do that later on). 'clubs' have the right to run things their own way.

They appear to be using the clergy child molestation thing as leverage... as horrific as it is, it's not an excuse for the gov to start taking away religious freedom (if it does try to do that later on, wouldn't be surprised).

as for the priest's comments, a lot of blocky text there ... Yet there seems no purpose to it all. I mean common, let's get something straight here. if you're into religion, then you're not into gay marriage etc. It's a no-brainer really.


----------



## Logique (30 August 2017)

Could the LGBTi lobbyists sink any lower?

Now attacking ordinary Australian mums, simply for caring about their children's balanced values-based upbringing! On tactics alone, the SSM lobby deserve to lose. 

We all know what the Safe Schools agenda is Mr disingenuous school principal!







> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...hat-son-could-wear-dress-20170830-gy6ygk.html
> 30 Aug 2017:
> 'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress..


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2017)

Logique said:


> balanced values-based upbringing!




what does that mean?


----------



## Logique (30 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> what does that mean?



Not what the LGBTi and the Safe Schools program think!

Nor contrary to the societal mores handed down to us from 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought. Sorry to the SSM lobby if it's not groovy enough for a Newtown or Brunswick cafe in 2017


----------



## Junior (30 August 2017)

If two people love each other and want to get married, get amongst it I say.  Unlike many, the prospect of a man marrying a man does not terrify me, and cause me lost sleep.  Whatever makes you happy and causes no harm to others, is a good thing.

The arguments around harm to children, traditional definition etc. etc. are just a gigantic fear campaign and turning a simple issue of equality into a political issue.  There is a certain %% of the population that fear change and will blindly oppose change in all its forms.  Similar arguments have been wheeled out in the past when women gained the right to vote, when blacks were permitted to marry whites and when homosexuality become legal.

SSM WILL definitely be legalised, if not this year, then certainly the next time the Coalition loses an election - likely to be the next one based on how polls are trending.  Folks squirming and fighting it are wasting their energy and are delaying the inevitable.  SSM will happen and life will go on, your marriage will not be impacted one iota; perhaps you should be fighting the concept of divorce - which destroys 30% of all marriages and has a tangible and proven negative impact on children.


----------



## Junior (30 August 2017)

Further to the above, no matter which poll you choose to believe, you'll find that those in the younger demographic overwhelmingly support change.  To me, this is important for two reasons:

As this group ages, and as teenagers are added to the voting roll, support will only get stronger.  The definition of marriage WILL change in this country, so those opposed will need to open their minds a little and get used to the idea.
These are the people who are actually getting married.  All due respect to the 65+ amongst us, but on this particular issue younger folk should be heard, as it has a far greater impact on them then older folk who have already been married (often more than once), and probably won't be doing it again.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2017)

Junior said:


> These are the people who are actually getting married. All due respect to the 65+ amongst us, but on this particular issue younger folk should be heard,




A lot of young people just go along with the anti establishment radicals, a rebellion against their elders as they always have done. It doesn't mean that their views are any more valid than those who have had a few more years to think about the issues.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2017)

Logique said:


> Not what the LGBTi and the Safe Schools program think!




I am asking what you think it means?


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of young people just go along with the anti establishment radicals, a rebellion against their elders as they always have done. It doesn't mean that their views are any more valid than those who have had a few more years to think about the issues.



saying that, the older generation has always tended to be slow on the uptake when it comes to social change.

I mean my 81 yearly grandmother still gets upset when we go to the city once or twice a year because she thinks there are to many asians, she doesn't believe she is racist either.


----------



## qldfrog (30 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> saying that, the older generation has always tended to be slow on the uptake when it comes to social change.
> 
> I mean my 81 yearly grandmother still gets upset when we go to the city once or twice a year because she thinks there are to many asians, she doesn't believe she is racist either.



you mean the beatniks and free love of the 60's aka my parents are the ones prohibiting any bits of breast or love making on today's TV while we are having the most gruesome murders, dissection and forensic macabre scenes displayed at dinner time?? It is not a generation problem, it is an IQ and education issue
The "older generation" had something missing around now: common sense with a mixed of above education and IQ;
IQ is going down in the western world..a fact you can google, and not by an insignificant amount.
=>Dum and dummer sheeps looking for tribe inclusion a la "hitlerian youth" , keen on their instagram 2s of fame are now ruling the place...
Their parents had to read 1984 at school and knew about USSR and the horrors of propaganda.They just blame Trump or the russians.So funny in a way


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

basilio said:


> *"*
> 
> * 'It never happened': Principal denies mum's TV claim that son could wear a dress *




he's either lying or his staff are. He advocated for Safe Schools Program and that in turn promotes "fluidity" in gender identification, and this mob is behind it: https://minus18.org.au/


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of young people just go along with the anti establishment radicals, a rebellion against their elders as they always have done. It doesn't mean that their views are any more valid than those who have had a few more years to think about the issues.




They generally grow up and wipe the sweat off their brow after the odd nightmare of nearly falling for whatever anti social  cause they courted for embrace


----------



## PZ99 (30 August 2017)

Poofy lions! I've seen it all now. LOL

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/e2d640d6662510776e5e1b219aa58b1e

Can loins vote ?


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Poofy lions! I've seen it all now. LOL
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/e2d640d6662510776e5e1b219aa58b1e
> 
> Can loins vote ?





That settles it then

Meanwhile:



> "Left wing activists claim to have identified up to 250 gender and sexual categories. These include the well-known LGBTI designations — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex — plus a bewildering array of other terminology....genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F...
> 
> I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and would like to vote Yes in a plebiscite. But clearly Labor and Liberals have in mind a far broader definition of marriage.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (30 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> he's either lying or his staff are. He advocated for Safe Schools Program and that in turn promotes "fluidity" in gender identification, and this mob is behind it: https://minus18.org.au/




So  absolutely confident Tisme ... of something you have absolutely no evidence on.   I'd hate to see you on jury duty. Can't see you wasting time on hearing or testing evidence when you have already made your mind up on a case.

The Minus 18 website is really interesting. It certainly gives teenagers who believe they are gay support in an otherwise hostile or indifferent environment.


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

basilio said:


> So  absolutely confident Tisme ... of something you have absolutely no evidence on.   I'd hate to see you on jury duty. Can't see you wasting time on hearing or testing evidence when you have already made your mind up on a case.
> 
> The Minus 18 website is really interesting. It certainly gives teenagers who believe they are gay support in an otherwise hostile or indifferent environment.





I supplied the evidence. You have Blind Freddy disease it seems.


----------



## Tisme (30 August 2017)

Ads are ramping up on social media:


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 August 2017)

basilio said:


> The Minus 18 website is really interesting. It certainly gives teenagers who believe they are gay support in an otherwise hostile or indifferent environment.



Do you think the posters are genuine, specifically the one pushing for wearing what you are comfortable in to school (has a picture of a boy in a school dress), or is it just kids playing around?


----------



## moXJO (30 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> he's either lying or his staff are. He advocated for Safe Schools Program and that in turn promotes "fluidity" in gender identification, and this mob is behind it: https://minus18.org.au/




Hmmm "Events" listed:
Dance party
Craft day
Speed friendship 

Like a basket weavers 101 camp.


----------



## Value Collector (31 August 2017)

qldfrog said:


> you mean the beatniks and free love of the 60's aka my parents are the ones prohibiting any bits of breast or love making on today's TV while we are having the most gruesome murders, dissection and forensic macabre scenes displayed at dinner time?? It is not a generation problem, it is an IQ and education issue
> The "older generation" had something missing around now: common sense with a mixed of above education and IQ;
> IQ is going down in the western world..a fact you can google, and not by an insignificant amount.
> =>Dum and dummer sheeps looking for tribe inclusion a la "hitlerian youth" , keen on their instagram 2s of fame are now ruling the place...
> Their parents had to read 1984 at school and knew about USSR and the horrors of propaganda.They just blame Trump or the russians.So funny in a way



Each generation has tended to do their bit for social justice, but then tends to get to an age were they dig their heels in on issues which later seem silly.


----------



## Tink (31 August 2017)

Love one another as I have loved you is NOT free love, basilio.

The left are good at destroying words and language.
Propaganda
Very Orwellian

-------------------------------------------

Marriage - the GOLD STANDARD, one man and one woman -- needs to be preserved for the next generation and future generations.
It is equal and does not deny anyone in society.

Vote NO.
Stand up for the FAMILY.

Civil Unions were set up with all they need in 2008 for same sex and transgender.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2017)

Phelps fights back, by talking in third person. You may remember Phelps, she's the lesbian tv doctor who cashed in on Sophie Lee's fan base, by promoting the joys of vaginas on Channel 9's show Sex back in the mid 90's....which Gyngell/Packer thankfully canned because the mucky part of the population finally had enough of the voyerism and got back to focus on more important things like buying smack and collecting their dole payments.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/same-sex-marriage-yes-campaign-advertisement/8857438


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Each generation has tended to do their bit for social justice, but then tends to get to an age were they dig their heels in on issues which later seem silly.





Many dig their heels in as an act of contrition for the stupidity they foisted on the world. 

The balance of those who continue the momentum are by and large the traditionally timid very late bloomers who don't realise the game was supposed to be up three decades ago when the opinion leaders matured and started caring for their own family values.  

Of course there is always the residual few who still think they are 17 years old and the vessels of all things egalitarian; usually public servants or somehow collecting payment from the public purse. The ones who go to parties and ruin it for everyone by sprouting left wing agendas and right wing conspiracies; you know the ones who belong in a Dashiki shirt.


----------



## PZ99 (31 August 2017)

Tink said:


> Love one another as I have loved you is NOT free love, basilio.
> 
> The left are good at destroying words and language.
> Propaganda
> ...










_( I think it was an insurance company once... ) _


----------



## dutchie (31 August 2017)

A lot of money being spent on the yes side by government sector/private sector without permission by members.


----------



## basilio (31 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> I supplied the evidence. You have Blind Freddy disease it seems.




*"Evidence !!!??"* A third related connection to a website is your definition of "evidence" that a statement was made saying a boy could come to school in a dress? 
Tisme that is so outrageously delusional..... I guess you must have good friends to keep you safe.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2017)

basilio said:


> *"Evidence !!!??"* A third related connection to a website is your definition of "evidence" that a statement was made saying a boy could come to school in a dress?
> Tisme that is so outrageously delusional..... I guess you must have good friends to keep you safe.




Don't go their mate. The road you are contemplating isn't paved with smooth. trust me.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I mean my 81 yearly grandmother still gets upset when we go to the city once or twice a year because she thinks there are to many asians, she doesn't believe she is racist either.




I can just see you at 80 complaining about too many Muslims and gays in the city.


----------



## PZ99 (31 August 2017)

The animals will have taken over by then


----------



## Value Collector (31 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I can just see you at 80 complaining about too many Muslims and gays in the city.



When I am 80, religion will be gone hopefully.

But seriously my point is that each generation tends to be progressive in civil rights in a certain area, but hard nosed in others for example my Great great grandmothers generation was progressive in fighting for women to vote, but probably didn't want aboriginals to vote. 

So even though the baby boomers fought for all sorts of social change, they seem to have hit the age where they now fear change, and want to lock in things as they are, where as the younger generation can see the injustice that still exists and wants to fight for that.

In 50 years I might be looked at as an old stodgy hard nosed guy because I still want to eat steak, when the world around me has changed and wants to give more rights to sentient mammals, who knows.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> In 50 years I might be looked at as an old stodgy hard nosed guy because I still want to eat steak, when the world around me has changed and wants to give more rights to sentient mammals, who knows.




Yeah, or maybe the Temperance lobby would have taken over and you can only get a beer on Good Friday.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, or maybe the Temperance lobby would have taken over and you can only get a beer on Good Friday.





The way it's going cows will have the vote too and beer will be outlawed


----------



## Hodgie (31 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> When I am 80, religion will be gone hopefully.




Your being very hopeful there. I Don't know how old you are but I can't see religion being gone in my lifetime. I don't think certain regions around the world receive enough unadulterated education when they are young to allow them to break the trend of the generations before them.

It would be a wonderful thing to see how society would progress without the influence of outdated scripture. I can imagine that many of these social "issues" would not exist and we could put our resources so much more efficient and important use.


----------



## Value Collector (31 August 2017)

Hodgie said:


> Your being very hopeful there.



Yes,  very hopeful, lol. Maybe "gone" was the wrong word, sidelined into irrelevance might be a better description.

"_You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one_"


----------



## grah33 (31 August 2017)

We've already seen a world without religion. The ancients had unusual sexual relationships, nothing was off the table, and society was highly dysfunctional (lots of social problems). Indeed, a wonderful world to live in... It was a cold world as well – the disabled were spat on.

When religion came people started helping the poor. That goes along with believing in a deity. Marriage values also came too, which obviously protects children etc, and probably keeps men mentally sound.


You should watch some professional debaters. Last time I checked dawkins was getting beaten a fair bit by Lennox/Lane.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> When I am 80, religion will be gone hopefully.
> 
> .



All religions will be gone, except Islam, with the complicity of the left. 

They'll be gone too, murdered for the blasphemy of their atheism


----------



## Dazzy33 (31 August 2017)

wayneL said:


> All religions will be gone, except Islam, with the complicity of the left.
> 
> They'll be gone too, murdered for the blasphemy of their atheism




Are you sure that only Islam will survive and all other religion will gone out?


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2017)

Dazzy33 said:


> Are you sure that only Islam will survive and all other religion will gone out?



I was using hyperbole,  but it's a reality that's not hard to imagine.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 August 2017)

Is there higher incidence of gender confusion amongst youths nowadays. Are parents confusing their children, are there greater mutations in the gene pool, interbreeding. Maybe I grew up in a more disciplined society because there were no grey areas of gender or who am I. Males were males and females were females. Blokes worked to support the family and sheilas worked or looked after the children. Puberty came with a booklet called 'What's happening to me'.

Homosexuals (and whatever "identity" you could create) were exceptionally rare people.
Society shouldn't become too soft mentally and I know everyone isn't going to be strong all the time but can people generally firm up. Malcolm T. you are a soft touch. A bit of discipline and firm decision making like with the human traffickers but here at home would go along way to securing another term in Government.


----------



## bellenuit (31 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Maybe I grew up in a more disciplined society because there were no grey areas of gender or who am I. Males were males and females were females.




That's because they were hiding in the closet for fear of being beaten up or humiliated. There were still those grey areas, but were hidden from view through fear or in many cases a lack of understanding of self. In the latter case, they saw it as an abnormality of self rather than something they just needed to accept and not be ashamed of.


----------



## Hodgie (1 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes,  very hopeful, lol. Maybe "gone" was the wrong word, sidelined into irrelevance might be a better description.
> 
> "_You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one_"




One of my favourite artists. I think they were well ahead of their time.


----------



## Tink (1 September 2017)

VC has a rage against God, and would like to see all these gone for his own religion.

_New Year's Day (Anno Domini, the year of Our Lord), Australia Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day(St Stephens Day)

And don't forget the Lord's Prayer in Parliament.._

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/


----------



## Tink (1 September 2017)

*Threats over traditional marriage stance*

_The family of a Victorian woman who fronts a national TV campaign opposing same-sex marriage has been vilified on social media and their church threatened with violence after LGBTI activists falsely claimed they were behind an ad in the local newspaper critical of homosexuality.

Heidi McIvor, her husband Julian McIvor and the City Builders Church in Sale, where they both work as pastors, have been subjected to false accusations and insults over an unattributed ad in The Gippsland Times a week ago urging people to vote against changing the Marriage Act.

Ms McIvor did not pay for the ad to be placed. Nor did Mr McIvor, who is also the advertising manager at the local paper. The church has previously campaigned for traditional marriage.

The parents of two have been accused of spreading hate speech and being morally bankrupt. Their names and phone numbers have been splashed all over Facebook, resulting in Mr McIvor being hit with a steady stream of abuse.

“Let’s burn there (sic) church,” piped in another.

The “heinous, vile, f. king bizarre advertisement”, as it has been described, has been interpreted as a slight on LGBTI people, those who have used adoption services or IVF, and single parents.

“When the wife’s egg is fertilised by the husband’s sperm in the marital act of love, a flash of light occurs and a baby is conceived,” the ad stated.

“This is not physically possible for two people of the same sex. A baby produced has to be manufactured.”


Retired farmer Pat O’Brien, the father of Gippsland South MP Danny O’Brien, has since claimed responsibility for the ad, but Ms McIvor is bracing for another round of the battle — a likely side effect of agreeing to take part in the Coalition for Marriage’s TV ad.

The ad features three mothers talking about politically correct sexuality education, such as the Safe Schools program, which has been criticised for teaching gender fluidity and crossing the line between education and advocacy in the classroom.

“I’m not worried about a backlash because I’m not worried about having a conversation or having a debate with anybody,” Ms McIvor said.

“What does worry me though is that it seems that no one can put forward an alternative opinion about marriage without it descending into personal attacks and threats.”

Fellow campaigner Cella White has been accused of falsifying her claim that her son was told by a schoolteacher that “he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted”.

Fairfax Media yesterday reported that the principal of the school, Frankston High in Melbourne, said Ms White’s claim had no substance.

“I have never had any complaints that we advised the boys they could wear dresses,” principal John Albiston said. “We didn’t offer them that option.”

Ms White last night angrily stood by her claim. “I spoke to the deputy principal, I spoke to the school chaplain, I spoke to two people from the Department of Education. I even spoke to the front-office lady,” she said. “To suggest that the school was not aware of my concerns is a lie.”

Ms McIvor said she had conducted her own research into the Safe Schools program and was active in a Facebook group with other concerned parents.

Having worked on staff for various politicians in the past, including former Family First senator Steven Fielding, she joined the Australian Conservatives two weeks ago. She said her newfound activism was driven by a desire for her children to be able to attend public school “without being indoctrinated”.

While critics of the television ad have argued that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the Safe Schools program, which has been defunded by the federal government but remains compulsory in Victorian secondary schools, Ms McIvor said international experience suggested otherwise._

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/38549ec9aa9f6a945006712e99d72237


----------



## Tink (1 September 2017)

As I said, it was all sorted for them in 2008 with their Civil Union.

Nothing will change for them, they just want the word - Marriage.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2017)

bellenuit said:


> That's because they were hiding in the closet for fear of being beaten up or humiliated.




Or ashamed of themselves for entertaining and developing an itch they shouldn't scratch. Or they were being groomed into the lifestyle necessarily kept out of public view. The local buggery priest opened a door they feel they can't go back through for shame. etc

There is an innate reaction by the procreators of the human tribe to consider the queer and wierd as inferior and repugnant. You see it where ever men meet, without the restrictions of social graces and women present. 

It's that inbuilt consideration of an inferior construct, that is the reason for the empathy drive to have homosexuals accepted into the group by dogooders. It's like giving native americans wampum; at the end of the day it has no real value and the attitude toward the takers still remains the same....... pity favours, not merit based.


----------



## Logique (1 September 2017)

The three mothers on the 'No' advert have been tracked down and are being bullied on Facebook and beyond. There have been threats of a demonstration outside the medical practice where one works. 

All the claims in the 'No' advert are factual and evidence based. And yet many 'No' campaign supporters and donors are fearful of being identified.

The 'Yes' campaign has been infiltrated by thuggish left wing extremists. These heavy handed tactics are doing no favours to the LGBTQIA community.


----------



## qldfrog (1 September 2017)

interesting in my opinion, and summarise my view 
there is no human right involved if i am prevented to call a dog a cat or rename red as blue...or calling the union of people of a same sex a marriage:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552.Even the UN has some common sense..


----------



## basilio (1 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Or ashamed of themselves for entertaining and developing an itch they shouldn't scratch. Or they were being groomed into the lifestyle necessarily kept out of public view. The local buggery priest opened a door they feel they can't go back through for shame. etc
> 
> There is an innate reaction by the procreators of the human tribe to consider the queer and wierd as inferior and repugnant. You see it where ever men meet, without the restrictions of social graces and women present.
> 
> It's that inbuilt consideration of an inferior construct, that is the reason for the empathy drive to have homosexuals accepted into the group by dogooders. It's like giving native americans wampum; at the end of the day it has no real value and the attitude toward the takers still remains the same....... pity favours, not merit based.




I surmise Tisme that you have very little personal knowledge of such "inferior and repugant people". It would certainly be surprising if any friend, family member or business associate opened up about themselves or friends or family being gay. 
It must have been tough for you (and similar like minded friends) when homosexuality was legalised. I just can't remember it being made compulsory  ... ?


----------



## Hodgie (1 September 2017)

Tink said:


> VC has a rage against God, and would like to see all these gone for his own religion.
> 
> _New Year's Day (Anno Domini, the year of Our Lord), Australia Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day(St Stephens Day)
> 
> ...




Its unfortunate that you are too far gone by your upbringing to think objectively when it comes to certain topics. I don't  mean that disrespectfully I honestly think you are blinded to see reason.


----------



## Hodgie (1 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Or ashamed of themselves for entertaining and developing an itch they shouldn't scratch. Or they were being groomed into the lifestyle necessarily kept out of public view. The local buggery priest opened a door they feel they can't go back through for shame. etc
> 
> There is an innate reaction by the procreators of the human tribe to consider the queer and wierd as inferior and repugnant. You see it where ever men meet, without the restrictions of social graces and women present.
> 
> It's that inbuilt consideration of an inferior construct, that is the reason for the empathy drive to have homosexuals accepted into the group by dogooders. It's like giving native americans wampum; at the end of the day it has no real value and the attitude toward the takers still remains the same....... pity favours, not merit based.




I can't beleive that people still think this way. Its quite incredible. So backwards. 

You make it sound like everyone is slightly gay and those that choose to act on those urges are lesser.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2017)

basilio said:


> I surmise Tisme that you have very little personal knowledge of such "inferior and repugant people". It would certainly be surprising if any friend, family member or business associate opened up about themselves or friends or family being gay.
> It must have been tough for you (and similar like minded friends) when homosexuality was legalised. I just can't remember it being made compulsory  ... ?





Hey I'm just stating how it is, I'm not judging. Like you insist that homosexuals are "born that way" and therefore they are "normal" and "just like us" (which is discrimination right there BTW),  I'm just explaining that we heterosexuals think the way we do because we are born that way, it's normal, it's just like us (well for alpha males it is). The beige who walk amongst us choose to look away and detach themselves insipidly from the discomfort, other social vandals spruik equal for all oranges and apples (for all oranges are equal to apples apparently) and then there are those with clarity, purpose and God on their side .....

It's just plain common sense and if you want to wrap it up in some scientific mumbo jumbo it's heteronormativity.... an hierarchy of social needs based procreation of the (healthy) species... it's normal, we are born that way, .......


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2017)

Tink said:


> VC has a rage against God, and would like to see all these gone for his own religion.




No tink, I don't have a rage against any gods, because I don't believe any exist.

I do get angry when those who believe in gods try to enforce their silly rules on others.

I have no problem with you or others having an imaginary friends, and setting up a club to worship the imaginary friend, and making up rules about what your imaginary friend thinks, but keep those rules to your self, don't try and control the rest of us that are trying to go about our business.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> We've already seen a world without religion. The ancients had unusual sexual relationships, nothing was off the table, and society was highly dysfunctional (lots of social problems).




Which accents are you talking about, as far as I know they all had religion.


> Indeed, a wonderful world to live in... It was a cold world as well – the disabled were spat on.




You know people with disabilities were often thought to be curse by god, and were often treated badly due to the many different superstitious religions.

Even today in parts of the world religious people preach that disabled people are bad luck.

watch the introduction to this video and see how children and babies are being treated at the hands of christians in africa. where if you are born with a disability you can be accused of being a witch.





> When religion came people started helping the poor. That goes along with believing in a deity.




Thats just cherry picking, you are leaving out all the killings and religious wars etc


----------



## cynic (1 September 2017)

Hodgie said:


> Its unfortunate that you are too far gone by your upbringing to think objectively when it comes to certain topics. I don't  mean that disrespectfully I honestly think you are blinded to see reason.



And what entitles you to cast judgment upon the rational capacity of others?

How exactly, did you arrive at the belief that your views are more reasonable, than those in opposition?

I too consider it unfortunate, that there exist those capable of discerning cause for criticism of others' views, whilst somehow failing to recognise how those same uttered criticisms can equally apply to the issuer of same.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> watch the introduction to this video and see how children and babies are being treated at the hands of christians in africa. where if you are born with a disability you can be accused of being a witch.




Do you think that view is representative of the wider Christian community ?


----------



## basilio (1 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Hey I'm just stating how it is, I'm not judging. Like you insist that homosexuals are "born that way" and therefore they are "normal" and "just like us" (which is discrimination right there BTW),  I'm just explaining that we heterosexuals think the way we do because we are born that way, it's normal, it's just like us (well for alpha males it is). The beige who walk amongst us choose to look away and detach themselves insipidly from the discomfort, other social vandals spruik equal for all oranges and apples (for all oranges are equal to apples apparently) and then there are those with clarity, purpose and God on their side .....
> 
> It's just plain common sense and if you want to wrap it up in some scientific mumbo jumbo it's heteronormativity.... an hierarchy of social needs based procreation of the (healthy) species... it's normal, we are born that way, .......





Yeah I can hear what your saying Tisme. Just stating it like it is from the position of "clarity, purpose and God on their side..."  (_Is your tongue in your cheek ? Maybe ?)_

We have heard it before Tis.  Many times, many places. *The natural, normal, order of things.*  The subhuman status of blacks which made it perfectly ok to buy, sell, torture, breed, separate them. And then later on lynch them horribly if they became uppitty.

The God given right of the strong to take the property of the weaker. Whether its a country, a house, a servant, a wife. Thats just the natural order of things. 

The One True Church that needed to ensure no Heresy was allowed and that they represented Truth and Light and that unbelievers needed to be purged to protect the Body of the Church. (Applicable to Christians, Jews , Muslims, Westbro Baptist, x number of cults.)

The need to keep the blood lines pure, the nation strong, the men proud, the women devoted, the others .... lets not ask too many questions here.


----------



## basilio (1 September 2017)

Anyone interested in discussing the topic of  Legalising Same Sex marriages ? How about some pertinent arguments from a top Catholic theologian ?

* Legalise same-sex marriage for the 'common good', says Catholic priest Frank Brennan *
 


*Michael Koziol*
269 reading now

1)  Same-sex marriage should be legalised for the "common good", one of Australia's leading Catholic thinkers has urged, arguing civil marriage cannot be seen as an instrument of the church.

2)  In a marked departure from other Catholic leaders and many Coalition conservatives, Jesuit priest Frank Brennan said any concerns about religious freedom should be set aside until after a successful "yes" vote in the postal survey.

3) And he turned opponents' fears on their head, saying the increasing prevalence of same-sex couples with children was an argument in favour of marriage equality, not an argument against.

"We've got to factor that in to the common good argument about what's necessary," Father Brennan told Sky News on Friday, following his delivery of the Lionel Bowen Lecture this week in which he declared he would vote "yes".

T





"We are now in a society very different from what it was a decade ago": Father Frank Brennan. Photo: Lee Besford
4) *The legalisation of same-sex marriage in like-minded countries such as Britain and New Zealand was also a reason to support change, he said, to provide consistency for couples who moved around the world.*

He imagined the example of a married Canadian same-sex couple, where same-sex marriage is legal, who are in Australia. If one person were dying in hospital, their partner's spousal rights may not be recognised.

"That's a common good argument you've got to look at," said Father Brennan, who runs Catholic Social Services Australia and is a professor of law at the Australian Catholic University.

5) "They're the sort of arguments which have me saying 'yes'. We are now in a society very different from what it was a decade ago."

6) *Father Brennan said he continued to espouse the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage - that it is between a man and a woman - but this had to be separated from civil marriage, which was the question before the Australian people.*

"*It's a very different institution from what is marriage in the Catholic Church," he told Sky News. He said concerns about religious freedom were valid, but should be dealt with by Parliament in the advent of a "yes" vote, and not "during the hubbub of a publicity campaign".*

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...lic-priest-frank-brennan-20170901-gy8njv.html

And perhaps some comments from readers of the paper.

_-  Thank you Father Brennan at least there is some compassion and sense within the catholic church over this divisive debate. I am very concerned about the hateful debate and hope that people can be respectful. Father Brennan rightly has argued this is about human rights, not religious at all.

- It's fascinating that the church is now differentiating between the legal concept of civil marriage and the Catholic concept of marriage as an institution.

Perhaps this is the middle ground where all parties can manage to reconcile and justify their various desires and beliefs.

-
-Governing is about 'the common good',  and it strikes me as strange that  we need to have a Catholic Priest  telling our society what the 'common good' is - rather than our government....

For example:
"He used the example of a Canadian same-sex couple in Australia while one is dying in hospital, arguing their partner should be granted spousal rights.

"They're the sort of arguments which have me saying 'yes'. We are now in a society very different from what it was a decade ago."



_


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think that view is representative of the wider Christian community ?



Not anymore, But it is happening, but I don't think isis is representative of islam either.

Remember the claim was that religion came and made the world great and stopped disabled people being abused, when in reality for a very long time it contributed to the abuse.

Remember the "smiley faced christians" you see to day is a relatively modern thing, most of their history is horrible, and in certain areas and on certain topics its still horrible.


----------



## basilio (1 September 2017)

The Lional Bowen lecture by Father Frank Brennan was interesting for a range of reasons. He did analyse the issue  of same sex marriages from a Common Good perspective. But he also touched on a wide range of contempoart political issues through the same lens. IMO  it's worth a read.


_*Tonight, you have asked that I pay tribute to Lionel Bowen addressing the topic, 'Citizenship and the Common Good'. What is the common good?* We Australians now are used to hearing a lot about rights, and occasionally some public talk about responsibilities and duties. We are committed to the fair go and mateship. We pride ourselves on providing a safety net for fellow citizens who fall through the gaps not being able to find paid employment or not being able to afford basic health care, housing or education. We have become an increasingly individualist society emphasising the rights of the autonomous individual being free to do their own thing provided they do not interfere with the rights of others wanting to do their own thing. But is there more to a good life than this individual freedom?


The American theologian Fr David Hollenbach SJ recently spoke on 'The Glory of God and the Global Common Good: Solidarity in a Turbulent World'. Hollenbach says that 'the common good is a normative concept with a rich history'. Sometimes it just means 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. But then it can also mean 'the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment'. Hollenbach thinks it is also useful to look at what economists call 'public goods'. He says, 'A public good is a good present for all members of a community when it is present for any of them. If it is absent for some, it is absent for all. For example, when a city creates the public good of an effective system of traffic lights, it benefits all drivers. More technically, public goods are "nonrivalrous in consumption."' We might think of climate change and the common good to be achieved by ensuring that our planet is sustainable for future generations. This needs to be done with market forces ensuring that everyone pulls their weight and that there are no free riders enjoying the benefits without paying the costs. Energy producers need a renewable energy target so that the market might set prices with certainty and equity and so that the producers can plan, invest and research for the future.


When Lionel Bowen died, there were great tributes paid to him in the Federal Parliament. Senator John Faulkner the straight-talking torch bearer of Labor values in turbulent times told the Senate: 'Lionel Bowen saw public service not as a vehicle for personal advancement but as a vocation with the purpose of improving the lives of others and serving in the nation's interest. His time on the national stage never diminished his deep commitment to his local community. As my colleague Senator Bob Carr said — and Bob, of course, knew him so well: "He knew suburban politics like the back of his hand."'

https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=52976#.Wai0LbKg8uU_


----------



## Macquack (1 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Or ashamed of themselves for entertaining and developing an itch they shouldn't scratch. Or they were being groomed into the lifestyle necessarily kept out of public view. The local buggery priest opened a door they feel they can't go back through for shame. etc
> 
> There is an innate reaction by the procreators of the human tribe to consider the queer and wierd as inferior and repugnant. You see it where ever men meet, without the restrictions of social graces and women present.
> 
> It's that inbuilt consideration of an inferior construct, that is the reason for the empathy drive to have homosexuals accepted into the group by dogooders. It's like giving native americans wampum; at the end of the day it has no real value and the attitude toward the takers still remains the same....... pity favours, not merit based.




 You are a classic homophobe.

All your comments reek of smugness and superiority.


----------



## Hodgie (1 September 2017)

Cynic, the difference is i am willing to change my view based on information. I don't have a predisposition on a topic based on some scripture. Im perfectly willing to accept I could be wrong based on new information. When you base your opinions and your view of morality on old scripture there is no change and you cannot adapt and progress.

Btw im sorry I shouldn't have made it personal that is my error I apologise.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> You are a classic homophobe.
> 
> All your comments reek of smugness and superiority.




as does your comment.


----------



## cynic (1 September 2017)

Hodgie said:


> Cynic, the difference is i am willing to change my view based on information. I don't have a predisposition on a topic based on some scripture. Im perfectly willing to accept I could be wrong based on new information. When you base your opinions and your view of morality on old scripture there is no change and you cannot adapt and progress.
> 
> Btw im sorry I shouldn't have made it personal that is my error I apologise.



Thankyou for your attempts at employing diplomacy in your reply.

I could make an effort to respond in kind, but as you are likely already aware, I do at times have a tendency to be unapologetically bold (and at times brutal) in the expression of my personal views.

Too many times,  I have been witness to people (myself included), fantasising about being possessed of distinctions which somehow render chosen opinions superior to those of their opponents. When such people become overly engrossed in such fantasies of superiority, behaviour akin to that of a religious zealot typically ensues.

I am of the opinion that the "holier than thou" religion, is one of the oldest of all mankind's religions. And yet somehow, many of its adherents fail to recognise their religious zeal when decrying their religious opponents.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 September 2017)

> Anyone interested in discussing the topic of Legalising Same Sex marriages ? How about some pertinent arguments from a top Catholic theologian ?




It is most probable SSM supporters have friends, family and visitors with a different sexual orientation and feel obliged to push the marriage cause. Crikey, they may even have repressed desires for a pure bottom.  The desire for such things has spilled over for certain religious faiths. The (supposed) sanctuaries from evil.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2017)

This is the religion of Facebook cynic.... holier than thou,  and thou art racist,  homophobic  xenophobic, islamophobic.

I am perfectly virtuous in every way (except for the betrayal of my own kind)


----------



## overhang (1 September 2017)

Triathlete said:


> http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...beral-mps-reignite-push-for-marriage-equality
> 
> This poll is 65%  to 35% in favour of the NO vote




I was a bit stumped why this poll with such a large sample size seemed to have the opposite results to all other polling.  Then I found out that this was circulated by a few religious groups



> "Dear my friends, please forward this in private message to many of your Christian and Muslim friends to vote NO to the same sex marriage. NOW IT IS THE TIME TO PRAY & ACT PRECIOUS PEOPLE OF GOD: I invite all of you to share the below link to all of your friends and invite as many to vote as possible. The online poll is carried out by Channel 9. A real chance for us to speak up. Please vote 'NO' and help to forward. http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...beral-mps-reignite-push-for-marriage-equality Yes is currently about 80%. Please vote. Thanks, John Gabriel."




Maybe it doesn't explain the result and the silent majority have spoken but going by this thread the silent majority seem to be yes voters.


----------



## basilio (1 September 2017)

This is supposed to be thread discussing the arguments for/against SSM.  I'm surprised that one has yet  responded to the arguments posed by Father Frank Brennan in terms of The Common Good and the distinction between a religious view of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage amd a civil view of a social contract.

I thought his comments of the idea that marriage for gay people with children *in fact strengthens the social contact and committment of partners and should be encouraged.*


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2017)

basilio said:


> This is supposed to be thread discussing the arguments for/against SSM.  I'm surprised that one has yet  responded to the arguments posed by Father Frank Brennan in terms of The Common Good and the distinction between a religious view of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage amd a civil view of a social contract.
> 
> I thought his comments of the idea that marriage for gay people with children *in fact strengthens the social contact and committment of partners and should be encouraged.*




Marriage hasn't meant a great deal to the heterosexual community considering the divorce rate (40% I believe), why should it make any difference to gays who statistically have many more sexual partners than straights ?


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2017)

basilio said:


> This is supposed to be thread discussing the arguments for/against SSM.  I'm surprised that one has yet  responded to the arguments posed by Father Frank Brennan in terms of The Common Good and the distinction between a religious view of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage amd a civil view of a social contract.
> 
> I thought his comments of the idea that marriage for gay people with children *in fact strengthens the social contact and committment of partners and should be encouraged.*



The reason is that the opinion of a single virtue signalling is irrelevant,  basilio. 

...and perhaps folks have noticed your attempt to run with the hares and hunt wirh the hounds?


----------



## grah33 (2 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Which accents are you talking about, as far as I know they all had religion.
> You know people with disabilities were often thought to be curse by god, and were often treated badly due to the many different superstitious religions.
> Thats just cherry picking, you are leaving out all the killings and religious wars etc




The romans etc, pre Christianity times. Crueler world to live in . Helping needy people wasn't a value as in today's society. With Christianity also came a big arm to help the poor/afflicted. Even now you have lots of charities. The gov for a good while has been happy to have religious (catholic) hospitals around. Whatever free health one can get is always going to be a good thing. Buy yeah, looks like a bunch in authority (catholic church) covered stuff up, inflicting lots of harm. Regards wars, you probably already know that you get evil people everywhere, but what does the christian religion teach? Stuff like “love your enemies, hate nobody (even your parents' killers)”. Seems harmless to me... Regards the brutality of the old testament, that was all nullified in the new testament so we're not cherry picking e.g. the stoners (and everybody really) were now given a new order to forgive etc. Although the other 2 religions are still guided by the principles of the old testament, but we're talking about leaving things in Australia the way they have been (male and female , non polygamous ie christian ) or used to be anyway .

Just to add , in debating it's important to agree with good answers .  The pros do it. And audiences negate points from debaters when they don't see that . Likewise when they use inferences such as “person A has this view against and they're part of it, therefore it's wrong etc" . This is not good debating.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> The romans etc, pre Christianity times. Crueler world to live in . Helping needy people wasn't a value as in today's society. With Christianity also came a big arm to help the poor/afflicted. Even now you have lots of charities. The gov for a good while has been happy to have religious (catholic) hospitals around. Whatever free health one can get is always going to be a good thing. Buy yeah, looks like a bunch in authority (catholic church) covered stuff up, inflicting lots of harm. Regards wars, you probably already know that you get evil people everywhere, but what does the christian religion teach? Stuff like “love your enemies, hate nobody (even your parents' killers)”. Seems harmless to me... Regards the brutality of the old testament, that was all nullified in the new testament so we're not cherry picking e.g. the stoners (and everybody really) were now given a new order to forgive etc. Although the other 2 religions are still guided by the principles of the old testament, but we're talking about leaving things in Australia the way they have been (male and female , non polygamous ie christian ) or used to be anyway .
> 
> Just to add , in debating it's important to agree with good answers .  The pros do it. And audiences negate points from debaters when they don't see that . Likewise when they use inferences such as “person A has this view against and they're part of it, therefore it's wrong etc" . This is not good debating.




For over a 1000 years after the romans, Christians were still killing non believers, burning witches, treating Jews like crap, suppressing science etc.

They were called the dark ages for a reason.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2017)

The Jenner case in America is another example of the coming out of alternate sexuality in present times. He wanted to live "like" a female and made the transition in front of the world via American media. Everyone has a right to be who they want as long as their behaviour doesn't infringe on other people.


----------



## Triathlete (2 September 2017)

overhang said:


> I was a bit stumped why this poll with such a large sample size seemed to have the opposite results to all other polling.  Then I found out that this was circulated by a few religious groups
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it doesn't explain the result and the silent majority have spoken but going by this thread the silent majority seem to be yes voters.



It is going to be interesting to see the outcome, I think they should have just added another form to fill out on this and many other issues and have a real vote at the next election in my view.......


----------



## Tink (2 September 2017)

Hodgie, you are entitled to your view, as I am mine.

I have given my reasons why Marriage should not be changed -- FAMILY.
A mother and a father matter.
The state has no business in same sex marriage, it goes against the children, the most vulnerable.

What are your reasons?
Why should the marriage act be changed to genderless?

The Rage Against God seems to be the new atheists pastime.
It is unfortunate that you don't know about our own history, but then the Communists have made sure to send the people to re education camps.
The Stalinists at work.

Vote NO.
Stand up for the FAMILY.

As I said, Civil Unions have been established for same sex, transgender etc.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Thankyou for your attempts at employing diplomacy in your reply.
> 
> I could make an effort to respond in kind, but as you are likely already aware, I do at times have a tendency to be unapologetically bold (and at times brutal) in the expression of my personal views.
> 
> ...





Are you two talking in Dickensian Verbosity dialect or something, wot wot?


----------



## Logique (2 September 2017)

The plebiscite may not see the light of day in any case. The High Court on 5 & 6 Sept will hear a challenge on constitutionality.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2017)

Logique said:


> The plebiscite may not see the light of day in any case. The High Court on 5 & 6 Sept will hear a challenge on constitutionality.




The "postal survey" is completely legal AND THE HIGH COURT WILL SO RULE !!!


----------



## Logique (2 September 2017)

Speaking of court rulings, confirming that 'marriage equality' is just a slogan..







> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...out-marriage-and-equality/8856552?pfmredir=sm - 8 Sept 2017
> ...Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is *no inequality* where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage...


----------



## dutchie (2 September 2017)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844502/Father-s-Day-ad-pulled-ahead-gay-marriage-vote.html

Absolute joke


----------



## PZ99 (2 September 2017)

Others' day


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2017)

Obviously a gay marriage supporter running Unfree TV Australia. These d'heads are starting to impact the majority of heterosexuals.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2017)

What is offensive are the shots of female with male and birthing the child. This no longer acceptable and MM, FF, MMF, FFM, MI, MT, FI, FT, MQ, FQ (apologies if any missed here) relationships must be represented.


----------



## cynic (2 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Are you two talking in Dickensian Verbosity dialect or something, wot wot?



What the Dickens are you on about!

Now, now, credit where credit is due!!

Dickens was writing in cynical dialect - in effect he plagiarised me!!!

Now don't you dare try to disagree, or, in any way, shape, or form, argue otherwise, even if your argument is soundly based upon the fact of Dickens having lived and died prior to my birth, or I will justly and righteously accuse you of the heinous crime of cyniphobia!!!!

The cyniphobes of the world ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for oppressing the cynics' rights to be just as precious as any other misunderstood minority faction currently residing inside the scope of the human imagination!!!!!


----------



## pixel (3 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What the Dickens are you on about!
> 
> Now, now, credit where credit is due!!
> 
> ...



Now you're getting true to name, cynic: Self-righteously - or make that "*dog*gedly" - persisting that everybody not completely agreeing with you, must needs be cynophobic. Wrong term, mate  A cynophobe, in the true meaning of the word, is simply not fond of dogs. That's right: Pooches, mutts, curs are the objects of a cynophobe's antipathy. (And this old tomcat can really sympathise with that attitude  )
I assume you know the origin of the word _cynic_: κύων, Latinised to cyon, is Greek for dog. κυνικός is the adjectival form: dog-like or doggy-style.
Just like a dog lifts his leg and marks everything he comes across, especially items that others hold dear and holy, a cynic does the equivalent, criticising and spraying ideas put forward by others.


----------



## Bruliatrader (3 September 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> I am strongly opposed to bullying in all forms and consider that discrimination on the basis of sexuality only encourages that sort of behaviour from some.
> 
> So it's a definite YES from me.
> 
> As others have noted this issue is about adults not children.



Your supposedly against bullying? What about bullying of people who are against same sex marriages?  Does that count or is that different bullying that is allowed? I thought this was an Aussie Stock Forum?  Why aren't you discussing Aussie stocks?


----------



## Bruliatrader (3 September 2017)

Wyatt said:


> Yes
> 
> While I don't understand why some people are attracted to the same sex, it seems that their behaviour is not choice, but hard wired. I have met plenty in tourism and they are as normal as you and I. They are statistically a minority and I don't see why the majority should feel they have the solemn right to make decisions for other folk they do not know. Live and let live.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss, but only for the ignorant.



Ignorance is bliss? Aren't you ignorant of the person who has an apposite view to yours? I love people who call other people ignorant because they have a different view to them. You usually find they are the most ignorant. We need to try to understand all points of view, but at the end of the day people are entitled to their point of view.


----------



## Logique (3 September 2017)

I'm staggered that Free TV Australia refused to screen this advert. That it's by _Dads 4 Kids_ is clearly stated, along with website address at the end.

What is this, if not censorship of mainstream values by a militant minority?  Vote 'Yes' at your peril.

Being sarcastic, of course the advert commits two PC 'sins'

shows happy nuclear families (a Mum and a Dad)
shows white males in a good light


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2017)

Logique said:


> I'm staggered that Free TV Australia refused to screen this advert. That it's by _Dads 4 Kids_ is clearly stated, along with website address at the end.
> 
> What is this, if not censorship of mainstream values by a militant minority?  Vote 'Yes' at your peril.
> 
> ...





It just shows the power of the radicals these days. The Red Pill is another example of censorship by intimidation. 

Another reason I'm voting NO.


----------



## Macquack (3 September 2017)

Bruliatrader said:


> Your supposedly against bullying? What about bullying of people who are against same sex marriages?  Does that count or is that different bullying that is allowed? I thought this was an Aussie Stock Forum?  Why aren't you discussing Aussie stocks?




We need to get this plebiscite/survey thingy over and done with. With comments like the above, it is doing my head in.

ASF is now under attack for daring to discuss SSM.


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What the Dickens are you on about!
> 
> Now, now, credit where credit is due!!
> 
> ...





I resemble those remarks!!!


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2017)

Logique said:


> I'm staggered that Free TV Australia refused to screen this advert. That it's by _Dads 4 Kids_ is clearly stated, along with website address at the end.
> 
> What is this, if not censorship of mainstream values by a militant minority?  Vote 'Yes' at your peril.
> 
> ...





Yes a bit over the top portraying fathers as having any worth.


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It just shows the power of the radicals these days. The Red Pill is another example of censorship by intimidation.
> 
> Another reason I'm voting NO.




Did you watch the full length and was it plausible as ubiquitously representing males?

https://dailyreview.com.au/red-pill-watched-dont/61240/


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2017)

I haven't seen it at all. I was just opposing the censorship of something that goes against the Bolshevik feminists. People should be able to watch and make up their own minds.

It always interests me when someone says something is "dangerous". To whom I ask myself.


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 September 2017)

> By way of relief, Ward insists,
> 
> _Marxism offers the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today._
> 
> To support this claim Ward cites sexual policies introduced in the Soviet Union after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. These included the use of gender neutral language and the abolition of any fixed age of consent, amongst many other anti-family measures designed to achieve a collectivist utopia.



This person (rumoured to be the love child of Bill Shorten) is vehemently opposed to the status quo.


----------



## Tisme (4 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> This person (rumoured to be the love child of Bill Shorten) is vehemently opposed to the status quo.





I'm thinking she's the result of a dalliance between Pyne and Birmingham


----------



## Logique (4 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> We need to get this plebiscite/survey thingy over and done with. With comments like the above, it is doing my head in.
> ASF is now under attack for daring to discuss SSM.



We're under attack?


----------



## Tisme (4 September 2017)

One of the evolving arguments centres around a female doctor saying she will not give up her choice to refuse succour to homosexual couples.

Already the homophiles are pushing the observance of the  Hippocratic oath, which is more a sideshow play these days than an actual oath. 

The section the homophiles liked to push as legitimisation of persuasion  in the late 1800 hundreds was the oath, but I'm wondering if she is actually on the money:

_



			WITH PURITY AND WITH HOLINESS I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will *abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves.*

Click to expand...


_


----------



## dutchie (4 September 2017)

Petition launched against doctor in 'No' ad

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...n-launched-against-doctor-in--no--ad.htmletup

Pretty ugly tactics by Getup


----------



## Logique (4 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> Petition launched against doctor in 'No' ad
> http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...n-launched-against-doctor-in--no--ad.htmletup
> Pretty ugly tactics by Getup



Getting a 'Page Not Found' message


----------



## dutchie (4 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Getting a 'Page Not Found' message



GetUp! pulls petition against GP Pansy Lai who appeared in anti same-sex ad


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 September 2017)

Pretty ugly tactics by Get Up who are our modern version of Nazis.

Don't be put off voting Yes by these fascists.

I'm still undecided, have family and mates who are gay, but the fascists seems to want to push it further. 

I'll probably vote Yes when it comes to it. But it ain't firm  

gg


----------



## Logique (4 September 2017)

Come on Garpal. The real battleground here isn't SSM. From your back seat in the Arnage, you are well aware of this. Put the champagne glass down, and listen to reason.
It's a reprise of the Marxist Left Vs the Christian Right. The LGBTIA community have allowed this to happen, to the detriment of their cause







> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...i/news-story/cee2457a9189e39403752b44107acbac
> ...more direct intimidation:
> [*Dr*]*Pansy Lai *... has been inundated with phone and social media threats. Dr Lai told The Australian last night she had reported to police *one threat that she would be shot* “this week”.
> Say* no* to bullies..


----------



## Tink (5 September 2017)

The intolerant terrorists are kicking their own goals for the NO vote.

_GetUp! has pulled a petition seeking the deregistering of a Sydney doctor because she appeared in an advertisement opposing same-sex marriage declaring it “inappropriate content”. GetUp! – which facilitated the petition and described it as “powered by GetUp!” immediately distanced itself from the petition after the revelation this morning in The Australian.

The petition, which gathered more than 5000 signatures over the past five days, sought to have Sydney GP Pansy Lai face formal complaints to the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority for her deregistration and banning from practice as a doctor.

Dr Lai appeared as one of three mothers in the Marriage Coalition television advertisement promoting the No case against same-sex marriage and criticising fluid gender theory in schools. The petition accused her of a breach of ethics for supporting traditional marriage and endangering the lives of young people.

Dr Lai told The Australian she was alarmed by the petition which attempted to cut off her livelihood and was a threat to freedom of speech. This morning GetUp! said there had been dozens of complaints about the petition and was “found to be in breach” of the terms and conditions for petitions facilitated by GetUp! and the petition organisation CommunityRun._

----------------------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4_


----------



## tech/a (5 September 2017)

Come on Tink

You can have any opinion you like
Provided it's supporting a yes vote.

Get with the program 
Tolerance is spelt one way----Yes.

I'm afraid a yes vote isn't a given
I'm sure that's the fear of any form of mass vote.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2017)

Tink said:


> The intolerant terrorists are kicking their own goals for the NO vote.
> 
> _GetUp! has pulled a petition seeking the deregistering of a Sydney doctor because she appeared in an advertisement opposing same-sex marriage declaring it “inappropriate content”. GetUp! – which facilitated the petition and described it as “powered by GetUp!” immediately distanced itself from the petition after the revelation this morning in The Australian.
> 
> ...





I subscribe to Getup, just like I subscribe to the LNP, the ALP, Unions, et al newsletters and emails. It's very interesting how all of them use the same imperatives to make our nation strong and free.

But there's a kind of absurdity about Getup. I'm fairly convinced it is run by indignant middle aged women and the odd insipid male who see themselves as some kind of legacy bearers of the 1960's protest movement ... maintaining the rage against the machine as it were.

I think their anthem should be that song where the Scottish girl garbled (deliberately) two eras and came up with punk rockers with flowers in their hair. Post baby boomers everywhere swallowed it as an actual lifestyle past, LOL


----------



## Tink (5 September 2017)

From a radio interview.


----------



## Tisme (5 September 2017)

What we already worked out, but Andrew's a little slow:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...g/news-story/0ce9b5fee6da9e1cf71eb453b9664c1e


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 September 2017)

Tink's video leads onto this woman saying what I have been trying to say since joining this debate. Sally Rugg (SSM activist) eat some of this.


----------



## PZ99 (5 September 2017)

Interesting polling result at this point: 62% YES - 38% NO. Not that far from the latest Essential Research poll which is 59% to 31% in favour of changing the law.
http://www.essentialvision.com.au/same-sex-marriage-25


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 September 2017)

It will get passed because people are generally D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. types. Worked with and covered the idiots all my life. Money is THE most important thing. Morals, consideration, do the right thing - forget it.


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> It will get passed because people are generally D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. types. Worked with and covered the idiots all my life. Money is THE most important thing. Morals, consideration, do the right thing - forget it.




It won't go away. It will come around and around and around until it gets it own way. That's what every second person is saying and so they of the mind to just accept it and move onto "more important" things which always seem elusive, but important none the same.


----------



## Tink (6 September 2017)

The SSM advocates trying to stop the postal vote.
They don't want the public to have their say on the biggest change in our society.

They want it in parliament, well parliament had 18 votes until now,  and they were all NO.

So will they accept the outcome, that it was NO.

--------------------------

Marriage is one man and one woman

Stand up for the FAMILY.


----------



## Logique (6 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Tink's video leads onto this woman saying what I have been trying to say since joining this debate. Sally Rugg (SSM activist) eat some of this.



A voice of reason. Well said by this lady.


----------



## Logique (6 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Interesting polling result at this point: 62% YES - 38% NO. Not that far from the latest Essential Research poll which is 59% to 31% in favour of changing the law.  http://www.essentialvision.com.au/same-sex-marriage-25



Brexit-like voting patterns there


----------



## PZ99 (6 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Brexit-like voting patterns there



Difference here being it's reasonably uniform across the demographics which surprises me a bit.


----------



## Tisme (6 September 2017)

This is a facebook pic. Even I'm having trouble with the story and  the grammar


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 September 2017)

This is the well used term 'new normal'. It isn't common and they aren't hurting anyone so shouldn't ridicule them in my opinion. I would only be offended if he came up to me for a chat with me thinking he is a woman only to find out later that he is acting out. Maybe a badge or something saying "I am a male" so people are in the know.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> This is the well used term 'new normal'. It isn't common and they aren't hurting anyone so shouldn't ridicule them in my opinion. I would only be offended if he came up to me for a chat with me thinking he is a woman only to find out later that he is acting out. Maybe a badge or something saying "I am a male" so people are in the know.




In the old days people suffering from family trauma were given some comfort and sent to coventry until they recovered.

These days people like Janet join a clan of similarly damaged people, vote Green, talk Bolshevik, march in pride parades with sheeple clingons and lash out at the foundations of morality that are overt reminders of the pain they endure because of their own innate human bias to survival of the species and civilisation.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> In the old days people suffering from family trauma were given some comfort and sent to coventry until they recovered.
> 
> These days people like Janet join a clan of similarly damaged people, vote Green, talk Bolshevik, march in pride parades with sheeple clingons and lash out at the foundations of morality that are overt reminders of the pain they endure because of their own innate human bias to survival of the species and civilisation.




Back to the poison well Tisme. You have *absolutely no idea* about Janet Rice or partner their personal life their history any thing.  Absolutely Nothing At all.
But, as usual, your still happy to trash them and any fellow travellers with the full catastrophe of societies problems. 
Deranged dribble.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

For a bigger picture of Janet Rice and her partner (that is not based on a poisonous Facebook pic and an equally nasty Tisme slag)  check out the following.

*I still love her, we can stay married: The Senator and her transgender wife *

Video 1/
Audio
Janet Rice is one of Australia’s strongest campaigners for marriage equality and her passion has a very personal backstory. The Greens Senator talks to SBS about her relationship with her transgender wife, Nobel Prize winning climatologist Penny Whetton.




By
Stephanie Anderson 

6 Feb 2015 - 12:38 PM  UPDATED 7 Feb 2015 - 7:57 PM







38

It was during her university years that Janet Rice first met her future wife, then known as Peter.

The young climate activist and future Nobel Prize winning climatologist dated for three years before tying the knot, settling down in their hometown of Melbourne to chase respective careers in politics and science.

It would be another 16 years of marriage before Senator Rice learned of her then-husband’s secret.

While it came as an enormous shock, Senator Rice said the biggest surprise was that her partner of almost two decades had managed to keep cross dressing a secret.

“The biggest shock was I thought I knew everything about Penny,” she said.

“She told me that she was a cross dresser and then over the next couple of years, she realised very much that she was transgendered and wanted to transition. It was a big time of our life.”

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...stay-married-senator-and-her-transgender-wife


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Back to the poison well Tisme. You have *absolutely no idea* about Janet Rice or partner their personal life their history any thing.  Absolutely Nothing At all.
> But, as usual, your still happy to trash them and any fellow travellers with the full catastrophe of societies problems.
> Deranged dribble.




here's an exercise for you and your new cobber who can count posts:

take you little finger and curl it almost closed, put it inside your mouth on one side of your cheek and pull while looking in the mirror .... get it yet?

BTW how are those counter facts going?


----------



## Tink (7 September 2017)

Leave Marriage as it is - *one man and one woman*.

They have civil unions that have been established for them.

-----------------------------------------

That's Melbourne, Coburg, where Janet Rice is.

_http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/_


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> here's an exercise for you and your new cobber who can count posts:
> 
> take you little finger and curl it almost closed, put it inside your mouth on one side of your cheek and pull while looking in the mirror .... get it yet?
> 
> BTW how are those counter facts going?




Go and get...... Essentially Tisme you vomit a lot of poisonous dribble on this topic and then give a cheesy smile to say 'I'm pulling your leg".

If I knew you well enough, trusted your judgement and "got"  your sense of hummus ... yeah maybe I could laugh it off as just you. 

But I don't have that privilege do I ? In a sense I/we have to take most of what people say here on face value. We* can *give the benefit of the doubt. We can offer and accept explanations or apologies if there has been misunderstandings. But frankly the overwhleming tone of your direct and indirect (content from the net) contributions to the discussion on gays and same sex marriage has been disgust and disquiet at the whole idea.
It also seems to be coupled with a strong belief that straight marriages are the bulwark of society and that the introduction of SSM will hasten the decline of civilisation as we know it.


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

Here are some facts.

In 2015, there were 113,595 marriages registered in Australia, a decrease of 7,602 (-6.3%) from the 121,197 marriages registered in 2014

In 2015, there were 48,517 divorces granted in Australia, an increase of 2,019 (4.3%) from the 46,498 divorces granted in 2014.

Seems society is changing regardless with a fair % of people ending in divorce.

To be fair to all, just ban marriage.


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Leave Marriage as it is - *one man and one woman*.



Accept marriage for what it is:
A voluntary living arrangement between two consenting adults ("I do!") who agree to share, and care for, each other and potential Dependants ... for as long as it suits them.


----------



## Tink (7 September 2017)

Marriage is about children, and raising those children, pixel.
Responsibility.

As I have said, the state has no business in same sex marriage, it goes against the children, the most vulnerable.

You think children should be bought and sold?
So are we going back to slavery now.

What reason should the state be supporting same sex marriage and transgender marriage?
How is this good for society?


----------



## grah33 (7 September 2017)

Marriage (true marriage) raised human dignity to new heights when it came into the world. Gay marriage throws it away.

Yes, there are many marriages ending in divorce. That tells you that society doesn't really believe in marriage anymore, not that marriage isn't necessary for society. You'll see correlation occurring – less values in society translate to more problems as well.  And poorer living conditions.  It's already happening.

Good point about the children - in the future it's going to be hard for them.


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is about children, and raising those children, pixel.



I strongly disagree, Tink
I know scores of happily married couples that don't have any children. Do you now want to deny them the status of being married, too? Force childless couples to either adopt or get divorced? Yeah - put  that to a Plebiscite...
Methinks you're trying to hijack the term "Marriage" and restrict its meaning to your personal narrow interpretation. If you wish, conduct your personal affairs on an ancient model. I, however, couldn't care less how Neanderthals, Cavemen, or some Middle-Eastern Desert Tribes arranged their private affairs many millennia ago. Nor do I wish to interfere in the private lives of any of my fellow citizens - as long as they remain within the Common Law.
Meddling in someone else's private life is, IMHO, the pinnacle of arrogance and hypocrisy.


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is about children, and raising those children, pixel.
> Responsibility.
> 
> As I have said, the state has no business in same sex marriage, it goes against the children, the most vulnerable.
> ...




Your statements are confusing.

How does it go against the children? Are you saying that children cannot be bought up with 2 moms or 2 dads?

My own children have 2 moms and 2 dads, should I send them to counselling, do they need help?

Is a child better or worse for having a single parent against 2 loving parents of the same sex?

Doesn't divorce on the increase and marriage on the decline affect the children in a negative way?

Are you saying you have to be married to have children or that the children of a couple who aren't married somehow are somehow effect in a negative way from the children of a married couple?


----------



## PZ99 (7 September 2017)

High court has given the vote the go ahead. We're on 

Key dates in SSM postal survey:

September 12 — survey forms start being sent out
September 25 — all forms are expected to have been sent
October 27 — forms are strongly encouraged to be returned by this date
November 7 — the final deadline to return surveys
November 15 — results are released

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-07/same-sex-marriage-postal-survey-greenlit-by-high-court/8881956


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> How does it go against the children? Are you saying that children cannot be bought up with 2 moms or 2 dads?




There is such a thing as "normality" in society, and kids who are outside the norm feel confused about their place in society.

IMO gays and lesbians are having children because of some perverse wish to create "little soldiers" for their own cause and to take their own perceived rejection into the mainstream, thereby depriving children of the normal upbringing that they deserve.

Children raised by same sex parents are speaking up in support of traditional families.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/child...for-traditional-families-20150417-1mn8ue.html


----------



## smallwolf (7 September 2017)

> if you're into religion, then you're not into gay marriage etc. It's a no-brainer really.




Really? So all the people here (which includes priests ) must not be into religion...

https://www.facebook.com/AustralianChristiansforMarriageEquality/


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

Rumpole, 

Firstly, what the hell in normal, you must wear slacks and shoes, have brown hair and go to church every Sunday.

Based on what you believe is normal, it would scare the **** of me if you had any contact with my children, projecting your beliefs on them.

However, based on your beliefs, you better start partitioning that all homosexuals are removed from the education system, we cannot have those gays people trying to convert our children can we. lol

Might as go a step further, care givers, nurses, sports coaches, anyone who could deprive our children of a "normal" upbringing.

And why don't we bring back jewish star to be placed on all people who are not normal, we need to know who they are to save the children.

Yes, I am taking the piss out of your naive and ridiculous statements.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

*Same sex marriage: the Irish experience*

_"All too often campaigners seek to change things by explaining to people why they need to change and why their values are all wrong. In the Irish campaign we did the opposite. We knew that marriage equality would sit very comfortably in a country which values strong families; since this was about cherishing everyone in our families whatever their sexual orientation. The values that underpinned the faith of most Irish people, respect, dignity for every person and treating people as you would like to be treated, were also complimentary to supporting marriage equality."
_
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/same-sex-marriage-the-irish-experience-20170906-gycg58.html


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

From Getup



> It's on Tisme
> 
> *The High Court just ruled the government's postal plebiscite on marriage equality is technically within the rules — meaning that ballots for the vote will start arriving next week.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

Previous call to arms




> *We can't let things turn ugly.*
> 
> The 'No' campaign against marriage equality just launched its big-money TV ad — filled with the kind of deceitful scaremongering and prejudice we've seen from Tony Abbott in this debate.1 *Their strategy is not just to keep committed LGBTIQ+ couples apart, but to divide the nation against itself.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Go and get...... Essentially Tisme you vomit a lot of poisonous dribble on this topic and then give a cheesy smile to say 'I'm pulling your leg".
> 
> If I knew you well enough, trusted your judgement and "got"  your sense of hummus ... yeah maybe I could laugh it off as just you.
> 
> B.






Where are those facts matey. I know what you are feeling, I've seen it all before, your whole house of cards collapses when someone calls your bluff.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> High court has given the vote the go ahead. We're on
> 
> Key dates in SSM postal survey:
> 
> ...





Let's not throw away the opportunity to put a personal and thought out vote that not only looks at our current crass society and it's wanton lascivious focus, but advocates for the needs of the little children, think of the little children who deserve the opportunity and solidarity of a fulltime real mum and a fulltime real dad.

This is a chance to right the wrongs of the baby boomer failtards who produced a generation of illiterate, self absorbed, uncivilised, moronic sheep who swell the ranks of the Greens and Getup to advocate for destruction of their children's birthrights and traditions.

We need a generation that can rekindle our once great nation of head down arse up for work rather than play.

hallelujah brothers and sisters and the residual antichrists.


----------



## Tisme (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> There is such a thing as "normality" in society, and kids who are outside the norm feel confused about their place in society.
> 
> IMO gays and lesbians are having children because of some perverse wish to create "little soldiers" for their own cause and to take their own perceived rejection into the mainstream, thereby depriving children of the normal upbringing that they deserve.
> 
> ...




They live longer than poodles, dachshund and toy dogs too


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Firstly, what the hell in normal, you must wear slacks and shoes, have brown hair and go to church every Sunday.




98% of the population choose partners of the opposite sex. 

That is normal.


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 98% of the population choose partners of the opposite sex.
> 
> That is normal.




No is not, well maybe for those that live out in bum f-k idaho it is.

Your argument is flawed. 

*Red hair* occurs naturally in 1–2% of the human population. So all red heads are by your definition not normal.

Australians of diverse sexual orientation, sex or gender identity may account for up to 11 per cent of the Australian population.

A large number of LGBTI people hide their sexuality or gender identity when accessing services (34 per cent), at social and community events (42 per cent) and at work (39 per cent).[7] Young people aged 16 to 24 years are most likely to hide their sexuality or gender identity.


----------



## PZ99 (7 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Let's not throw away the opportunity to put a personal and thought out vote that not only looks at our current crass society and it's wanton lascivious focus, but advocates for the needs of the little children, think of the little children who deserve the opportunity and solidarity of a fulltime real mum and a fulltime real dad.
> 
> This is a chance to right the wrongs of the baby boomer failtards who produced a generation of illiterate, self absorbed, uncivilised, moronic sheep who swell the ranks of the Greens and Getup to advocate for destruction of their children's birthrights and traditions.
> 
> ...



Here's an alternative point of view. One of the positive underlying attributes to our advanced society is a higher degree of tolerance + freedom of choice and I stand by that creed with the only caveat being no individual, or group, is unfairly disadvantaged. I have nothing to gain from voting NO and I have nothing to lose from voting YES. I just hope the final vote doesn't get distorted by pressure groups such as GetUp or religious / political groups. 

Just one thing. An honest vote is one based on your principals or beliefs, not one that obfuscates gay marriage with political leanings or other irrelevancies.

Two more months of this subject dominating General Chat... I'll be glad when it's over.


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> residual antichrists.



not so "residual" at all.
According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, more than 86% of eligible Australians drink alcoholic beverages. Taking on board what has been said about the Christ at a particular Wedding, *He turned water into wine*. That means those 86% of Australians who do drink the odd glass of wine are by definition "Anti-Christs" because they do the exact opposite.


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 98% of the population choose partners of the opposite sex




Only 2% are smart enough to qualify for Mensa membership. What does that mean for the "normal" majority? Draw your own conclusion from that.

An even larger percentage of people get around without wheelchairs or walking frames. Thanks for implying that we're somehow abnormal.

90% are right-hand dominant. Does that give a teacher the right to smack an "abnormal" leftie pupil until the poor child learns to behave "normally"?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

pixel said:


> Only 2% are smart enough to qualify for Mensa membership. What does that mean for the "normal" majority? Draw your own conclusion from that.
> 
> An even larger percentage of people get around without wheelchairs or walking frames. Thanks for implying that we're somehow abnormal.
> 
> 90% are right-hand dominant. Does that give a teacher the right to smack an "abnormal" leftie pupil until the poor child learns to behave "normally"?




Yes, yes, and I have abnormal vision so I'm not Superman either through no conscious decision of mine, as your affliction is no conscious decision of yours.

The question of normality was mentioned in the context of raising children, which is a conscious decision and the children are not given much consideration when some parents decide to raise them in an atmosphere that most likely  will  result that the kids will be heterosexual while the parents are homosexual. That creates feelings of confusion from the start when the kids see that their family structure does not correspond to societal norms. "Why is my family different ?" etc.

Kids don't need that confusion in an increasingly uncertain and stressful world, which is why I'm a supporter of the traditional family structure all else being equal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 September 2017)

Yes


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The question of normality was mentioned in the context of raising children



You could've fooled me 
Children don't choose sex partners. They don't even choose their parents. But I agree that a child needs love and hugs and body contact. When a child receives that from an early age, that's becoming "the norm" far more than finding out whether parents are convex or concave.

Statistically speaking, there may well be a higher percentage of single-parent kids that miss out on education, role modelling, or character building. Whether that is also true for kids of same-sex couples would require an independent study to determine the degree to which such children really feel "confused" or "abnormal".
While I am not a Child Psychologist myself, I have worked with Psychologists enough to know that they won't agree on a single assessment, but they will most likely find for each situation a solution that parents can apply to mitigate any ill effects a child may suffer.
For example: Every Psychologist will tell you that children suffer when their parents abuse booze, drugs, or each other. And a much higher percentage of "normal" than your quoted 2% will ignore that warning and continue to fight, drink, smoke in front of their kids.

What has all of that to do with allowing same-sex couple to get married as "normal" people? *Nothing. Zip. Nix.*
If you want to legislate for children to be raised without harm and confusion, set up a framework that parents should abide by. But that would be a totally different topic. Start another forum thread to discuss the rights of a child in today's gender-neutral society.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 September 2017)

I know many parents who are not same sex who are totally unsuited to be parents.

I'm voting Yes.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

pixel said:


> Start another forum thread to discuss the rights of a child in today's gender-neutral society.




There already is one "Same sex Parenting" buried somewhere in the archives.


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I know many parents who are not same sex who are totally unsuited to be parents.
> 
> I'm voting Yes.




How true that statement is. If we are talking about the children, then the issue is not same sex marriage, it is the quality of parenting is all that matters.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I know many parents who are not same sex who are totally unsuited to be parents.




What makes you think that same sex parents would be any better on average ?

Are they all angels who don't smoke, drink, do drugs and don't have a constant trail of partners trooping through the house ?


----------



## pixel (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> There already is one "Same sex Parenting" buried somewhere in the archives.



It's *NOT* about same-sex parenting.
It's about Parenting. Full Stop.

In the absence of conclusive studies into parenting outcomes as a function of parents' sexual orientation, we can not make any but the most cursory and biased statements on the subject. Every Tom, Dick, and Harriette will pick anecdotal tales that support their personal bias. And the result will be statements as offensive as "Same-sex couples raise AIDS kids" or "Dark-skinned girls are raped by their relatives from an early age" or "single-parent kids think it's normal to live on the Dole"...



SirRumpole said:


> What makes you think that same sex parents would be any better on average ?



So, you agree then that same-sex couples are quite "normal" - on average.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

pixel said:


> In the absence of conclusive studies into parenting outcomes as a function of parents' sexual orientation, we can not make any but the most cursory and biased statements on the subject. Every Tom, Dick, and Harriette will pick anecdotal tales that support their personal bias.




Can you honestly say that anyone who has been raised in a happy environment by their biological mother and father would prefer that they were raised by homosexuals ?


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you honestly say that anyone who has been raised in a happy environment by their biological mother and father would prefer that they were raised by homosexuals ?



 Che ???!! . 
I'm speechless Rumpy.  Your waaaay better than that post.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Che ???!! .
> I'm speechless Rumpy.  Your waaaay better than that post.




It's a straightforward question, maybe a bit blunt, but I don't see why the outrage.

Think about it honestly Bas. If we would not be prepared to go through it ourselves, I don't see how we can expect others to.


----------



## Macquack (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you honestly say that anyone who has been raised in a happy environment by their biological mother and father would prefer that they were raised by homosexuals ?



I would have preferred to have been brought up by the Swedish Bikini Team, but I may not be "normal".


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> I would have preferred to have been brought up by the Swedish Bikini Team, but I may not be "normal".




I was quite happy with my parents, even though they didn't wear bikinis in those days.


----------



## satanoperca (7 September 2017)

Mate, what sought of logic is that, so if we are going to through up irrational comments try this.

Would you have rather been parented by two loving homosexuals (cannot stand the need to label but in the context of this discussion it seems necessary) or by a woman and man (opposite sex) where one party or both were abusive, alcoholics?

Of course in a perfect world, every child would have a mother and father who loved each other and the sibling(s), but last I checked, we don't live in a perfect world. 

If you are so concerned with how children develop into adults, do you donate your valuable time to all those children in need, who come from abusive opposite sex marriages or are you another idealist that thinks every is sunshine and lollipops out their if they ad hear to your ideologies.

My apologies, I take everything back about you Rumpole. Anyone who goes by the name SIR aligns themselves with the old customs of being a feudal lord, which explains your current thought process on these issues.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> My apologies, I take everything back about you Rumpole. Anyone who goes by the name SIR aligns themselves with the old customs of being a feudal lord, which explains your current thought process on these issues.




Oh no, SIR was simply a tongue in cheek response to Tony Abbott's knights and dames bullshite.



> Would you have rather been parented by two loving homosexuals (cannot stand the need to label but in the context of this discussion it seems necessary) or by a woman and man (opposite sex) where one party or both were abusive, alcoholics?




I did say "all else being equal". Are you saying that no homosexual couples are abusive ?

Anyway, time to end this. I'm voting No, not because I think gays shouldn't be able to marry but because I think the traditional Marriage Act should be maintained.

I'll probably lose, but that's life.


----------



## cynic (7 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> I would have preferred to have been brought up by the Swedish Bikini Team, but I may not be "normal".




Some might say "never mind". But others could say:


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 September 2017)

basilio said:


> The Australian people have long since made up their minds that they support marriage equality so let's take the last small step together.
> Tiernan Brady



This bloke makes a lot of inclusive statements as if everyone has free issue rainbow coloured glasses on. I was genuinely interested in the outcomes two years after the homosexually governed Irish voted to change the definition of marriage. Instead it is an article written by the homosexual *political director of the Irish Yes Equality campaign *who gaily attempts to persuade people to vote yes in Australia. I had better check if my free issue rainbow coloured glasses have arrived so I can make the transition to completely persuaded.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 September 2017)

In the workplace there is a campaign for LGBTIQ. "If I wear it I declare it" something to do with wearing a purple ribbon and declaring you are gay or a gay supporter. WTF. Where does this unimportant stuff come from? I don't want to be "made aware". Next will be a 0.5% levy imposed to raise funds to build cities for these people, free medical and employment preference over non LGBTIQ.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a straightforward question, maybe a bit blunt, but I don't see why the outrage.
> 
> Think about it honestly Bas. If we would not be prepared to go through it ourselves, I don't see how we can expect others to.




So you are serious and you can't see the "madness" of the hypothetical  question you pose ?
We live in the real world where time doesn't go backwards and we can't magically propose another  past that somehow might be better than the one we have already experienced.
You ask the question about a person, say me or you, who has had a "happy childhood environment with Mum and Dad" prefering to have been raised by 2 men/women.

Firstly I just can't see almost anyone who has had a happy childhood wondering whether another pair of parents could have been better.  Really,  why would you ? What mental gain is achieved by the process ? What would it prove ?

But for the sake of the hypothetical lets say we pursue the question. Would our next parents be more exotic than our perhaps staid, average Joe / Jane family ? Could be they be better off ? More cultured ? More sport ? More arty ? Would I have more interesting siblings ? Perhaps ones who were nicer to me ? What would the grandparents be like ?

What if  there were two men/woman who were wealthy, intelligent, kind, fun and loved you to bitts ? What if they supported you in whatever career you chose, gave you the kicks in the bum to keep you on track and kept you out of trouble during the challenges of adolescence ?  Would these characteristics be enough to make up for the fact they were two men/two women?

In the real world many of us have average or poor or irresponsible or slightly crazy parents. Or they have these traits some of the time.  That is just the way it is. We deal with it as best we can. But in my view the qualities that make people shine as parents don't include whether they are straight or gay.
Perhaps that is why we now allow gay people and singles to become foster parents and adopt children if they present as loving, responsible, committed people.

So its a long response Rumpy but in essence you posed a silly non-question which could only generate a million sillier non responses.

Rubbish in. Rubbish out


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 September 2017)

pixel said:


> It's *NOT* about same-sex parenting.
> It's about Parenting. Full Stop.
> In the absence of conclusive studies into parenting outcomes as a function of parents' sexual orientation, we can not make any but the most cursory and biased statements on the subject.



It is observed that females are the producing and nurturing of offspring with male input to varying degrees. That bond begins in the womb and stays physically until the offspring is ready to exist independently. If it is about parenting then it is going to be about adoption for males and transvestites and sperm donations or adoption for females. Out of the multiple scenarios it would be natural (whatever natural could mean going forward) for females to do better instinctively (again whatever instinctive is going forward). There is also the possibility a child raised in these alternate sexuality relationships one day learns the majority of other kids have a mum and dad. Some conditioning about the new normal will be required.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2017)

basilio said:


> We deal with it as best we can. But in my view the qualities that make people shine as parents don't include whether they are straight or gay.




Well, we will just have to disagree there.

Male & female role models are essential in a child's development in my view and the best place to get these is in the home.

As the children of gays turn into adults a number are coming forward in favour of traditional families. I've posted links to their stories before. If we don't listen to those who have been through the experience then we have no right to make judgements from our own ivory towers.



> But for the sake of the hypothetical lets say we pursue the question. Would our next parents be more exotic than our perhaps staid, average Joe / Jane family ? Could be they be better off ? More cultured ? More sport ? More arty ? Would I have more interesting siblings ? Perhaps ones who were nicer to me ? What would the grandparents be like ?




All the things you mentioned are irrelevant. The question was not about "more arty" or "more sporty", it was simply about their gender. If children in school are required to imagine being in a same sex relationship I'm sure you could imagine if your mother was a man or your father was a woman couldn't you ? It's the same principle of putting yourself in other's shoes which I believe you said was a valid thing for children to do. Or are you prepared to abandon that philosophy ?


----------



## Triathlete (8 September 2017)

kirraliesmith.org/2017/09/greens-admit-ssm-is-not-the-end-goal.html


----------



## drsmith (8 September 2017)

Sportsbet odds are relatively tight at $1.60/$2.25 in favour of a yes outcome from the postal vote.

https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/same-sex-marriage

The political left now faces a dilemma as a yes outcome would undoubtedly be favoured by the Turnbull government. The conduct of the campaign will be interesting to watch, from all sides.


----------



## Logique (8 September 2017)

Triathlete said:


> kirraliesmith.org/2017/09/greens-admit-ssm-is-not-the-end-goal.html



Well found Tri. The piece comes as no surprise to anyone following the evolution of the SSM push. The gays are just dates for the Prom. My bolds..







> Read more here: https://greens.org.au/magazine/national/beyond-marriage-equality...The *Greens admit there is equality already* and the *real aim is to pursue radical gender theories*.
> It is clear that despite the lies dished out by Shorten, the Greens and other “yes” campaigners this debate is about a lot more than two people getting married. *Radical gender theory is driving this* and we must look at the statistics and facts from around the world where same sex marriage has been legalised.
> 
> It hasn’t made much difference at all to the problems faced by the LGBTI community but it has made a great deal of difference to free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association.
> Don’t be sucked in by the emotive hashtags such as #loveislove and *don’t be fooled into believing this is simply a vote on two people getting married* because by the Greens own hand they admit there is something else going on...


----------



## History Repeats (8 September 2017)

I would vote no, for me it's against the nature.


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2017)

History Repeats said:


> I would vote no, for me it's against the nature.




How so? Homosexuality exists in nature.

But I don't think things being "natural" stop you normally, for example you see to be using the internet, thats not natural.


----------



## Tisme (8 September 2017)

Do old people have the moral right to be voting, given they are not likely to see the mess they left behind.


----------



## satanoperca (8 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Do old people have the moral right to be voting, given they are not likely to see the mess they left behind.




WTF - you do come up with some drivel, finding it amusing. 

I no longer have to go to the asylum house to see the nutters


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Homosexuality exists in nature.
> .



Do they have same sex marriage though?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Do they have same sex marriage though?



I guess you could describe them as equal rights to marriage.


----------



## History Repeats (8 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> How so? Homosexuality exists in nature.
> 
> But I don't think things being "natural" stop you normally, for example you see to be using the internet, thats not natural.




The universe, the world does not operate like that. You have yin and yang, day/night. BTW i have no problem with gay people.


----------



## satanoperca (8 September 2017)

History Repeats said:


> The universe, the world does not operate like that. You have yin and yang, day/night. BTW i have no problem with gay people.




Really, so the world exists without gay people?

day and night,black and white, really that simple? how about shades of grey, transitions between them.
Just like sexuality. Nothing in nature is binary, 1 or 0.


----------



## grah33 (8 September 2017)

smallwolf said:


> Really? So all the people here (which includes priests ) must not be into religion...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/AustralianChristiansforMarriageEquality/




Everyone knows you're always going to get some offshoot on the same side. We've all seen that before. Basically Christianity doesn't mix with drugs, theft, prostitution, especially homosexuality , etc.

Here, see for yourself :

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ...(Romans 1:26-27)"
(one of many verses. not meaning to offend people,just explaining that it's total rubbish that one can be christian/religious and support gay marriage.  )


----------



## basilio (8 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Everyone knows you're always going to get some offshoot on the same side. We've all seen that before. Basically Christianity doesn't mix with drugs, theft, prostitution, especially homosexuality , etc.




Don't think so graph33.  One of the striking things about Jesus Christ was that he did associate with the prostitutes, the tax collectors (who were pretty scummy), the adulterers, the Samaritans in fact most of the "low life" of the time.
Christianity was for all people and in particular the sinners.

I also posted a couple of stories from Catholic teachers highlighting their argument that the Church did not have a role in trying to dictate to the secular community that gay marriage was unacceptable.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...allenge-church-teaching-on-same-sex-marriage/

_____________________________________________


This article in The Jesuit Post explores the issue in more detail. Interestingly it makes a very strong point that supporting SSM is* NOT* a religious attack.  

*#LoveHurts*
*Published Jun 27, 2015 in In the News, Sexuality ~ Approx 3 mins *

Discussion
 0
View image | gettyimages.com

A frequent piece of advice for new priests serving at weddings and funerals goes: “Do nothing to take away from their joy and never add to their grief.” It’s tough advice to follow when one group’s joy entails another side’s grief. Right now, many same-sex couples are celebrating the civil right to get married. At the same time, pundits and political candidates as well as our own church leaders are lamenting the death of democracy, states’ rights, and religious liberty.

Those of us loyal both to our church and to our LGBT family and friends are left in a difficult position. On the one hand, we want to proclaim the way, the truth, and the life – we want to witness to the radically transformative power of God’s love in the world – and we want to follow the church’s lead in that endeavor. On the other, we struggle to reconcile the church’s teaching with the suffering of our loved ones, or the church’s disappointment with our loved ones’ joy.

https://thejesuitpost.org/2015/06/lovehurts/


----------



## smallwolf (8 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Here, see for yourself :
> 
> "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ...(Romans 1:26-27)"
> (one of many verses. not meaning to offend people,just explaining that it's total rubbish that one can be christian/religious and support gay marriage.  )




Just to add to the what basilio said.... when you refer to the many verses... you mean there more than 6 mentioned here (by Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.)...

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

or here

http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6...ality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say

and to quote from the first link "In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers."

so where does justice and equality fit in for "gay marriage"?


----------



## Value Collector (8 September 2017)

History Repeats said:


> The universe, the world does not operate like that. You have yin and yang, day/night. BTW i have no problem with gay people.




Doesn't operate like what? How has the "universe" got anything to do with it.


----------



## Tink (9 September 2017)

satanoperca, I have said I am standing up for traditional marriage because that is what Marriage is.
One man and one woman.
A mother and father to raise their children, and be responsible for their children.

Civil unions have been set up for same sex and transgender to have the exact same rights.
To me, we are all men and women, and Marriage has a purpose.
It is about keeping the family together.

Just as our parents, our grandparents, all did the same.
Each generation is an extension of the other, and we build on from them, we don't think we are better than our parents.
We only get one mum and one dad in the biological sense.

It takes a man and a woman to have a baby, and it takes both to raise them.
They are equal, but they are different, in what they give to a child.
A father and a mother matter in a childs life.

Making marriage about friendships has no purpose.

Grah, I haven't put up any biblical quotes, even though VC likes to have his 'Rage against God'.
Our country was built on our Christian foundations, as I have mentioned.
Our language, our culture, all come from that.
One nation under God.

Love one another as I have loved you, does not mean, free love.
God accepts all people, the sinners, but not the sin.
We live in a fallen world but we know what is right and wrong.

Pornography, prostitution, and LGBTI marriage on the same line was a give away that it was from the sex industry.
The state to be demanding and over riding parents to be teaching children about homosexual acts, is not on, imv.
What people do in their home is their business, but for the state to over ride parents.
The state has no business pushing that on children.
http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

This is my view.


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> WTF - you do come up with some drivel, finding it amusing.
> 
> I no longer have to go to the asylum house to see the nutters




So you hang around asylums? did you notice if they have bigotry towards heterosexual marriage?


----------



## tech/a (9 September 2017)

What's happened to best friends.


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Do they have same sex marriage though?




It's not uncommon to see homo and interracial sex on a farm. I recall the sheepdogs getting a bit on the side with the sheep, a leg from the nearest human female, even other blokey dogs. I can understand how this is reason for homohuman marriage, dogs are metaphors for universal ownership of nuptials for everyone, sheep, legs, ..........


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2017)

i


tech/a said:


> What's happened to best friends.




Is that me?

 I am stuck the ar5hole of Oz at the moment so internet access is tenuous.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> i
> 
> I am stuck the ar5hole of Oz at the moment so internet access is tenuous.




Lakemba ?


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

Check out this video, it has some interesting facts about Gays, according to our google searches a lot more of us are gay than you would think.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Check out this video, it has some interesting facts about Gays, according to our google searches a lot more of us are gay than you would think.






It's too big!  I _*knew*_ it.  Hehe.

*4:26 min* is a crack up!    Made my day that one.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Check out this video, it has some interesting facts about Gays, according to our google searches a lot more of us are gay than you would think.





No one is going to stick their organ up my posterior if I can help it.


----------



## drsmith (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> No one is going to stick their organ up my posterior if I can help it.


----------



## Macquack (9 September 2017)

Tink said:


> It takes a man and a woman to have a baby, and it* takes both to raise them.*




That is a insult to all single parents


.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> That is a insult to all single parents
> 
> 
> .




Would you agree that two is better than one, all else being equal ?


----------



## Tink (9 September 2017)

Remember that these same people tried to STOP your voices from being heard

VOTE NO.

STAND UP FOR THE FAMILY.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you agree that two is better than one, all else being equal ?



does that mean a lesbian couple is better than a single mum?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> does that mean a lesbian couple is better than a single mum?




Is the single mum also a lesbian ?


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Is the single mum also a lesbian ?



why would that matter, a single lady is a single lady.

If anything, with the amount of physical abuse and molestation that happens at the hands of step fathers and boyfriends, the lesbians may have an advantage.



> Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother.






> Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males , 26% of all cases involving male perpetrators were associated with sexual abuse compared to just 2% of cases involving female perpetrators




https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> why would that matter, a single lady is a single lady.
> 
> If anything, with the amount of physical abuse and molestation that happens at the hands of step fathers and boyfriends, the lesbians may have an advantage.
> 
> ...






> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) releases an annual report detailing statutory child protection reports across Australia, however the only information regarding who abuses children is recorded as “family type” (AIHW, 2014). Family type identifies whether the child was from a single parent family, two parent “intact” family, two parent blended family, or other family type such as relatives/kin or foster care, however it does not indicate who was responsible for the abuse or neglect in substantiated cases.1




Some of those could be from gay/lesbian families, who knows ?


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Some of those could be from gay/lesbian families, who knows ?




either  way, as I said the lack of a male in the relationship means that children of lesbian couples are less likely to suffer abuse, especially of a sexual nature.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

I found this research interesting



> The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.




http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2017)

So if im understanding the gist of the pc apologists, a normal hetro coupe is just about the worst thing for children?


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Pornography, prostitution, and LGBTI marriage on the same line was a give away that it was from the sex industry.
> *The state to be demanding and over riding parents to be teaching children about homosexual acts, is not on, imv.
> What people do in their home is their business, but for the state to over ride parents.
> The state has no business pushing that on children.*
> ...



Incredible this issue has gone from a sexual preference thing to affecting the core of society. Leverage for greater perversion! We have twits asking what is "normal".


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> either  way, as I said the lack of a male in the relationship means that children of lesbian couples are less likely to suffer abuse, especially of a sexual nature.




Well obviously then, two gay male fathers is the worst that can happen for children ?


----------



## grah33 (9 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Don't think so graph33.  One of the striking things about Jesus Christ was that he did associate with the prostitutes, the tax collectors (who were pretty scummy), the adulterers, the Samaritans in fact most of the "low life" of the time.
> Christianity was for all people and in particular the sinners.





Bas: you're playing on my words here. yes, Jesus did associate with prostitutes etc. his explanation for it was that he was a 'doctor' who needed to fix and help people. this is completely different from supporting prostitution or SSM. what happened to the famous prostitute who followed him, and the tax collector? they renounced their ways and become superb christian examples.

regards the little text fragment, well, many religious ministers/clergy don't see it like that at all. they see it as defined in that text I quoted before – that it's not normal and morally wrong. love isn't a fickle feeling, at least the kind of love that is worth something.. the gov shouldn't be making policies based on human feelings.






smallwolf said:


> Just to add to the what basilio said.... when you refer to the many verses... you mean there more than 6 mentioned here (by Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.)...
> 
> so where does justice and equality fit in for "gay marriage"?



*a*s I said before, you're always gonna get someone who will try to say that 1+1 might not actually equal 2. we've seen these tactics before. 99% of the church certainly disagrees with him on biblical interpretations.

As for justice and equality, well if you read the verse I quoted before, it obviously doesn't apply to what is considered unnatural and outside of proper human functioning. can I ask you, do you think it's normal for adults to be attracted to children, or family members? I asked it before to people, and I never got an answer.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> do you think it's normal for adults to be attracted to children,




Attracted in what way ?


----------



## grah33 (9 September 2017)

sexually


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Lakemba ?





Oddly enough, it's actually a queer capital of Oz,. The people are great but the demography belies the landscape and living conditions.


----------



## Tisme (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> either  way, as I said the lack of a male in the relationship means that children of lesbian couples are less likely to suffer abuse, especially of a sexual nature.




Now we are picking on men, because of a few wankers. If you are going to use that logic homosexuals should be punished because they failed to meet their obligations for the propogation and transmittal of aids. Those same males who forced themselves on their wives infecting them too.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well obviously then, two gay male fathers is the worst that can happen for children ?




Well If you read the article, sexual assault against children is often done by male pedos, how don't really have a sexuality, they may hide in a heterosexual relationship to seem normal, but they aren't.

So a gay couple that have gone out of their way to prove they have a sexuality, and aren't hiding has a much lower chance of being pedos.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So a gay couple that have gone out of their way to prove they have a sexuality, and aren't hiding has a much lower chance of being pedos.




Your argument seems to be that "men are men" whether they are gay or straight, so the chances of a gay man molesting children is about the same as that for a straight man ? If so, with two men in the family that would make it twice as likely for children to be molested than a man and a woman.


----------



## Value Collector (9 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Your argument seems to be that "men are men" whether they are gay or straight, so the chances of a gay man molesting children is about the same as that for a straight man ? If so, with two men in the family that would make it twice as likely for children to be molested than a man and a woman.




Actually my initial claim was that most physical abuse comes from straight men.

But when you are talking about pedo's, they are generally not looked upon as being either straight or gay, they are pedophiles.

Now this part is just my hypothesis, but I think if a pedo was trying to hide his sexuality, he would hide as a straight man, not a gay man, because gay men already have stigma, what would be the point of that.

So I think an openly gay couple, are probably less likely to be pedos.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Actually my initial claim was that most physical abuse comes from straight men.




But didn't you say that pedophiles are basically sexless ; ie they don't identify as straight or gay, they are just pedophiles ? In that case you have just contradicted your quote above.

In any case a lot of abuse is done by family members, uncles, grandparents, siblings etc and these are equally likely to occur where the guardians are straight or gay so we can't really come to a conclusion based on parenting type.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> But didn't you say that pedophiles are basically sexless ; ie they don't identify as straight or gay, they are just pedophiles ? In that case you have just contradicted your quote above.




No, because most abuse is not pedophillia, physical abuse would include physical violence  and sexual abuse that is not pedophillia, and most of this is done by straight men.

The pedophillia is largely considered to be neither straight or gay, but what I am saying is that a person who knows they are a pedo, will want to hide it from society, and they would probably choose to hide as a straight male.

So an openly gay man, is less likely to be a pedo.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So an openly gay man, is less likely to be a pedo.




But a gay man who is a pedo could pretend to be straight ?


----------



## MrBurns (10 September 2017)

There's many complications with a Yes vote, these aren't publicised but it's more far reaching than just walking down the aisle so I'm told.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2017)

This is why I'm a no

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

Snip : 
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.

Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.

Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.


----------



## MrBurns (10 September 2017)

It might seem like prejudice to some but I don't feel comfortable with kids being raised in a same sex household, it's not right....end of story.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> It might seem like prejudice to some but I don't feel comfortable with kids being raised in a same sex household, it's not right....end of story.




It's not prejudice at all, same sex parenting goes against 3 billion years of evolution. Nothing replaces loving biological parents.


----------



## MrBurns (10 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not prejudice at all, same sex parenting goes against 3 billion years of evolution. Nothing replaces loving biological parents.




This is the sleeper isn't it, all the publicity is about love and gay rights but once this gets up children become involved as they would have the legal right to raise them and have it treated as normal.
I'm afraid I'll have to go with the NO side but I think the YES side will win because of the positive publicity about it.


----------



## tech/a (10 September 2017)

For a broad spectrum look at our future 
Take the time to READ Wayne's post above.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> But a gay man who is a pedo could pretend to be straight ?



True pedos aren't either straight or gay.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> True pedos aren't either straight or gay.




So what about the often quoted story about the two gay men who procured a child for the purpose of sexually abusing him ?


----------



## Logique (10 September 2017)

It's not just confined to Canada!







> http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ons-religious-freedom-wake-gay-marriage-vote/   4 Dec 2015 - *Ireland has stripped away laws which protected the rights of people to freedom of religion when in conflict with gay rights*....Ireland’s Parliament has been busy with a slate of reforms designed to cement the rights of gay people within Irish law, Pink News has reported.
> 
> On Tuesday night the latest bastion against religious intolerance was swept away, as the Dáil voted unanimously *to repeal Section 37* of the state’s Employment Equality Act. *Section 37 granted specific exemptions for “religious, educational or medical institutions*” when it came to gay rights, allowing them “to maintain the religious ethos of the institution”.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2017)

The trouble is that nobody is listening,  they are repeating the #loveislove mantra andc refusing to consider the attendant Orwellian consequences for the vast majority


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 September 2017)

Logique said:


> It's not just confined to Canada!



The agenda might be skewed with Ireland having a homosexual head of government. Wait till Bill Shorten comes out. Whhoooooh. Lol.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what about the often quoted story about the two gay men who procured a child for the purpose of sexually abusing him ?



I haven't seen their psych reports, so have no idea.

However that does seem to be the isolated case that continually does the rounds, but compared to the massive volume of child molesters who pose as straight I think it is not very relevant.


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2017)

What


wayneL said:


> The trouble is that nobody is listening,  they are repeating the #loveislove mantra andc refusing to consider the attendant Orwellian consequences for the vast majority



What are the consequences?


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What
> 
> What are the consequences?



Read the links I posted...


Really, I rest my case on that point.


----------



## tech/a (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What
> 
> What are the consequences?




READ Wayne's link


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> This is the sleeper isn't it, all the publicity is about love and gay rights but once this gets up children become involved as they would have the legal right to raise them and have it treated as normal.
> I'm afraid I'll have to go with the NO side but I think the YES side will win because of the positive publicity about it.




No the sleeper is the marital status gives estates to the wife/husband rather than biological children who have already had to endure the absence of real parent.

Of course proponents will point to divorce, black people on buses, slavery, etc to justify that chances are a kid's life is already wrecked, so this malfeasance perpetrated at the front end of a relationship, rather than half way in, is justified.


----------



## Tisme (10 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.




With SSM the misery for kids is planned, whereas most other situations are unforeseen. Child abuse.


----------



## luutzu (10 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> With SSM the misery for kids is planned, whereas most other situations are unforeseen. Child abuse.




I thought straight couples nowadays only get married when they want to have kids. The only un-planned weddings are gunshot weddings. 

I mean kids nowadays don't have the moral compass those of ancient times has. They sleeps around, sleep with one partner before marriage and almost none of them (beside the socialites) were matched by their parents or matchmaker. The horror!


----------



## Value Collector (10 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Read the links I posted...
> 
> 
> Really, I rest my case on that point.



All i see is a bunch of red herrings, what worries you the most?


----------



## Macquack (10 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> With SSM the misery for kids is planned, whereas most other situations are unforeseen. Child abuse.



So according to Tisme, SSM equates to child abuse.

Why don't you go bash a few poofters and get it out of your system FFS.


----------



## basilio (10 September 2017)

How does it look/feel as a gay parent to have the straight community discussing what they think of their families, their lives,_ their role-in-the-destruction-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it._

Food for thought in this article. Worth reading to to the end.

* Same-sex marriage vote: It's upsetting and hurtful to have people judge our lives *

*Naomi Stead*
40 reading now
 Show comments
Last Saturday morning, my partner and I and our six-year-old son were sitting in a busy cafe eating breakfast. Our boy was drawing the farm that he fervently wants us to move to, complete with windmill, orchard, roadside vegetable stall, farm house, his bedroom, mummies' bedroom.

The cafe was crowded. Two clean-cut young men sat down beside us and proceeded to talk. They were loud – it was noisy. They discussed football, work, whether they should order the eggs benedict or the chilli scramble, arrangements for one's impending wedding, and … the marriage equality postal survey.

I braced myself for a rant against same-sex marriage – about how LGBTIQ folk such as myself are terrible and "cruel" parents, and how our son sitting there drawing his dream farm was part of a "stolen generation".

But, mercifully, it didn't come: the two fellows touched upon the subject lightly, agreed that it was a stupid waste of money and that the "yes" vote is a no-brainer, then moved on to other things.

But as I sat there, tense, waiting for them to say something upsetting, I realised that I really didn't want to hear what the hell they thought, not anything at all about their views on the issue – positive or negative. I wanted to eat my eggs, and label my boy's drawing with the broccoli patch and cow paddock, and mind my own business and have everyone else mind theirs.

I realised that I was trying desperately not to listen: but, of course, I had no choice. It's not the kind of thing you can easily block out, when others idly discuss your fate.

And the fact is, the conversation could so easily have gone the other way, which is why I was so edgy. What about that other couple, sitting a little further down the table – what would they say? And that group over there in the corner? What judgments might they like to loudly air about my "lifestyle"?

People like me are simply not safe in a public space at the moment, especially in the virtual public space of social media. The attacks could come at any time, from anywhere, and so we're wary, on guard – even more than usual.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sa...e-people-judge-our-lives-20170908-gydctl.html


----------



## basilio (10 September 2017)

One of the issues that makes this discussion very difficult is the determination by many people to just repeatand repeat statements that, actually, are not fact.  

* Seven common myths in the marriage equality debate *

*Ron Levy*
 Show comments
I have long been involved in one of the key civil rights causes of our day: the struggle for marriage equality. As a lawyer in Canada in the past, I was involved in same-sex marriage litigation in that country. That was early in the last decade, around 2002. Ever since, I have written about the issue and engaged in debate about it. I now feel I've heard it all – all the arguments against marriage equality. And I feel very confident at this point saying that none of the arguments against marriage equality holds up in the light of logic.

*Myth 1: Definitions like "marriage" don't change. Actually, they do.* *Societies change, and in turn social definitions change to*o. Social definitions are not the same as scientific definitions, which either don't change (eg, 'triangle') or change infrequently (eg, 'planet'). Social definitions are constantly being updated. For example, the definition of voter – our most important marker of citizenship – only recently came to include Indigenous voters (1963) and 18-year-olds (1973). Previously, you needed to be non-Indigenous and 21. In earlier decades you also needed to be male and to have substantial property holdings. Things change.


If marriage equality becomes a legal reality, this will allow everyone to make choices based on their personal convictions.  Photo: AAP
*Myth 2: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Actually the current Australian law on this dates from 2004*. While Western marriage has tended in recent decades and centuries to be a largely heterosexual institution, Western societies have also held changing attitudes toward marriage in centuries past. Even the Catholic Church once sanctified certain forms of same-sex relationships.

In any case, the fact that something is (or isn't) historically unchanged is neither here nor there in a moral sense. As Judge Posner in the US said at the Court of Appeals, '[t]radition per se … cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination – regardless of the age of the tradition'. If tradition mattered more than anything else, then of course we would need to hold on to some other Western traditions (eg, slavery, and capital punishment for property theft). Things change, as they should.

*Myth 3: Children need opposite-sex parents to thrive. Simply untrue and debunked in countless studies. See here.* In a society where we must live together in mutual respect, we cannot base public policy on intuition and anecdote. We must instead look at what actual evidence is available. The fact that you grew up with a mum and dad and turned out OK does not count as adequate evidence.

*Myth 4: Keeping the traditional definition of marriage is harmless. Again, look at the evidence. One of the most important arguments for legally recognising same-sex marriage is that the current definition excludes a segment of society from being socially viewed as equal. *That is, legal exclusion expresses a society's refusal to express that everyone has equal status. Thus it is no surprise that young people who are "different" (eg, by being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex or queer) from the rest of society suffer far higher rates of depression and suicide. Specifically, the studies show that it is the absence of marriage equality that reduces mental health.


*Myth 5: You can have equality without calling it same-sex "marriage". The argument here is that a term like "civil union" is just as good, since it secures many of the same tangible benefits. For example, in a state that recognises same-sex civil unions, partners have the right to be contacted as next of kin by hospitals when something goes wrong. These benefits are undoubtedly useful. But as we have long known, at least since the days of "separate but equal" schools, separateness amounts to symbolic inequality. The point of including everyone within the same terminology ("marriage") is to express an equality of status.*

*Myth 6: Marriage equality affects religious freedom. No, it doesn't. It is clear that any marriage equality law passed in Australia will exempt religious celebrants from having to officiate same-sex weddings. 

 A related myth is that legalising same-sex marriage affects the freedom of speech of those who oppose it on religious grounds. This is also incorrect. The fact that a law is on the books does not mean you are barred from disagreeing with it, any more than you are barred from disagreeing with the current law.   The new law would affect only who can get married.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/seven-common-myths-in-the-marriage-equality-debate-20170831-gy84vu*


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 September 2017)

Can someone run it by me why this minority group wants to change the definition of marriage again?

Because slavery has been abolished? Slavery = SSM
The voting age has been lowered to 18? Voting age = SSM
Capital punishment for theft has been abolished? Capital punishment = SSM
The Catholic church once sanctified homosexuality? Catholic church = SSM
Lack of evidence that kids turn out OK with natural (male/female) parents? Male/female parenting is a risk
Absence of homosexual marriage reduces mental health? Homosexuals have mental health issues.
*Ron Levy. What a fantastic distortion. *

Male / female marriage and the associated raisng of offspring does not equal anything else.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> All i see is a bunch of red herrings, what worries you the most?



Stated often enough on he various threads. 

But an additional thing that worries me? The social programming. Friendships are being lost over the issue, because of the conduct of the yes campaign. Both Turnbull and especially Shorten made me physically want to vomit today.... A straight man claiming a rainbow coalition? Absolutely ludicrous.

More than ever now, I am resolutely no. Where once I didn't care about anyones sexuality. now I do, especially their sexual politics. Where once I was sympathetic, Now I say anyone who wants to call me names bases on a political concern, can just go straight to hell.

No soup for you.


----------



## cynic (10 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Can someone run it by me why this minority group wants to change the definition of marriage again?
> 
> Because slavery has been abolished? Slavery = SSM
> The voting age has been lowered to 18? Voting age = SSM
> ...



It seems, to me, that you may be making the error of responding to an irrational proposal with a series of rational questions.

Lovely as it would be if it were to somehow happen, do you seriously expect to receive rational responses?


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2017)

> As a lawyer in Canada in the past



The justifications are imaginitive. A lawyers persuasive comments.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

Turnbull and Shorten are grovelling sycophants trying to gain popular favour by grandstanding on this issue, it will get through easily without any in depth discussion about the implications


----------



## Tink (11 September 2017)

I am hoping the NO VOTE wins.

Civil Unions give homosexuals the exact same rights as heterosexuals

There is a reason why Marriage is as it is.
Marriage is Father, Mother, Child.

imv, this is the last swing to destroy Western Culture
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture_

mother and father
ladies and gentlemen

VOTE NO.
Stand up for the Family.

------------------------------------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

It really amazes me this debate is still occurring in this thread, it's the same regurgitated arguments from both sides, I doubt anyone has altered their judgement at all and if not probably strengthened their position.  It's disgraceful the government has put us in this position and wasted tax payer dollars in the process.


----------



## Tink (11 September 2017)

It is disgraceful that communists feel they can speak for us -- especially the Greens.

Where is your argument FOR same sex marriage.

For what reason should marriage change to genderless.

Love wins, with no boundaries, no gender, no age......

Marriage is about FAMILY.
One man and one woman.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> It really amazes me this debate is still occurring in this thread, it's the same regurgitated arguments from both sides, I doubt anyone has altered their judgement at all and if not probably strengthened their position.  It's disgraceful the government has put us in this position and wasted tax payer dollars in the process.



 Waste taxpayers money ? Our Vic Premier Danial Andrews blew $1.2 Billion on cancelling the East West freeway , that we still need.
$120Million is chicken feed for what is an important issue.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

Tink said:


> It is disgraceful that communists feel they can speak for us -- especially the Greens.
> 
> Where is your argument FOR same sex marriage.




What if "us" are actually a minority on the subject and you actually think you can speak for the majority on the subject who support SSM, take this thread for example where the majority of votes support SSM but the loudest voices are those from the no camp.

You've been in this thread since the start, if you're unaware of what the argument for SSM is then repeating it now would just make me the fool.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Waste taxpayers money ? Our Vic Premier Danial Andrews blew $1.2 Billion on cancelling the East West freeway , that we still need.
> $120Million is chicken feed for what is an important issue.



 I don't see why one can't be equally angry that both are a waste.  We elect our politicians to represent us and make decisions on important issues, this shouldn't be any different.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> I don't see why one can't be equally angry that both are a waste.  We elect our politicians to represent us and make decisions on important issues, this shouldn't be any different.




I'd agree with that if people actually accepted the 18 Parliamentary votes on SSM that have been held in the past and resulted in NO. 

Obviously some people don't take NO for an answer, they are they loudest voices in this campaign.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> I don't see why one can't be equally angry that both are a waste.  We elect our politicians to represent us and make decisions on important issues, this shouldn't be any different.




Give me one good reason why SSM is so unimportant that it just requires a vote by the nitwits in Canberra without the people having a say, but don't worry homossexuals will be free to express themselves in public very soon and children will be told that it's normal.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd agree with that if people actually accepted the 18 Parliamentary votes on SSM that have been held in the past and resulted in NO.
> 
> Obviously some people don't take NO for an answer, they are they loudest voices in this campaign.




How many votes are too many where the issue should never be raised again?  What sort of time frame should occur before a re-vote can occur?  The 18 votes have mostly been private members bills that never made the floor.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Give me one good reason why SSM is so unimportant that it just requires a vote by the nitwits in Canberra without the people having a say, but don't worry homossexuals will be free to express themselves in public very soon and children will be told that it's normal.




Because the marriage act was so unimportant in 2001 that Howard altered the definition without a public vote, that shouldn't be any different now.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> How many votes are too many where the issue should never be raised again?  What sort of time frame should occur before a re-vote can occur?  The 18 votes have mostly been private members bills that never made the floor.




Well you either accept what the politicians say as you supported before or you keep going untill you get the result "you" want. 

If there is so much support for SSM in the community its supporters should not be afraid of a public vote.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Because the marriage act was so unimportant in 2001 that Howard altered the definition without a public vote, that shouldn't be any different now.




Nope that doesn't wash, you're scared to let the people have a say in case it's NO it will be YES of course because all the publicity is for the YES vote including our p*** weak politicians and the ABC naturally.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well you either accept what the politicians say as you supported before or you keep going untill you get the result "you" want.
> 
> If there is so much support for SSM in the community its supporters should not be afraid of a public vote.



That's not an answer to the questions.

Because it ends up being a marketing exercise, the no camp need to throw around countless red herrings to convince people to vote no.  The only way the no camp win is to frame it into an argument it's not and it's straight up dishonest.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Nope that doesn't wash, you're scared to let the people have a say in case it's NO it will be YES of course because all the publicity is for the YES vote including our p*** weak politicians and the ABC naturally.




Of course it doesn't wash because you strongly support no and nothing would convince you otherwise and you know the public can be manipulated into a no vote.  Funny how now that the yes camp finally has the numbers in parliament you want a public vote, where was that 10 years ago.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Of course it doesn't wash because you strongly support no and nothing would convince you otherwise and you know the public can be manipulated into a no vote.  Funny how now that the yes camp finally has the numbers in parliament you want a public vote, where was that 10 years ago.




That's hilarious, the public are being manipulated into a YES vote right now, no one in public life is game to say NO because it would seem to be homophobic.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> That's hilarious, the public are being manipulated into a YES vote right now, no one in public life is game to say NO because it would seem to be homophobic.



Abbott and co are sure doing a good job of saying no.  The public aren't being manipulated into voting yes, they're simply being asked if they believe 2 consenting adults of the same sex should be able to marry.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Abbott and co are sure doing a good job of saying no.  The public aren't being manipulated into voting yes, they're simply being asked if they believe 2 consenting adults of the same sex should be able to marry.



Turnbull and Shorten are both urging the public to vote YES , Abbott hasn't been in the news much at all.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Turnbull and Shorten are both urging the public to vote YES , Abbott hasn't been in the news much at all.



3 of the most hated politicians aren't going to sway the vote


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> 3 of the most hated politicians aren't going to sway the vote



Of course they will, it's the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it's inappropriate that they should take sides anyway.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Of course they will, it's the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it's inappropriate that they should take sides anyway.



It just highlights the stupidity of having a public vote on the issue when both the opposition leader and the prime minister support the change of policy.   Outside of a constitutional change that requires a referendum I can't recall this ever happening before.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> It just highlights the stupidity of having a public vote on the issue when both the opposition leader and the prime minister support the change of policy.   Outside of a constitutional change that requires a referendum I can't recall this ever happening before.



The stupidity is them publicly taking sides, I hope it blows up in their face but I doubt it.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> The stupidity is them publicly taking sides, I hope it blows up in their face but I doubt it.



The plebiscite doesn't have bipartisan support so Bill Shorten can do what ever he wants.  As for Turnbull your point would have merit if Abbott didn't come out first and support the no campaign.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> The plebiscite doesn't have bipartisan support so Bill Shorten can do what ever he wants.  As for Turnbull your point would have merit if Abbott didn't come out first and support the no campaign.




What Abbott does should have no influence on the PM, he has no right to organise a postal vote then tell people how to vote.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> What Abbott does should have no influence on the PM, he has no right to organise a postal vote then tell people how to vote.




Every member of the coaltion should have remained non-partisan, but as Turnbull has no control over the right wing of the party he needed to come out and counter Abbott.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> That's not an answer to the questions.
> 
> Because it ends up being a marketing exercise, the no camp need to throw around countless red herrings to convince people to vote no.  The only way the no camp win is to frame it into an argument it's not and it's straight up dishonest.



What exactly is it that you claim isn't an argument?

Amidst the "countless red herrings", to which you refer, are you certain that valid concerns/arguments are not to be found?

Whilst observing "countless red herrings" issuing from the "no camp", how many red herrings have you noticed issuing from the "yes camp"?

Based upon the prevalence, in today's society, of enamourment to fashionable labels and gift wrapping, coupled with a noticable dearth of critical thinking, I am sincerely doubtful that the "no camp" has much hope of winning. I would be quite delighted, on this occasion, to have my doubts proven wrong!


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What exactly is it that you claim isn't an argument?
> 
> Amidst the "countless red herrings", to which you refer, are you certain that valid concerns/arguments are not to be found?
> 
> Whilst observing "countless red herrings" issuing from the "no camp", how many red herrings have you noticed issuing from the "yes camp"?




Any time children are mentioned is the biggest red herring, it doesn't alter SS couples right to raise children (rightly or wrongly).


----------



## Logique (11 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> READ Wayne's link



And Animal Farm & 1984. And Aldous Huxley's Brave  New World


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Any time children are mentioned is the biggest red herring, it doesn't alter SS couples right to raise children (rightly or wrongly).



Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!

In fact the one you are claiming to be the biggest, isn't even a red herring at all, for the simple reason that it does raise one or more valid and relevant concerns!

Namely, the last time I checked, SSM still had some bearing on questions surrounding the matter of rights of SS couples to adopt children etc.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!
> 
> In fact the one you are claiming to be the biggest, isn't even a red herring at all, for the simple reason that it does raise one or more valid and relevant concerns!
> 
> Namely, the last time I checked, SSM still had some bearing on questions surrounding the matter of rights of SS couples to adopt children etc.




Of course it's a red herring, the rights surrounding the adoption of children are regarding a government recognised relationship which a civil union already achieves.

What red herring has the yes camp used?


----------



## tech/a (11 September 2017)

Logique said:


> And Animal Farm & 1984. And Aldous Huxley's Brave  New World




As the less equal become more equal the equal become less equal.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Of course it's a red herring, the rights surrounding the adoption of children are regarding a government recognised relationship which a civil union already achieves.



To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!
Based on that, I consider it erroneous to casually dismiss a valid concern as a red herring.


> What red herring has the yes camp used?



Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!
> Based on that, I consider it erroneous to casually dismiss a valid concern as a red herring.




Do you have any proof that this is the case? Your the first person I've heard to claim as such, if not then yes it's a red herring.



> Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.




It's a counter argument to claims that we shouldn't change the definition because it's tradition and that we never would have progressed as a society if we weren't willing to make those changes.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Do you have any proof that this is the case? Your the first person I've heard to claim as such, if not then yes it's a red herring.



Well it wouldn't be the first time that the modern day infallible gospel spouted misinformation, but according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia there exist a number of ifs and buts to what you are claiming.

Perhaps this is another of those many occasions that wiki is in severe need of revision.


> It's a counter argument to claims that we shouldn't change the definition because it's tradition and that we never would have progressed as a society if we weren't willing to make those changes.



If that is the case, then the counter argument reeks of desperation!

What this counter argument seems to suggest is that totally unrelated historical events can now be cited as counter arguments to any opposition to any proposed changes to anything!

Basically, we are now talking about whale sized red herrings on steroids!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> It really amazes me this debate is still occurring in this thread, it's the same regurgitated arguments from both sides, I doubt anyone has altered their judgement at all and if not probably strengthened their position.  It's disgraceful the government has put us in this position and wasted tax payer dollars in the process.



That is because the general population don't care (about many things non financial) and the remainder would vote yes to end the debate forever. The people posting no here stand by their morals and are definitely not persuaded by vague comparisons and justifications.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Well it wouldn't be the first time that the modern day infallible gospel spouted misinformation, but according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia there exist a number of ifs and buts to what you are claiming.
> 
> Perhaps this is another of those many occasions that wiki is in severe need of revision.
> 
> ...




I don't see anything in that wiki that mentions that the type of relationship dictates the ability to adopt.  It's clutching at straws really and is the whale sized red herring you refer to.

It's quite a rational case you make there and I agree that this issue should be treated on it's merits and not past events nor future events which is why arguments like it will stop political correctness, it will lead to people wanting to marry their dog etc are just red herrings that deflect from the actual question.


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> That's not an answer to the questions.
> 
> Because it ends up being a marketing exercise, the no camp need to throw around countless red herrings to convince people to vote no.  The only way the no camp win is to frame it into an argument it's not and it's straight up dishonest.




Dishonest eh? Well stuff you and the donkey you rode in on bro. 

My personal concerns are actually being born out in other countries with ssm.

So who is it being dishonest?

Pfffffffffffttt


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> I don't see anything in that wiki that mentions that the type of relationship dictates the ability to adopt.  It's clutching at straws really and is the whale sized red herring you refer to.



What?!!!
Were you reading the article with your eyes squeezed closed?


> It's quite a rational case you make there and I agree that this issue should be treated on it's merits and not past events nor future events which is why arguments like it will stop political correctness, it will lead to people wanting to marry their dog etc are just red herrings that deflect from the actual question.



I am not saying that we cannot utilise historical wisdom when speculating on the nature and likelihood of future outcomes, and as to whether those outcomes might be beneficial, or detrimental, to our society and its stability.

I believe that it is very important that we do exactly that!

Sadly, it appears that the majority of the populace is disinterested in thinking beyond the latest fashion.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Dishonest eh? Well stuff you and the donkey you rose in on bro.
> 
> My personal concerns are actually being born out in other countries with ssm.
> 
> ...




You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised?  No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What?!!!
> Were you reading the article with your eyes squeezed closed?




Point out in which state SSM can't adopt children currently and will be able to if SSM is legalised.  You can't because there aren't any.



> I am not saying that we cannot utilise historical wisdom when speculating on the nature and likelihood of future outcomes, and as to whether those outcomes might be beneficial, or detrimental, to our society and its stability.
> 
> I believe that it is very important that we do exactly that!
> 
> Sadly, it appears that the majority of the populace is disinterested in thinking beyond the latest fashion.




Hopefully most the populace doesn't fall for this bull **** the no camp comes out with by deflecting this into something it's not.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Point out in which state SSM can't adopt children currently and will be able to if SSM is legalised.  You can't because there aren't any.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully most the populace doesn't fall for this bull **** the no camp comes out with by deflecting this into something it's not.



What bs?!!! (unless you are referring to your own that is!)

It may not actually be referred to as a state, but did you happen to notice that the Northern Territory is actually part of the Australian continent?


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised?  No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.



Why are they red herrings? Because they  doesn't  appear in the Marxist echo chamber?


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Why are they red herrings? Because they  doesn't  appear in the Marxist echo chamber?




Because they're not the issue being raised.  If a piece of legislation comes forward that limits freedom of speech etc then we treat that on it's merits.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What bs?!!! (unless you are referring to your own that is!)
> 
> It may not actually be referred to as a state, but did you happen to notice that the Northern Territory is actually part of the Australian continent?




This is why your argument is a load of BS.  The adoption act in the Northern Territory states 



> For the purposes of this Act, a reference to 2 persons or a couple in relation to a joint adoption of a child under this Act is a reference to:
> 
> (a)     a man and woman who are married; or
> 
> (b)     an Aboriginal man and woman who are living together in a traditional Aboriginal marriage.



So if SSM is legalised then SS couples still can't adopt in the NT.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2017)

How is this for a respectful campaign from the Yes side.



			
				Benjamin Law said:
			
		

> Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f*** all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.




Of course this was "just" a joke, but if something similar was said by a anti SSM proponent it would be outrageous.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...e/news-story/9aa68a1b5dd19bd9e29015bae099d80c


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> *You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised?*  No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.



Have you seen the advert on tv stating 1 tradie suicides every 2 days?


> LEADING men’s health organisation the Movember Foundation will launch a series of ads today to help combat male suicide.
> 
> The innovative campaign, called _Unmute — ask him_ contains a series of videos that have men explaining tips for fishing, BBQing or fixing a flat tyre with subtitles.



Is setting every case up with free money and lotsa friends for life a fix? Don't bloody use suicide rates as a 'poor me' excuse from that selfish, demanding minority homosexual group to justify SSM.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Have you seen the advert on tv stating 1 tradie suicides every 2 days?
> Is setting every case up with free money and lotsa friends for life a fix? Don't bloody use suicide rates as a 'poor me' excuse from that selfish, demanding minority homosexual group justifying SSM.




If someone is going to use overseas examples as to the effect of SSM then they can at least acknowledge positive effects. 

Yeah how selfish of them asking for a right that the rest of us enjoy


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> If someone is going to use overseas examples as to the effect of SSM then they can at least acknowledge positive effects.
> 
> Yeah how selfish of them asking for a right that the rest of us enjoy



Why do you mob want to bastardise the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman?


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Why do you mob want to bastardise the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman?



Because no one will actually be negatively effected by this change to any tangible level but for a few it will make a positive change in their life.  I think most rational people see it this way too.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> This is why your argument is a load of BS.  The adoption act in the Northern Territory states
> 
> 
> So if SSM is legalised then SS couples still can't adopt in the NT.




Okay let's step back  and take a look at my earlier assertions:



overhang said:


> Any time children are mentioned is the biggest red herring, it doesn't alter SS couples right to raise children (rightly or wrongly).



That wikipedia article happens to disagree, in a number of respects, with what you are claiming here.



cynic said:


> Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!
> 
> In fact the one you are claiming to be the biggest, isn't even a red herring at all, for the simple reason that it does raise one or more valid and relevant concerns!
> 
> Namely, the last time I checked, SSM still had some bearing on questions surrounding the matter of rights of SS couples to adopt children etc.






overhang said:


> Of course it's a red herring, the rights surrounding the adoption of children are regarding a government recognised relationship which a civil union already achieves.
> 
> What red herring has the yes camp used?






cynic said:


> To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!
> Based on that, I consider it erroneous to casually dismiss a valid concern as a red herring.
> 
> Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.



I trust that from my various postings and that linked article, you can now see that the basis for my contesting your red herring accusation isn't confined to the Northern Territory adoption laws.

Why anyone would expect that national recognition of SSM wouldn't subsequently be used as a platform to bolster campaigns for SS parental rights reforms in the NT (or anywhere else in Australia)?

Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone can wholly divorce the questions surrounding the concept of marriage, from those surrounding the parenting of children!

As can be seen from that wiki page, not all parenting rights are supported by all states and territories.


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> I trust that from my various postings and that linked article, you can now see that the basis for my contesting your red herring accusation isn't confined to the Northern Territory adoption laws.
> 
> Why anyone would you expect that national recognition of SSM wouldn't subsequently be used as a platform to bolster campaigns for SS parental rights reforms in the NT (or anywhere else in Australia)?
> 
> ...




This is actually really simple, if you don't believe it's a red herring then tell me which state or territory do SS not have parental rights but will so if marriage is legalised.  If the answer is none then it's a moot point, I've already provided proof that it won't change anything in the NT.


----------



## satanoperca (11 September 2017)

You guys are all nuts even bring adoption into the discussion with SSM, adoption or lack of it in this country is far, far beyond worrying if SSM can do it.

FACT :  During 2015–16, there were 278 adoptions finalised across Australia.

*Disgraceful. *But that is another topic that should be left out of SSM.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> This is actually really simple, if you don't believe it's a red herring then tell me which state or territory do SS not have parental rights but will so if marriage is legalised.  If the answer is none then it's a moot point, I've already provided proof that it won't change anything in the NT.



I cannot claim to know what the exact outcome will be!

Nor can I boldly claim to know whether or not this will be to the betterment, or detriment, of our society!

Based upon the behaviours I am observing, directly in Australia, and via media internationally, I am becoming increasingly convinced that this will likely create far more division than it will remove, and as such, harm many more people than it helps!


----------



## overhang (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> I cannot claim to know what the exact outcome will be!
> 
> Nor can I boldly claim to know whether or not this will be to the betterment, or detriment, of our society!
> 
> Based upon the behaviours I am observing, directly in Australia, and via media internationally, I am becoming increasingly convinced that this will likely create far more division than it will remove, and as such, harm many more people than it helps!




And that is why it's a red herring.

This government has created this division by forcing a vote on the issue, a parliamentary free vote would not have caused this type of division in society.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

overhang said:


> And that is why it's a red herring.
> 
> This government has created this division by forcing a vote on the issue, a parliamentary free vote would not have caused this type of division in society.



I am not entirely convinced.
Perhaps when people fail to recognise or acknowledge  the true cause of their angst, some might choose to dismiss objections in that manner.

My preference is, despite the undoubtedly excellent quality of his tinned seafood, to keep John West out of debates.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

*Marriage*

*good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."*

*"Names?", said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers?? You can't get married."
"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under law. 
If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. 
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, *

*June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. *

*All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. *

*The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.*

*Give us a marriage license!"*

*
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Anderson."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. 
Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
...Don't laugh, it's just a matter of time.*


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> I thought straight couples nowadays only get married when they want to have kids. The only un-planned weddings are gunshot weddings.
> 
> I mean kids nowadays don't have the moral compass those of ancient times has. They sleeps around, sleep with one partner before marriage and almost none of them (beside the socialites) were matched by their parents or matchmaker. The horror!




wot?


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> So according to Tisme, SSM equates to child abuse.
> 
> Why don't you go bash a few poofters and get it out of your system FFS.




That's a kind off drivel statement one would expect from a child. Dementia or puberty kicking in?

If you can't debate without resorting to personal attacks you have alreAdy lost the argument. You proposal to violence is unacceptable for forum posts and I expect you will recant that and act like an adult


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Can someone run it by me why this minority group wants to change the definition of marriage again?
> 
> Because slavery has been abolished? Slavery = SSM
> The voting age has been lowered to 18? Voting age = SSM
> ...




No you obviously haven't been keeping pace. Our resident anarchist explained that marriage is actually a homosexual instigation dating back to the Greeks. Prior to that people wandered around navel gazing pondering the meaning of life.

So gays are merely reclaiming what was usurped from them a couple of k years ago.


----------



## basilio (11 September 2017)

Into script writing Mr Burns ? Reckon you can recognise an extended joke when you see one ?

It's a good thing this particular discussion is just about 2  (unrelated) adult people wanting to be married. (Incest is not allowed by the way)

But certainly come up with whatever creative possibilities can be contrived to divert attention from the topic.


----------



## Macquack (11 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> That's a kind off drivel statement one would expect from a *child*. *Dementia* *or puberty* *kicking in*?
> 
> If you can't debate without* resorting to personal attacks *you have alreAdy lost the argument.



Oh the hyprocrisy.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Into script writing Mr Burns ? Reckon you can recognise an extended joke when you see one ?
> 
> It's a good thing this particular discussion is just about 2  (unrelated) adult people wanting to be married. (Incest is not allowed by the way)
> 
> But certainly come up with whatever creative possibilities can be contrived to divert attention from the topic.



Greater risk of genetic problems with the progeny from incest, were, to my understanding, the key reason for prohibition.

Once heterosexual relations are removed from the marriage equation, where can an obstacle to the marriage of gay siblings be found?


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

Looking at the big picture why do gays want to marry anyway ?
There's no need for it, men and women marry predominantly to have a family, children of their own with a family name....so why are gay people wanting marriage ?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> .so why are gay people wanting marriage ?




It's mostly an assault on normal society to attempt to overcome their inferiority complex and especially to stick it to the churches for their perceived persecution.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's mostly an assault on normal society to attempt to overcome their inferiority complex and especially to stick it to the churches for their perceived persecution.




Unfortunately I think you're right.


----------



## satanoperca (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's mostly an assault on normal society to attempt to overcome their inferiority complex and especially to stick it to the churches for their perceived persecution.




You have a really f---kd perception of life, society and love, my heart goes out to you


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2017)

Ask for an opinion what is 'equal' about it. MM FF TT TM TF IT IM IF QF QM apparently those relationships are equal to the natural male/female relationship and consumation by marriage.


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's mostly an assault on normal society to attempt to overcome their inferiority complex and especially to stick it to the churches for their perceived persecution.






satanoperca said:


> You have a really f---kd perception of life, society and love, my heart goes out to you




One of the great things about garden variety freedom of expression (i.e. absent pc inhibitions), is that people can openly tell it the way they see it!

Bravo SirR and satanoperca!


----------



## luutzu (11 September 2017)

cynic said:


> One of the great things about garden variety freedom of expression (i.e. absent pc inhibitions), is that people can openly tell it the way they see it!
> 
> Bravo SirR and satanoperca!





Dude. Where's my bravo?


----------



## cynic (11 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Dude. Where's my bravo?



Yes, I concede that I have been prejudicially remiss in acknowledging your reiterations throughout perpetuity.


----------



## basilio (11 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Looking at the big picture why do gays want to marry anyway ?
> There's no need for it, men and women marry predominantly to have a family, children of their own with a family name....so why are gay people wanting marriage ?




I think there is an amazing irony in these conversations. In my view and experience I believe the reason for (some) gay people wanting to be married is part of an essential conservatism amongst people overall.
Certainly people bang around, gay or straight. But I suggest that when people finally do find a partner they adore make a public marriage statement about their relationship becomes important and valuable.

I suggest that the desire of some gay people to be part of the conservative picture of a marriage committment is just that. They don't want to put it up the Church. For better or worse they simply want to be a part of one the more institutions in our society because they want to publicly committ to each other.


----------



## satanoperca (11 September 2017)

719 posts on one thread, my conclusion, whether we agree or disagree on the topic, I am thankful that we all are able to express our views with violence.

I would like to thank all who have contributed to this discussion, for good or bad, it is an expression of our individual freedom to have an opinion, I hope this never changes in our society/community.


----------



## Value Collector (11 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd agree with that if people actually accepted the 18 Parliamentary votes on SSM that have been held in the past and resulted in NO.
> 
> Obviously some people don't take NO for an answer, they are they loudest voices in this campaign.



Just like if parliament voted NO, to giving aboriginals the right to vote or women the right to vote, you would expect it to just keep coming up, because when it comes to civil rights that's the way it is, you just keep going until the right thing is done.

And public opinion is basically meaningless, because the majority does not have the right to suppress a minority.


----------



## basilio (12 September 2017)

How are really big changes in society managed? I was looking at the History of Slavery in England and in itself it offers an insight into the various economic and social interests that were involved.

One thing for certain - people didn't just "see the light" and decide that Slavery was too awful to allow. 

Its worth remembering that the Slave trade and the associated West Indian plantations created fantastic wealth in England. In fact when slavery was finally abolished the payout to the slave owners  for loss of property was in the millions of pounds

If you don't know the history of Slavery in England this is an excellent resource. (You might learn something new..) 

_*Slavery*

It may seem extraordinary today but, just less than 200 years ago, many people throughout Europe, Africa and the Americas saw nothing wrong in the idea that one human being could own another. The ‘owned' person or ‘slave' had no rights.

*In this section:* 

You will find background information on the history of African enslavement: how the Transatlantic Slave Trade developed, British involvement in the Slave Trade, how a movement arose to try to abolish it and the opposition they faced.

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery.html_


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> And public opinion is basically meaningless, because the majority does not have the right to suppress a minority.




Let's have a dictatorship in that case.


----------



## basilio (12 September 2017)

*A Day in the Life*
This tool allows pupils to compare what a typical day may have been like for four people whose lives were impacted by the slave trade:

A field slave
A household slave
A sailor on a slave ship
An absentee plantation owner
The next phase of development, due January 2010, will allow pupils to research and construct their own 'Day in the Life' by placing their own pictures or drawings they have found into the tool and adding text and audio to accompany this.

Comparison and research into the lives that these people lived, provides a powerful way to illustrate many of the issues relating to abolition and to allows younger pupils to develop empathy and understanding of the lives of people that were very different from their own.

http://abolition.e2bn.org/lessons/view.php?page_type=lessonplan&section=tools&id=157
http://abolition.e2bn.org/a_day_in_the_life_of/


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

basilio said:


> *A Day in the Life*
> This tool allows pupils to compare what a typical day may have been like for four people whose lives were impacted by the slave trade:
> 
> A field slave
> ...




You are comparing same sex marriage to slavery ? That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it ?


----------



## basilio (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You are comparing same sex marriage to slavery ? That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it ?




Nuh .. I was actually following up on VC's comments about the  long term efforts it takes to gain some basic human rights. Abolishing slavery was a good example.

When I found this resource I thought it was interesting enough in its own right for people to read. Realistically I would be surprised if anyone in ASF  (myself included) knew more than 10% of this history.


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Oh the hyprocrisy.






You know that provocation to violence just seems to have side stepped your consciousness? Not only that but you called the brothers you are so bothered to protect from the big bad meanies "pooftas".

Tell me again about hypocrisy and pretence .......


----------



## cynic (12 September 2017)

All that we are witnessing today, was foretold decades ago:


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Nuh .. I was actually following up on VC's comments about the  long term efforts it takes to gain some basic human rights. Abolishing slavery was a good example.
> 
> When I found this resource I thought it was interesting enough in its own right for people to read. Realistically I would be surprised if anyone in ASF  (myself included) knew more than 10% of this history.





You know what you should do is get onto trove and actually get a feel for how social engineering has been changing in the THIS country since settlement. Have a look at things like who could do what, voting legislation, who could marry whom, etc ... you know make it relevant to Australia rather than rice plantations. 

The great influx of non Anglo cultures has certainly brought with it many different attitudes to what was once considered cultured society.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Just like if parliament voted NO, to giving aboriginals the right to vote or women the right to vote, you would expect it to just keep coming up, because when it comes to civil rights that's the way it is, you just keep going until the right thing is done.




If the "right thing" is allowing hate speech like that practised by gay rights activist Benjamin Law, then I think people are going to think again about YES case and the people pursuing it, and one of your brothers agrees.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r/news-story/af7579ee984fd04c6702a61377c2d340


----------



## Tink (12 September 2017)

Marriage is taken.
Find another word.

There is no discrimination and they have their rights.
Legislation was put through for their civil unions.

There is no 'right' to Marriage
There is a reason Marriage is Father, Mother, Child.
It is equal.

All I see are advocates talking about rights, but no responsibilities.
No reason.

We are one nation under God.


----------



## wayneL (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If the "right thing" is allowing hate speech like that practised by gay rights activist Benjamin Law, then I think people are going to think again about YES case and the people pursuing it, and one of your brothers agrees.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r/news-story/af7579ee984fd04c6702a61377c2d340



Paywall Horace... can you copy and paste please?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Paywall Horace... can you copy and paste please?




I could access it yesterday, but not today.

Here is another article that says basically the same.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...e/news-story/9aa68a1b5dd19bd9e29015bae099d80c


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Paywall Horace... can you copy and paste please?




 “Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f..k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.” Benjamn Law

It's a "joke" that he wrote in response to criticism of  his push for a wider rollout of the "safe schools" gay grooming program.

Laugh...so funny


----------



## Tink (12 September 2017)

Well they are a package, SSM and (un) safe schools.

If they change Marriage to genderless with the 'free love' mantra, that will be pushed even more so on the children, imv.

_http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/_


----------



## Junior (12 September 2017)

It will happen.  Either this year or quickly following the next federal election.  Those who are opposed can either open their minds a little bit, or continue living with their frustrations.

Life will go on, the 'family unit' will not be damaged, all your children will not turn gay, people will not start marrying animals.  Even if they do, you will not be forced to attend the wedding.



> Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.



 George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

Junior said:


> Life will go on, the 'family unit' will not be damaged, all your children will not turn gay, people will not start marrying animals.  Even if they do, you will not be forced to attend the wedding.




If only that were the case, but has been seen the ABC, for instance. it would be front and centre every second news article and drama series. At which point the rebels without a cause would restart for social change and new legislation because it doesn't hurt anyone, merely offends the kernal of societies operating systems.


----------



## Junior (12 September 2017)

For those so concerned about the sanctity of the family unit, perhaps you should take a look at what is causing the real damage, affecting around 30% of all marriages in this country and often leaving kids without a father or mother.



> The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of *no*-*fault divorce* in *Australian *law. This means that a court does not consider which partner was at *fault* in the marriage breakdown.


----------



## wayneL (12 September 2017)

Junior said:


> View attachment 72597
> 
> 
> It will happen.  Either this year or quickly following the next federal election.  Those who are opposed can either open their minds a little bit, or continue living with their frustrations.
> ...



You the yessers keep trying to make it a binary argument

Yes - Tolerant inclusive fair lovely etc

No - Religious bigots and homophobes 

However most of my circle who are nos, are no over subsequent concerns for free speech and how it leads into other agenda.... fears amplified by the conduct of the yes campaign.

Not one is actually against a legally equivalent institution,  whether it is called marriage or not.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

We're now starting to see why so many people were opposed to the plebiscite in the first place due mostly to fear of hate campaigns, false propaganda and the parallel agendas that come with it 

2016:> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...oppose-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality-survey


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> We're now starting to see why so many people were opposed to the plebiscite in the *first place due mostly to fear of hate campaigns*,* false propaganda and the parallel agendas that come with it *
> 
> 2016:> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...oppose-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality-survey




You mean an *opposing* view
Cant have that can we.

Like a group of kindi kids stamping their little feet.
I want I want!


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> You mean an *opposing* view
> Cant have that can we.
> 
> Like a group of kindi kids stamping their little feet.
> I want I want!



No I don't mean an opposing view. I mean false propaganda - exactly as I stated.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Your False propaganda is a valid view to some.
Just because it is at right angles to those who
have a different view doesn't make it less valid.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

So if someone is labeled a religious bigot or a homophobe if they vote NO you're saying it's a valid point of view and not false propaganda? That's a new one


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

I'm saying its an opinion.
All are opinions
Labels are handed out by those with opposing opinions
generally wildly opposing.
My opinion may not reflect your opinion.
My vote may not be or may be the popular vote.

Label as much as you like the fact is Ill and others like me
AND you will cast a vote.
The result will have to be accepted by all of us.

Brexit/Trump. SSM?

Better get out there and vote!!


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> I'm saying its an opinion.
> All are opinions
> Labels are handed out by those with opposing opinions
> generally wildly opposing.
> ...



Ok, so it's gone from false propaganda to a valid view to an opinion.... which completely digresses from my original point - which was why people were opposed to a plebiscite as per the article.

They were opposed to it because of the very negative social / psychological impacts on themselves and their children. It's a valid view in my opinion.

The Act should have been handled the same way it was last time - a vote in the parliament.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Let's have a dictatorship in that case.




Imagine you are in a car, and you are the driver(parliament), you listen to the opinions of passengers(public) about where they want you to drive etc, but if the passengers(the public) suddenly start asking you to run read light, drive on the foot path or knock people over, its your job to say No, their opinion on certain topics doesn't matter, the civil rights is one of the topics where their opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If the "right thing" is allowing hate speech like that practised by gay rights activist Benjamin Law, then I think people are going to think again about YES case and the people pursuing it, and one of your brothers agrees.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r/news-story/af7579ee984fd04c6702a61377c2d340




Lets say the big question was slavery, lets say years of oppression had lead 1% of the anti slavery protestors to be a bit crazy, 

Should that stop you doing the right thing and ending slavery? I don't think so.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> You the yessers keep trying to make it a binary argument





it is binary, its about 1 thing.

The No side is trying to distract from the question with red herring issues

You are even trying to distract from the real issue simply because you say you don't like the attitude of some of the campaigners. thats just stupid.


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> We're now starting to see why so many people were opposed to the plebiscite in the first place due mostly to fear of hate campaigns, false propaganda and the parallel agendas that come with it
> 
> 2016:> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...oppose-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality-survey




Try going on Twatter or Farcebook and posting in a debated topic a simple statement like "having weighed all the pro and cons, I will be voting no" , likewise in another debate you will be voting "yes" and see which solicits the more aggressive responses.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Imagine you are in a car, and you are the driver(parliament), you listen to the opinions of passengers(public) about where they want you to drive etc, but if the passengers(the public) suddenly start asking you to run read light, drive on the foot path or knock people over, its your job to say No, their opinion on certain topics doesn't matter, the civil rights is one of the topics where their opinion doesn't matter.




Kim Jong would agree completely.




Value Collector said:


> it is binary, its about 1 thing.
> 
> The No side is trying to distract from the question with red herring issues
> 
> You are even trying to distract from the real issue simply because you say you don't like the attitude of some of the campaigners. thats just stupid.




But that's your opinion.

I don't want my grand kids subjected to schools which have male and female SS going to the same formal and making out.
Or in the change rooms un sure of how they are being seen by their same sex.
I don't want to see kids confused about their own sexuality and what is considered right/correct.
EG its ok for other men/women of the same sex to show affection toward you without the fear of upsetting someone
if its not wanted.
I don't want to see kids without the guidance of a mother OR Father.
I don't want to see same sex partnerships accepted as "Normal".

But that's My opinion.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Try going on Twatter or Farcebook and posting in a debated topic a simple statement like "having weighed all the pro and cons, I will be voting no" , likewise in another debate you will be voting "yes" and see which solicits the more aggressive responses.



I reckon they'll both be aggressive and probably range from labels of homophobia to communists... neither of which are accurate.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> I don't want my grand kids subjected to schools which have male and female SS going to the same formal and making out.





Thats going to happen no matter what, that is not the topic of the vote.

But what if your Grand kids are gay? how do you want them to be treated?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Lets say the big question was slavery, lets say years of oppression had lead 1% of the anti slavery protestors to be a bit crazy,




Same sex marriage is not slavery. 

The civil right you refer to is freedom of association, which is not being infringed. Nobody is telling anyone who they should associate with.

Marriage is societal recognition of an association. Society has the right to make a choice whether it recognises a relationship in law. Hence the plebiscite/survey. The public has a right to express it's opinion on this issue.


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I reckon they'll both be aggressive and probably range from labels of homophobia to communists... neither of which are accurate.





try it. I did it with fake neutral profiles, and I got hammered by the bolsheviks for betraying the 60% who are already onboard


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Same sex marriage is not slavery.
> 
> The civil right you refer to is freedom of association, which is not being infringed. Nobody is telling anyone who they should associate with.
> 
> Marriage is societal recognition of an association. Society has the right to make a choice whether it recognises a relationship in law. Hence the plebiscite/survey. The public has a right to express it's opinion on this issue.




refusing to recognise a marriage based is a breach of civil rights, hence why same sex marriage is becoming common place around the world.

There was a time it was illegal to have interracial marriages, I doubt you would use the same argument for that.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Thankfully I only have at best about another 30 yrs to go on this planet!


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Thankfully I only have at best about another 30 yrs to go on this planet!





By that time they will be walking into a restaurant demanding your seat next to the window, in the name of equality and under the umbrella of the law.

VC's balls will have dropped and he'll be a gnarly old coote demanding justice to right the wrongs gone too far in a highly ordered and strict society. No one will be allowed to listen or respond


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Thankfully I only have at best about another 30 yrs to go on this planet!



 lol, thats a bit dramatic isn't it, e.g. being glad to die because you can't bear the thought of a lesbian couple on the other side of town having their marriage recognised.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> try it. I did it with fake neutral profiles, and I got hammered by the bolsheviks for betraying the 60% who are already onboard



Got a link to an open group for both sides?


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Thankfully I only have at best about another 30 yrs to go on this planet!




This was a genuine question 

What if your Grand kids are gay? how do you want them to be treated?


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Got a link to an open group for both sides?





Not anymore, I tainted them LOL


----------



## wayneL (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> This was a genuine question
> 
> What if your Grand kids are gay? how do you want them to be treated?



This is perhaps the only good point you have ever come up with VC.... and why it is NOT a binary argument. 

I would hope nobody considered it particularly noteworthy, not normal, though not something to be reviled,  just part of the spectrum of humanity

I would hope they did indeed have legal equivalence in law with respect to their relationships.  Whether that was termed marriage would not concern me. 

I would hope they always have liberty and respect the liberties of others. 

I would hope that if somebody disagreed with their life choices and so long as nothing they did harmed anyone, they would focus on their own happiness and let them have their own opinion. I would hope they would embrace Voltairian principles. 

I would be disappointed if they felt the need to label other with one of the various -isms.

It is exactly the reasonthat it is being presented in a binary way,  that I am a no,  because there are a number of nuances that are important


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> This is perhaps the only good point you have ever come up with VC.... and why it is NOT a binary argument.
> 
> I would hope nobody considered it particularly noteworthy, not normal, though not something to be reviled,  just part of the spectrum of humanity
> 
> ...




All that being said, keep in mind that my question was in response to techa not wanting his grand children to have to see a gay couple at a school formal.

This is an example of some of the stuff gays have to put up with, constantly being stigmatised by people in society and made to feel second class.

Now, I don't believe most of the people that currently hold attitudes similar to techa would want their own children or grandchildren treated that way, but they seem as one person put it "Happy to be homophobic"

I feel that not allowing them to marry, is just another way of treating them like second class people, when giving them the right is harmless.


> Whether that was termed marriage would not concern me.




if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not just call it marriage? where is the harm?


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

I think it's harmless too but...



Tisme said:


> Not anymore, I tainted them LOL



I said NO in a YES group. Let's have some fun


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

One of My Brothers sons is gay.

So to your question.
If he was in my house or in the street outside and snogging his
Husband I personally would be sickened by the sight. I'm not gay.
If he was holding hands Id feel the same way. That's me and I'm not alone.

If a religion comes to my door and wants to shove its teachings upon me
I too would be offended.

So how would I like these people treated.
If they respect my wishes then Ill respect theirs.
I cant stop you being gay---nor do I want to.
Don't force your gayness on me and I wont force my alpha maleness on you.
Don't expect every person to be absolutely delighted that your in love with Bruce
and want to marry him---or Sally and Sarah!

legal or not to this male its cringe worthy.

What you do behind closed doors is your business.
Don't make it mine.---same goes for religions.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> One of My Brothers sons is gay.
> 
> So to your question.




So you don't want your nephew to be able to take a date to the formal?

the "eewww factor" is your problem, not theirs.


----------



## Junior (12 September 2017)

Best to steer clear of the Facebook comments section altogether, for any issue, on any topic.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

I tend to avoid farcebook. It's akin to entering a skateboarding park with a walking stick.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't want your nephew to be able to take a date to the formal?
> 
> the "eewww factor" is your problem, not theirs.




Frankly that's not the sort of Formal I or any of my ex's would like to be at!
Being a dumb duck I repeated a few times. Nothing like Young hormones on
a dance floor and then the after parties. Provided they are the opposite sex!

I don't have an issue with my "Problem"---which to me is being heterosexual.
Which evidently is now not normal.
Or perhaps it is if shared with Homosexuality it can be normal.

If I'm expected to tolerate them they should be expected to tolerate me.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> I don't have an issue with my "Problem"---which to me is being heterosexual.
> Which evidently is now not normal.
> Or perhaps it is if shared with Homosexuality it can be normal.




No, being heterosexual isn't your problem, your problem is how you react to the thought of gays being around, thats not related to your heterosexuality, its related to how you were brought up to think about gays.

I am hetero as they come, but I am not bothered at all by gays being around, sure if I studied two gay men kissing I might get the "eww factor" but that is easily resolved by not studying them, but thats not different to seeing a couple of fatties kissing, not need to ban fatty marriage.

also the eww of men kissing is probably offset by the lesbian kisses, now I don't mind at all seeing to cute girls kiss, lol.



> If I'm expected to tolerate them they should be expected to tolerate me.



So far I haven't seen anyone claim you shouldn't be able to bring a heterosexual date to a formal, or claim you shouldn't be able to kiss your wife in public, or say heterosexual marriage should be banned. So yes your sexuality is tolerated.

Do you have any examples where your heterosexuality has not be tolerated? or where you have been abused or suffered at all because of your heterosexuality in a way that would resemble treatment gays have had to endured?

Again this is an honest question, I genuinely want to know how you feel that your sexuality has not been tolerated and where your rights have been clipped.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> No, being heterosexual isn't your problem, your problem is how you react to the thought of gays being around, thats not related to your heterosexuality, its related to how you were brought up to think about gays.




Im happy with how I have been bought up then.



> I am hetero as they come, but I am not bothered at all by gays being around, sure if I studied two gay men kissing I might get the "eww factor" but that is easily resolved by not studying them, but thats not different to seeing a couple of fatties kissing, not need to ban fatty marriage.




We are different then.
Heterosexual anything showing affection in public---no problem.
Same sex---cringe.




> also the eww of men kissing is probably offset by the lesbian kisses, now I don't mind at all seeing to cute girls kiss, lol.




Why is that I don't find that in some cases offensive. In public different.




> So far I haven't seen anyone claim you shouldn't be able to bring a heterosexual date to a formal, or claim you shouldn't be able to kiss your wife in public, or say heterosexual marriage should be banned. So yes your sexuality is tolerated.




Its not my sexuality its my opinion.



> Do you have any examples where your heterosexuality has not be tolerated? or where you have been abused or suffered at all because of your heterosexuality in a way that would resemble treatment gays have had to endured?




YEH I'm (And a few others) voting no and there are many who don't like the idea!



> Again this is an honest question, I genuinely want to know how you feel that your sexuality has not been tolerated and where your rights have been clipped.




Right here and right now I am having to vote to keep the status quo.
My kind are no longer being tolerated we evidently MUST change.

Seriously you want Daffy to be able to Marry Donald!!!
If I remember rightly NODDY will at least be able to make a comeback!


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

AUSTRALIANS will face fines of up to $12,600 for vilifying, intimidating or threatening to harm another person under tough new ground rules for the postal survey on gay marriage that will go before Parliament this week.

Both sides of the campaign will receive protections under the new safeguards, which would make it an offence to vilify, intimidate or threaten to harm another person based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, intersex status or religious views.

Acting Special Minister for State Mathias Cormann told a party room meeting of Coalition MPs today the laws would include the standard provisions for elections, plus the additional measures.

The protections will cover the campaign period only.

Parliament will vote on the safeguards this week.

If they go through, any legal complaint against someone must be approved by Attorney-General George Brandis before it heads to court.

It’s understood the protections will not just apply to advertising but to all conduct during the campaign.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...y/news-story/a121f0b2c598792dcef4e568a30f5bd1

There you go, no hurry for the Conservatives to change the free speech laws just yet


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Im happy with how I have been bought up then.





clearly your indoctrination causes you to feel discomfort, so I can't see why you would be "Happy" about it. 




> Its not my sexuality its my opinion.




you are allowed to have an opinion, just like you are allow to have a stick.

But you aren't allowed to hit people with your stick, people refusing to allow you to continue hitting people with your stick aren't denying you your rights, they are protect the rights of other to not be hit.




> My kind are no longer being tolerated we evidently MUST change.




actually no one is asking you to change, they are just asking you to stop denying them rights, as I have said before, nothing about your life will change, no one is trying to force you to have a gay marriage.

If your nephew decides to marry no one will force you to go, or even talk to him, if you want to let your fears control you and stop you embracing life, thats your decision, but saying no one can eat cookies because you are on a diet is stupid.



> Seriously you want Daffy to be able to Marry Donald!!!




Well Disney already have a gay character, and he is pretty funny actually.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 September 2017)

All hetero formals, all gay formals, opposite sex marriage act, same sex marriage act, each can do their own thing and everyone is happy.

Don't change the marriage act, make another one just for gays and make them feel special.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2017)

Thanks VC for the Exchange.

I'm voting NO.
Regardless of outcome Ill deal with it as it comes.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Seriously you want Daffy to be able to Marry Donald!!!
> !




For two decades some people have suspected lefou, who is Gaston's side kick in the 1991 film beauty and the beast was gay, due to his infatuation with Gaston. 



Then in the 2017 live action remake, its quite clear that he is gay.


----------



## Value Collector (12 September 2017)

LOL,


----------



## MrBurns (12 September 2017)

i used to play i a band in the early 70's one of our jobs was at a gay function, the sight of 2 middle aged men pashing and groping each other on the dancefloor sickens me to this day. I guess we can expect a lot more of that.


----------



## PZ99 (12 September 2017)

Crikey, what sort of music were you playing ? LOL


----------



## MrBurns (12 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Crikey, what sort of music were you playing ? LOL




Just popular stuff, rock etc, we had regular jobs at the Arts Center Victoria, did the Lord Mayors ball etc etc, good fun...


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 September 2017)

I am not happy with the question. Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry? That is an affront to multiple partner relationships. I demand group marriage be included in the question and the bias toward couples be removed. Equality forever.


----------



## Tumbarumba (12 September 2017)

It is the LGBT fanatics that will hijack same sex legislation that concerns me; using the law to force religious places to conduct ceremonies , tv stations to show equal numbers of same sex couples as conventional couples or stopping the use of terms like "conventional couples",  etc. It has already happened in England following the ssm legislation there;- Read this for more.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/
or this
http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/canada_ssm_destroying_all_other_rights


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 September 2017)

That is one of the problems with a democratic society. People vote without any knowledge or forethought and hope for the best. There are a large percentage of people who simply parrot what they hear and have no inclination to think for themselves let alone research what they vote for. A single voice can easily manipulate  masses of people.


----------



## Tisme (12 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> i used to play i a band in the early 70's one of our jobs was at a gay function, the sight of 2 middle aged men pashing and groping each other on the dancefloor sickens me to this day. I guess we can expect a lot more of that.




My epiphany moment was up at Hamilton Island back in the nineties with my children and wife in tow about to go for a swim and two males in speedos where rolling around sucking face on the side of the  pool, both with erections. Still makes me sick in the pit of my stomache thinking about it.... worse than those horrifying half second flashes of imagining your mum and dad having it off in public. icky

Sufficed to say my children were mortified, dazed and confused, but not as much as their parents. When I analyze it I bet that is why nobody else was around.


----------



## crackajack (12 September 2017)

Marriage is a waste of time lol Why bother? Just more attention seekers. So man rooting man is going to make a family? Woman licking woman is going to make a family? get into the real world. What you do in your personal space is your own business. Make into some attention seeking exercise is a waste of time effort and money.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 September 2017)

After watching the Sixty Minutes program on Sunday about the sex change story, I wondered if the boy was the girl mum wanted. Encouraging feminine behaviour like dressing as a female. Planting the seed which was in direct conflict with natural tendencies and then at puberty the unnatural drug taking to change the natural process.


----------



## luutzu (12 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Yes, I concede that I have been prejudicially remiss in acknowledging your reiterations throughout perpetuity.




Never use two syllables when one would do 

Imagine how much more enlightened the English-speaking world would be if Shakespeare or Freud write in ways even an idiot (like me) could understand.


----------



## luutzu (12 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is taken.
> Find another word.
> 
> There is no discrimination and they have their rights.
> ...




Two consenting adults wants to get married... but since they're gay the gov't says go fark yourself.

hmmm... that's discrimination. 


What's the reason marriage is "father, mother, child"? And how does that make it equal as opposed to the gay marriage with children?

Two loving parents who goes through a heck of a lot of trouble to have the kid... that's a great start in life. Two parents courageous enough to stand up against social discrimination, be themselves and are proud of it... that makes pretty dam good role models. 

As to God hating gays... if He hate them so much, he wouldn't have made them. That and doesn't God have a lot of stuff to worry about? 

There's nuclear war, Climate Change, pollution, famine, drought, flooding, endless wars... you'd think that having two of His creation loving one another is the least of His worries.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Two consenting adults wants to get married... but since they're gay the gov't says go fark yourself.
> 
> hmmm... that's discrimination.



Sooo, polygamy is fine with you or more than two in a marriage is an issue?


----------



## luutzu (12 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sooo, polygamy is fine with you or more than two in a marriage is an issue?




It's fine with me. Not sure what the wife will think of it though 

I know where you're coming from. I don't see polygamy being the same as legalising same-sex marriage. There's no slippery slope that I see.

First, from a gov't point of view... marriage is legalised between two parents [currently in most god-fearing countries and all totalitarian states, it's between man and woman]... reason for this monopoly is so that Big Brother can find that runaway parent and tie child-support to them: you had the fun, it's going to cost you 

That and estate, assets, taxes and welfare issues.
Have more than two partners would make it harder to divvy up the assets if one partner passes and the remaining two don't much like each other. Who gets the kids, who gets the trailer?

So the fact that it's "always" been been between a man and a woman is because God somehow said it. Then there's the science factor, adoption and surrogacy weren't hip then etc.

It's more due to tradition, religion, politics and technological blah blah.

Tradition is for old folks; religion for idiots; politics for scoundrels who swings whichever way the wind blows... anyone I haven't insulted yet?


Back on topic... it's stupid but not illegal to have extra-marital relationship. Being that kind of stupid is often a choice, being gay is not a choice.

We shouldn't penalise or demean a fellow citizen who is different, does no one any harm with their preferences. Save that kind of irrational fear and abuse for Muslims.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sooo, polygamy is fine with you or more than two in a marriage is an issue?




As long as it's between consenting adults who cares.

The bible is fine with multiple wives, I imagine Tinks "Traditional marriage" she talks about includes polygamy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> It's fine with me. Not sure what the wife will think of it though



That was funny. 


> I know where you're coming from. I don't see polygamy being the same as legalising same-sex marriage. There's no slippery slope that I see.



Yes well I thought it was all about love and change and no one getting hurt.


> We shouldn't penalise or demean a fellow citizen who is different, does no one any harm with their preferences. Save that kind of irrational fear and abuse for Muslims.



Oh yeah we love the Musies. We dress the same, pray together, eat Halal certified food together, got our own rules and gee whiz, I had a blast at the team detonation session last week.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> As long as it's between consenting adults who cares.



You are my #1 forum d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.


----------



## Tumbarumba (13 September 2017)

I cannot sleep so I read all posts on this topic and it changed my opinion; The biggest threat to society is not ssm or religion or racism it is from people who are not as intelligent as they think they are.


----------



## PZ99 (13 September 2017)

Tumbarumba said:


> I cannot sleep so I read all posts on this topic and it changed my opinion; The biggest threat to society is not ssm or religion or racism it is from people who are not as intelligent as they think they are.



Agreed. Not just this thread but virtually anywhere you look you see the same thing. The community have had a chance to show that we could handle a topic with more intelligence than those clowns in parliament during question time but so far it hasn't been demonstrated has it? LOL


----------



## PZ99 (13 September 2017)

The ABC vote compass thingy has similar results to our result here.

This poll was carried out between May and July last year. Around 750K responded.

Additionally they've broken down the results into each seat as follows:



Spoiler



Lowest to highest of YES %
MARANOA 42%
HINKLER 43%
FLYNN 44%
GROOM 45%
KENNEDY 46%
BLAXLAND 46%
PARKES 47%
WRIGHT 47%
CHIFLEY 47%
MCMAHON 48%
CAPRICORNIA 48%
DAWSON 48%
RANKIN 49%
GREENWAY 49%
FORDE 49%
LONGMAN 49%
WERRIWA 50%
BARKER 50%
WIDE BAY 51%
BLAIR 51%
CANNING 51%
NEW ENGLAND 51%
LYNE 51%
O'CONNOR 51%
BANKS 51%
PETRIE 52%
GREY 52%
PARRAMATTA 52%
WATSON 52%
BRADDON 52%
RIVERINA 52%
MITCHELL 52%
FOWLER 52%
CALWELL 53%
BURT 53%
MACARTHUR 53%
BOWMAN 53%
HUME 53%
DICKSON 53%
DURACK 53%
BRUCE 53%
HUGHES 54%
LINDSAY 54%
FAIRFAX 54%
COOK 54%
BONNER 54%
FADDEN 54%
FARRER 54%
WHITLAM 54%
PATERSON 55%
MURRAY 55%
HOLT 55%
LYONS 55%
LINGIARI 55%
FISHER 55%
BEROWRA 55%
CALARE 55%
OXLEY 55%
HUNTER 55%
PAGE 55%
COWPER 55%
BASS 55%
FORREST 55%
LEICHHARDT 55%
GILMORE 55%
MALLEE 55%
HASLUCK 56%
MONCRIEFF 56%
PEARCE 56%
HERBERT 56%
BENNELONG 56%
COWAN 56%
SHORTLAND 56%
GIPPSLAND 56%
MCPHERSON 56%
TANGNEY 57%
DOBELL 57%
MAKIN 57%
MORETON 57%
ROBERTSON 58%
MACQUARIE 58%
MOORE 58%
WAKEFIELD 58%
GORTON 58%
BARTON 58%
BRAND 58%
EDEN-MONARO 58%
WANNON 58%
ASTON 58%
CUNNINGHAM 59%
SCULLIN 59%
MENZIES 60%
KINGSTON 60%
BRADFIELD 60%
LALOR 60%
MACKELLAR 60%
MAYO 61%
LILLEY 61%
RICHMOND 61%
MCMILLAN 61%
FRANKLIN 61%
STURT 61%
MCEWEN 61%
REID 61%
SWAN 62%
HINDMARSH 62%
DEAKIN 62%
STIRLING 62%
BOOTHBY 63%
RYAN 63%
PORT ADELAIDE 63%
SOLOMON 63%
CHISHOLM 64%
CASEY 64%
INDI 64%
NEWCASTLE 64%
LA TROBE 64%
CORIO 64%
FREMANTLE 64%
CORANGAMITE 64%
BENDIGO 65%
FLINDERS 65%
BALLARAT 65%
HOTHAM 65%
CURTIN 66%
ADELAIDE 66%
DUNKLEY 66%
MARIBYRNONG 66%
ISAACS 67%
KINGSFORD SMITH 67%
GRIFFITH 68%
PERTH 68%
KOOYONG 68%
JAGAJAGA 68%
BRISBANE 69%
NORTH SYDNEY 69%
WARRINGAH 70%
DENISON 70%
CANBERRA 70%
FENNER 71%
GOLDSTEIN 73%
GELLIBRAND 73%
HIGGINS 74%
WILLS 75%
BATMAN 76%
GRAYNDLER 77%
WENTWORTH 78%
MELBOURNE 78%
MELBOURNE PORTS 79%
SYDNEY 79%









http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/same-sex-marriage-support-map-vote-compass/8788978


----------



## tech/a (13 September 2017)

Tumbarumba said:


> I cannot sleep so I read all posts on this topic and it changed my opinion; The biggest threat to society is not ssm or religion or racism it is from people who are not as intelligent as they think they are.




Which side of the argument/any argument----does this statement belong?


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Tumbarumba said:


> I cannot sleep so I read all posts on this topic and it changed my opinion; The biggest threat to society is not ssm or religion or racism it is from people who are not as intelligent as they think they are.




Nobody is as intelliegnet as they seem. trumpet or articulate.

For me I find the debate about SSM fascinating as it seems to satisfy the various discussion we had back in the early Usenet days about the memetics and how ideas find there way into a culture which then spreads as it infects host minds.

Truth and voracity is of secondary importance to the success of the meme. SSM seems to be a great success in replication.

Riding in and announcing a new judge is in town who roundabout supports SSM only enforces the memetic prediction.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sooo, polygamy is fine with you or more than two in a marriage is an issue?



Personally I don't think they're comparable.  There is no discrimination because it's consistent across the board, regardless of race, sexuality, gender or faith no one by law can be married to multiple partners.


----------



## Tink (13 September 2017)

Luutzu, you can vote however you choose.
Just as I will be.
My vote hasn't changed, it will be NO.

As was mentioned, we all have an opinion and we are entitled to that opinion.
We don't want the thought police telling us how we need to think.

I disagree with everyone that has said, we should not be entitled to a vote, and I am disappointed that it was not the full plebiscite, rather than this postal vote.

This is a big change to our society, and I believe the public should have a say.

Tolerance is a two way street, and I am not seeing tolerance from the other side.
The left have ruined their own agenda.

I call them the Stalinists, as that is what they are, destroying every little bit on what this country was built on.
I am still hoping a NO will come from this, and people have woken up.

I have commented that whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, I would not have a clue, as we don't go around introducing ourselves on our sexuality.
I like to listen to their music, I have seen wonderful beauty in their art, and what snide remarks did I get back -- but you are glad that he is dead.

That is the thinking of a left, that because I do not agree with changing the marriage act, that I do not agree with their lifestyle, that I believe children and the family come first, then I need to be told that my enjoyment of their work is not allowed.
They do themselves no favours.

Bottom line is --

We all have a mother and a father.
We all have a family.
Biology is every one of us.
No matter your colour, creed, sexuality.

Marriage is - one man and one woman.

VC, you constantly attack our foundations, our Christian heritage, but I have asked you to show me an atheist country.
Lenin, and his useful idiots.

This is my view.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Personally I don't think they're comparable.  There is no discrimination because it's consistent across the board, regardless of race, sexuality, gender or faith no one by law can be married to multiple partners.





Value Collector said:


> As long as it's between consenting adults who cares.
> 
> The bible is fine with multiple wives, I imagine Tinks "Traditional marriage" she talks about includes polygamy.




You are very quick to use the old testament as excuse for your own views, but quick to dismiss it when it runs counter to your views. The New Testament rarely gets a ticket to ride with you unless it suits your argument.

Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.

Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Y
> Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.
> 
> Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.




Then it's a moot point if no one will lobby for it.  Frankly good luck to anyone that can two wives happy.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Then it's a moot point if no one will lobby for it.  Frankly good luck to anyone that can two wives happy.





Yes, but like SSM, the issue is not happyiness. The govt does not exist to keep people happy and egalatarian, it exists to make laws and provide good governance.

Like the real reason for SSM is for legal recognition of claim on a partner's assets, so too polygamist spouses would seek legal access to their spouses assets ...legally without going through the pre qualification process in the courts.

And remeber the reason Menzies took marriage out of the hands of the states, was the fear of reds under the beds taking our nation. Populate or perish was the mantra and the nuclear family was the way forward, imported or home grown.


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2017)

It will be a resounding victory from the YES side unless the sleeper is the NO side who aren't as vocal.
Turnbull and Shorten ? Couple of bludging no hopers only interested in supporting what they think will get them votes.

Which brings me to this - politicians should be made to work with the disadvantaged for 3 months of the year, live in their electorates and only be allowed in Canberra for debates and votes. No pouncing around the dining room at Parliament House pontificating on how important they think they are.

As it is they are insulated from the people they are supposed to represent and do them little, if any, good.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You are very quick to use the old testament as excuse for your own views, but quick to dismiss it when it runs counter to your views. The New Testament rarely gets a ticket to ride with you unless it suits your argument.
> 
> Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.
> 
> Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.




I don't believe either testament is a source of morality, my morality is based on real world harm, not scripture.

I am just pointing out that when Tink talks about "traditional marriage" that traditional marriage has changed a lot over time.

Now Christians believe in the 10 commandments right? Well the guy that was meant to have gotten those commandments directly from god, had two wives, and god never mentioned it was wrong to him.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yes, but like SSM, the issue is not happyiness. The govt does not exist to keep people happy and egalatarian, it exists to make laws and provide good governance.




That's your opinion, I think you'll find the few effected by the policy change will be quite happy.  Government exist to provide laws that are in sync with our society and the society we strive to be.  Our society has progressed away from treating homosexuality as a criminal offense to gradually allowing them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  This is just another step.


----------



## Tink (13 September 2017)

_“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. 

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. 

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. 

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. 
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. 

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”_


----------



## MrBurns (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> _“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
> 
> Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
> 
> ...




Correct ^^^^^


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I don't believe either testament is a source of morality, my morality is based on real world harm, not scripture.
> 
> I am just pointing out that when Tink talks about "traditional marriage" that traditional marriage has changed a lot over time.
> 
> Now Christians believe in the 10 commandments right? Well the guy that was meant to have gotten those commandments directly from god, had two wives, and god never mentioned it was wrong to him.




Yeah, but it's a furphy argument, like throwing disparate issues and trying to conflate them into the conversation as proof of truth.

The marraige act is naught to do with the bible, but all to do with our constitution. Proponents would point out that section 51 doesn't define man and women, but they are less quick to point out that homosexuality was illegal until the mid 1980's , so by default marriage was the traditional concept of man and women and the realism is that EVERYONE knew that no matter how many ways advocate of SSM would skew the facts.

I find the weasel words used and the lies rewriting history insulting to commonsense.

I am also insulted at the flippancy of the voting population who are all too willing to hand over their bedrocks to foreign cultures that never reached the heights of the Five Eyes countries....although with so many residents who aren't culturally Australians of yesteryear it's not surprising that vast numbers would bring the same poisons that made their own countries of origin untenable.

Compounding the world wide trend is China and India pursuing population control by encouraging gender blending.


http://www.cirnow.com.au/constitution-defines-marriage/


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yeah, but it's a furphy argument, like throwing disparate issues and trying to conflate them into the conversation as proof of truth.
> 
> The marraige act is naught to do with the bible, but all to do with our constitution. Proponents would point out that section 51 doesn't define man and women, but they are less quick to point out that homosexuality was illegal until the mid 1980's , so by default marriage was the traditional concept of man and women and the realism is that EVERYONE knew that no matter how many ways advocate of SSM would skew the facts.
> 
> ...




My argument isn't a biblical argument, I am simply using the Bible to show that marriage has changed over time.

What Tink and you call "traditional" wasn't always Traditional, it would have been considered progressive.

So yes, the "definition of marriage" has changed a lot over time, and allowing same sex marriage is just a continuation of this progression.

And it's not even a big change really, simply allowing same sex marriages is almost nothing compared to the other big changes that have happened.


----------



## Tink (13 September 2017)

Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> _“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
> 
> Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
> 
> ...




That might be your definition of marriage, that is your opinion, many don't share your belief.  There are many couples out there who don't give a rats about your tradition, they are married outside of a church by a celebrant, they want to celebrate with friends and family.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
> So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
> Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”




Who actually created the creator?  Something had to.


----------



## Tink (13 September 2017)

Yes, we can see, you are pushing for the 'free love'.

The lies that come out of VC and his 'rage against God' needed to be counter acted.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Yes, we can see, you are pushing for the 'free love'.
> 
> The lies that come out of VC and his 'rage against God' needed to be counter acted.




 Can you give me an example of my "rage against god"?

Because I don't actually believe in any gods, so how can I be angry at one?

Any anger I have related to religion, is not a "rage against gods" it's a rage against humans with silly ideas and beliefs.


----------



## Tink (13 September 2017)

I am still waiting for you to say why marriage should be changed to genderless.

Why would we want the state over riding our families.

I don't want the thought police telling me how to think.

Vote NO.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> That's your opinion, I think you'll find the few effected by the policy change will be quite happy.  Government exist to provide laws that are in sync with our society and the society we strive to be.  Our society has progressed away from treating homosexuality as a criminal offense to gradually allowing them the same rights as heterosexual couples.  This is just another step.





Not true, you need to revise your state and commonwealth constitutions.

This is one of those fallacious beliefs that are being used as proof of concept and it has no foundation of truth.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So yes, the "definition of marriage" has changed a lot over time, .




Without resorting to anecdotal evidence, what definition of marriage has changed a lot over time, especially in Australia. It didn't come here until the first fleet epoque. 

I'm sure the instruments and authority have changed, but the authenticity of male/female contracts or bahns go way back ...well they do in my family tree, but then my family wasn't afflicted with homo miasma vapours like so many today.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Not true, you need to revise your state and commonwealth constitutions.
> 
> This is one of those fallacious beliefs that are being used as proof of concept and it has no foundation of truth.




That's just completely baseless


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> I don't want the thought police telling me how to think.
> 
> Vote NO.




Yet you're more than happy to tell people to vote no.  If you don't like being told how to think then perhaps stop telling others how to vote.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> Yes, we can see, you are pushing for the 'free love'.
> 
> The lies that come out of VC and his 'rage against God' needed to be counter acted.





I'm all for free love Tink,  it's what powered Australian culture form the end of plaid Menzies reign up until the beginning of the Frasier "life wasn't meant to be easy" dark days.

I wouldn't be too concerned with VC, he'll find God when the straw society he and his mates constructed collapses under its own corruption of the indefatigable innate human bios. It might take a lot of eating crow but he'll have his epiphany for sure, even if it's a bet each way on his death bed.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> That's just completely baseless




I don't know your level of education, but it is not baseless and you should know better than argue the point.

"The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth"

no where does it mention being a bleeding heart.


----------



## PZ99 (13 September 2017)

Hey @Tisme , I've had no response to my NO vote on farcebook yet. LOL


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't know your level of education, but it is not baseless and you should know better than argue the point.
> 
> "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth"
> 
> no where does it mention being a bleeding heart.




It's subjective, Where exactly do you think marriage comes into that at all?


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Tink said:


> I am still waiting for you to say why marriage should be changed to genderless.
> 
> Why would we want the state over riding our families.
> 
> ...




Simply because there is no good reason for SSM to be banned, 

1, I believe society is better when people are not discriminated against because of their sexuality.

2, It takes nothing away from exisiting and future straight marriages

3, it's harmless, and I believe only things that cause harm should be banned.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Hey @Tisme , I've had no response to my NO vote on farcebook yet. LOL





Really!! I'll have to have another crack. Don't tell me the fizz has gone out of the debate already LOL.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> It's subjective, Where exactly do you think marriage comes into that at all?





Under that very section of the constitution as it turns out. Hint "section 51"


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

> It didn't come here until the first fleet epoque.




Thats not true at all, the aboriginals had marriage long before white men got here. You are showing you bias towards white history there.



Tisme said:


> Without resorting to anecdotal evidence, what definition of marriage has changed a lot over time, especially in Australia.





Lots has changed.

1, Polygamy used to be common place, that changed.

2, Men used to have to purchase their wives, and they were his property, that changed

3, Marriages used to be arranged, that has largely changed.

4, divorce used to be illegal, thats changed

5, Men used to be exported to dominate and their wives follow, thats changed

lots of things.

Marriage is now seen as a consenting partnership between equals, based on love and that hasn't always been the case.


----------



## overhang (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Under that very section of the constitution as it turns out. Hint "section 51"




Yes of course but what I'm asking is if governments should even control the definition of marriage in the first place.  Since they do we now require $110 million to ask them to change it.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Marriage is now seen as a consenting partnership between equals, based on love and that hasn't always been the case.




Some cultures use marriage to bind women to their masters (husbands) and allow the husband to get rid of their wives by just a few words, while the women are not permitted to divorce the man.

A culture that some are very keen to defend.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Thats not true at all, the aboriginals had marriage long before white men got here. You are showing you bias towards white history there.




No they didn't. I did suggest no anecdotal evidence didn't I?




Value Collector said:


> Lots has changed.






Value Collector said:


> 1, Polygamy used to be common place, that changed.




When in Australia's, Britain's, Europes, etc history was polygamy common place and if true why is it no longer for many many centuries (I assume) past. Some real proofs please and no skyfairy book quotes



Value Collector said:


> 2, Men used to have to purchase their wives, and they were his property, that changed




While I agree that women were treated as chatels in various pre and non christian cultures and certainly not given the rights men in the street males gained relatively recently, woman weren't far behind in getting those same right, relatively speaking here in Oz. Once again I'd be interested to know when and where your statement applies in modern history Britain and thus Australia?



Value Collector said:


> 3, Marriages used to be arranged, that has largely changed.




Well my family history includes wealthy friends and backers of the Plantagenet Vs Lancaster teams and they didn't have arranged marriages, although I'm sure they never planned to marry common people. The other rabble in the tree seemed to do what most people did, hook up get pregnant, have a kid and when the wandering priest or official made his annual visit get the bahn or marriage ratified retrospectively. Indians yes, Mulsims yes, Kings and nobility....I'm guessing they might all be into that



Value Collector said:


> 4, divorce used to be illegal, thats changed




Well if you look at the Oz constitution and preambles it was  well and truly on the table as part of the marriage sphere, probably due to Henry VIII giving the forks to the Italian boss 400 years before, what's that depending on how well you family bred like rabbits ... 15 - 20 generations of tradition?



Value Collector said:


> 5, Men used to be exported to dominate and their wives follow, thats changed lots of things.



 That would be exhorted? Well yes I'm sure there were whole communities that bullied their wives, Yorkshire would have to be a prime example, but in Oz I'm not sure woman didn't have a say in where they lived and how they spoused. Once again my tree dates back to very early SA and Vic and those women were hard nuts who sent there men to places like WA to earn a quid.



Value Collector said:


> Marriage is now seen as a consenting partnership between equals, based on love and that hasn't always been the case.




That's what the vote will indicate, but you know and everyone knows that the younger generation has no real noble ambition and would rather just see it done and dusted and the baby boomers have been compromised by a trendy grandson or granddaughter who have declared their fluidity and must thus be protected from the phantom lynch mobs who keep demanding the perps be sent out to be dealt with with wicked name calling.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Some cultures use marriage to bind women to their masters (husbands) and allow the husband to get rid of their wives by just a few words, while the women are not permitted to divorce the man.
> 
> A culture that some are very keen to defend.




Yes, exactly how we used to be, but as I said we have changed, for the better in my opinion, marriage has continually changed, and simply allowing ssm is just another charge, and a small one at that.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> No they didn't. I did suggest no anecdotal evidence didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes they did

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ures/marriage-traditional-aboriginal-societie


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Yes of course but what I'm asking is if governments should even control the definition of marriage in the first place.  Since they do we now require $110 million to ask them to change it.





that's a different question.

I'm guessing we have to consider Australia's circumstances as two colonial outposts (WA and NSW) of the UK. There was a a native assimilation consideration, convicts, free settlers, etc.

Both colonies had to look at setting up class structures, worker structures, gene structures, etc to ensure survival of the population. As draconian as it might seem strict obedience to the authorities was enforced across the board, not just marriage, but everything including association (which by the way Campbell Newman tried revitalising about 4 year sago here in QLD).

There were different marriage acts in the states and territories; in WA aborigines had to marry a white fella in an effort to breed them "civlilised" and thus the many shamrock natives with Irish and Scottish surnames. In QLD it was opposite for the Murris who weren't allowed to marry whitey.

The confused state laws meant that the federal parliament tended to ignore their role and put it in teh too had basket until after WW2 and the need to get the country galvanised and strong


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2017)

The NO case will be presented at the National Press Club today.

How many think that it should not go ahead given that it will be obviously hurtful and homophobic ?

The voice of the future if the heterophobes get their way:- 



			
				Penny Wong said:
			
		

> I think I'm pretty used to this debate, but I didn't want to read John Howard on the front page of _The Australian _on the weekend, saying again what sorts of families were optimal, what sorts of families were good and why my family is not.
> 
> 
> *I don't want to read that again.*
> ...




And of course if she had her way she wouldn't read it because people would not be allowed to say it, or if they did would be hauled through the courts.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, exactly how we used to be, but as I said we have changed




Some of us have but I think you know who I mean.


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes they did
> 
> http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/12. Aboriginal Marriages and Family Structures/marriage-traditional-aboriginal-societie





No that revisionism, just made up stuff like they had flags, wore board shorts and drove purple Valiants


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> No that revisionism, just made up stuff like they had flags, wore board shorts and drove purple Valiants





I should have added that aborigines had arranged couplings to avoid inbreeding and strengthening the tribe. The male spouse could have many partners, but the woman had to wait until hers karked it to take another.

There was no marriage action, it was just a coupling as part of a social structure, propagation of the numbers, a belief system and future survival of the breed. I'm pretty sure there was no SSM

When you come to think of it, if Aborigines are the oldest civilisation on earth and they don't have a custom of SSM, it must say something about the human genome and nature n'est pas?


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Who actually created the creator?  Something had to.



Not If there there was no creation before creation was created. perhaps this is just all a figment of someone's imagination and creation doesn't really exist,  vis a vis uncreated.

Blue pill or red pill?


----------



## Tisme (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Who actually created the creator?  Something had to.




Actually its a pretty simple construct:

God is the all powerful eternal spirit. Being eternal means that time is a dimension he does not have to contend with, being a spirit means he has no material dimension, thus not created, just an image that he patented for exclusive use of humans if you believe the bible and who wouldn't with all that evidence. 

So when he decided to make everything material and time based he wasn't constrained  because he created the universe of matter, energy and time from zip and being omniscient that would be a snap.

Because we can't expand our observations outside our universe we are constrained into circular arguments about who created the creator and we can't create new matter or time because that has been defined already for our space by God himself, which made it easy Einstein prove conservation of mass-energy so long as the universe doesn't blow a puncture.


----------



## tech/a (13 September 2017)

Found this interesting.

Had a BBQ after work last night with all staff.
So talk around Plebiscite.
26 of us
3 Girls the rest Male Construction guys. 17-65.
So how many voting yes--------5 all are males.
21 no's!

One of the girls single said this!
"I don't want the male pool diluted any more
its hard enough finding a decent gut now lots are gay!"

One of the guys asked this.
"If like me you had a 7 yr old son who is invited to a sleep
over and their parents are gay---would you let them?"

Just found it interesting.


----------



## Value Collector (13 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> One of the girls single said this!
> "I don't want the male pool diluted any more
> its hard enough finding a decent gut now lots are gay!"
> 
> ...




Both answers are pretty ignorant.

1 seems to be hoping that banning gay marriage will make a gay man marry her instead, so she not the brightest spark obviously.

2 seems to think gay = pedophile, which is simply not true, as already discussed.


----------



## tech/a (13 September 2017)

Just sayin


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2017)

Anyone see the National Press Club ?

They seemed to have a good rent-a-crowd there.

Made some good points though.


----------



## Betavegeta (13 September 2017)

No.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Yes of course but what I'm asking is if governments should even control the definition of marriage in the first place.  Since they do we now require $110 million to ask them to change it.



One thing I do agree with is the waste of money for a non compulsory survey. Mainly the gays and their emotionally charged friends and family will be involved and considerate people like me.  It should have been a compulsory vote with the outciome the final decision. I would accept that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> One of the girls single said this!
> "I don't want the male pool diluted any more
> *its hard enough finding a decent gut* now lots are gay!"



Hmmm, does she prefer a beer gut or a muscular one?


----------



## tech/a (13 September 2017)

Don't think she's a gut sorta gal.
Flat or flimsy.
Never got into that side of life.


----------



## satanoperca (13 September 2017)

Finally someone with some sense has come out of closet, so to speak :
*Marriage trashed by straight people not gays, says Christian Lobby boss Lyle Shelton*
There is the truth and nothing but the truth, tried to point that out with statistics.

The concept of marriage is failing, why fight for something that is not progressing.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> The concept of marriage is failing,




The concept is not failing, the execution of it is.


----------



## PZ99 (13 September 2017)

Marriage is like a deck of cards. In the beginning all you need is two hearts and a diamond. By the end, you wish you had a club and a spade.


----------



## satanoperca (13 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The concept is not failing, the execution of it is.




Sorry, facts are facts. You statement sounds like an excuse for addressing the facts, marriage in decline, divorce on the rise.

The concept doesn't meet todays needs or requirements, it is "old" fashioned.

Brave new world here we come


----------



## cynic (13 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Sorry, facts are facts. You statement sounds like an excuse for addressing the facts, marriage in decline, divorce on the rise.
> 
> The concept doesn't meet todays needs or requirements, it is "old" fashioned.
> 
> Brave new world here we come



That's making it sound more and more like the "no camp" are doing the homosexual sector a favour, whilst the "yes camp" are trying to fedex them a rotten fish!

For reasons that are clear to those acquainted with mathematics, the trends you are describing, (i.e. declining marriage rates, increasing divorce rates), will prove terminal, as they quite simply cannot sustainably coexist. (In order to be able to divorce one must first marry!).


----------



## Triathlete (14 September 2017)

I thought the YES campaigners have been telling everyone that safe schools has nothing to do with the marriage equality debate...Better tell these people then......                             http://bernardgaynor.com.au/safe-schools-communist-activists-lead-marriage-equality-rally/


----------



## dutchie (14 September 2017)

I've seen a lot of aggression (including violence) against those people who dare to declare their NO vote.

*Wallabies star Israel Folau subjected to vile attacks after declaring on Twitter he would vote 'no' to gay marriage*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tter-opposing-gay-marriage.html#ixzz4sas0AeYg


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

I've seen a lot of aggression (including violence) against those people who dare to declare their YES vote.

*Kevin Rudd’s godson attacked over same-sex marriage*

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...s/news-story/41bdae1eb57a9d9fcc79afbdbba01d15


----------



## dutchie (14 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I've seen a lot of aggression (including violence) against those people who dare to declare their YES vote.
> 
> *Kevin Rudd’s godson attacked over same-sex marriage*
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...s/news-story/41bdae1eb57a9d9fcc79afbdbba01d15





touché


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> I've seen a lot of aggression (including violence) against those people who dare to declare their NO vote.
> 
> *Wallabies star Israel Folau subjected to vile attacks after declaring on Twitter he would vote 'no' to gay marriage*
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tter-opposing-gay-marriage.html#ixzz4sas0AeYg




I've been following that thread on farcebook. I thought it might have been PZ99's foray.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> touché





I think there would a cummulative reason he got a going over. I might just check out his twatter posts to see if he is antagonistic and superior by nature


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

It's a snapshot of what we saw in the 70's - except back then it was common practice and not reported. If we are regressing back to it in the 21st century it proves society has learned nothing.

Star Hotel - Cold Chisel


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> It's a snapshot of what we saw in the 70's - except back then it was common practice and not reported. If we are regressing back to it in the 21st century it proves society has learned nothing.
> 
> Star Hotel - Cold Chisel





What, riots because the cops shutdown a band playing inside?


----------



## Tink (14 September 2017)

They are connected, Triathlete

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

If Marriage is changed to genderless, then the (un) safe school will be rolled out as compulsory to every school and every child.

The state will take over the parenting of the child, and push parents out.

Homosexual marriage will be placed above traditional marriage.

--------------------

VC, they are not banned.

They have civil unions which gives them all the same rights as heterosexual.

-------------------
_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_


----------



## overhang (14 September 2017)

So it seems the people are receiving their postal votes now.  It will be interesting to see if the results follow polling or if the polling was just the Bradley effect.



> The *Bradley effect* (less commonly the *Wilder effect*)[1][2] is a theory concerning observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters who intend to vote for the white candidate would nonetheless tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for the non-white candidate


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> What, riots because the cops shutdown a band playing inside?



Yeah, pretty daft hey? Just like today.
And the authorities wanted it shut down because it attracted gays at the bar.



Tink said:


> Homosexual marriage will be placed above traditional marriage.



That's a bit over the top - don't you think?


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, pretty daft hey? Just like today.
> And the authorities wanted it shut down because it attracted gays at the bar.




I remember going to the Sunday sessions in Perth 70s and there were always gays in the crowd and no one seemed to care, except my partner was always amused them eyeing off my arse when getting drinks.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

LOL. Don't tell me.... your response was apathetic at best ?


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> LOL. Don't tell me.... your response was apathetic at best ?





That's a fault of mine...I really have a hard time getting interested and passionate about much at all...even after about two hours on the nest I start thinking about an intermission.


----------



## Junior (14 September 2017)

Tink said:


> The state will take over the parenting of the child, and push parents out.




The overcrowded, already stretched public school system will never 'take over' the parenting of the child.  You are peddling a ridiculous fear campaign.



Tink said:


> Homosexual marriage will be placed above traditional marriage.




No it won't.  

Heterosexual couples comprise the overwhelming majority of relationships.  This will never change.  Look at the long list of countries where SSM is already legal.  Is everyone turning gay?

It's not an agenda to turn everyone gay.  It's simply an issue of equality and inclusiveness.  A positive change.



Tink said:


> They have civil unions which gives them all the same rights as heterosexual.




And soon they will have weddings too.  Much like the blacks and women gained the same rights as everyone else, so too will homosexuals, and society will be better for it.


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

You can't get much more accurate than a poll by the ACL and/or Safe Schools and/or ABC



> A third of all Australian voters say they are undecided over whether to allow gay marriage in a national poll that signals the issue of legal protections for religion and freedom of speech could determine Malcolm Turnbull’s postal plebiscite.
> 
> A national poll of 4,000 people commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby suggests that 61 per cent would likely vote Yes with protections for children, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/978b91d0522b43eaf2f6e6151e02c8e2


----------



## Tink (14 September 2017)

Since the public system seems to be going against Western Culture, and our public holidays, then maybe they should consider making those schools private, since they seem to be peddling their own agenda.

Why is the taxpayer paying for this political correct school?

This is my view.

You are entitled to your own and you are free to have your own vote.

I am glad we are having a VOTE, not like these Communists that tried to stop us.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

I am glad we are having a VOTE too, not like these Conservatives that rammed it through parliament in 2004. We should really repeal that legislation then have the vote


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

I don't understand why a business or sole trader doesn't have the right to deny service to anyone they consider detrimental to their ability to go about their activities. I can imagine the aggravation and loss of focus at being made to perform a service that you are fundamentally opposed to doing... it's not like being an employee and just quiting or going to the shop steward.



> The Colorado baker who refused to custom-make a cake for a gay wedding couple has been helped along by support from the Department of Justice.
> 
> 
> The DOJ issued an amicus brief in support of Jack C. Phillips ahead of the supreme court case, the Independent Journal Review reported. An amicus brief is simply a friend-of-the-court legal recommendation of additional information to keep in mind, according to Public Health Law Center.
> ...





http://www.ntd.tv/2017/09/11/baker-refusing-to-make-wedding-cakes-for-gays-gains-support-of-doj/


----------



## dutchie (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> ...even after about two hours on the nest I start thinking about an intermission.



LOL


----------



## Logique (14 September 2017)

Canada, USA, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden - why would it be any different in this country? Australians will already face special restrictive legislation during the current postal plebiscite!







> http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/augusto-zimmermann/
> 12 Sept 2017 - Augusto Zimmerman - Gay Marriage: After the Honeymoon
> ... If the overseas experience is any guide,* religious liberty and freedom of conscience will be in peril *...
> ... One could also take the example of Sweden. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Sweden since 2009, although priests can decline to celebrate weddings under the country’s Marriage Code. However, just eight years on from re-defining marriage,* the Swedish government* has recently indicated that it is* currently working to ensure all priests must consecrate everyone, including same-sex couples*. ...


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't understand why a business or sole trader doesn't have the right to deny service to anyone they consider detrimental to their ability to go about their activities. I can imagine the aggravation and loss of focus at being made to perform a service that you are fundamentally opposed to doing... it's not like being an employee and just quiting or going to the shop steward.




Businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like.

In reality I think the vast majority of businesses will do work for whoever pays, but just like I don't have to work for people I think are d*ckheads, businesses should not have to serve people that they fundamentally object to. 

The number of people adversely affected by religious freedom in this area has to be minute, but the militant PC'ers feel they have to make an example of a few little bakers who dare to oppose their 'rights' to a wedding cake they could probably just as easily make for themselves or find someone else who will do it.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't understand why a business or sole trader doesn't have the right to deny service to anyone they consider detrimental to their ability to go about their activities. I can imagine the aggravation and loss of focus at being made to perform a service that you are fundamentally opposed to doing... it's not like being an employee and just quiting or going to the shop steward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The crazy thing about this, is, if a baker was fundamentally opposed to serving me, why would I even consider trusting in the quality of any of his legally enforced offerings? 

For all I know, he could decide to lace the cake with laxatives (or worse) in revenge!


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The number of people adversely affected by religious freedom in this area has to be minute, but the militant PC'ers feel they have to make an example of a few little bakers who dare to oppose their 'rights' to a wedding cake they could probably just as easily make for themselves or find someone else who will do it.




Lets say its a small country town, with 1 petrol station, and the owner decides he doesn't want to sell petrol to asians anymore, This can cause a huge problem for the asians in that town, not to mention its just a **** thing to do.

So society has decided that to get along we shouldn't discriminate, and if you sell a product or service you should just serve all that come regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Lets say its a small country town, with 1 petrol station, and the owner decides he doesn't want to sell petrol to asians anymore, This can cause a huge problem for the asians in that town, not to mention its just a **** thing to do.




Do you have some examples of this actually happening ?

Businesses are there to make money,they will take all the money they can get.


----------



## Junior (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like.
> 
> In reality I think the vast majority of businesses will do work for whoever pays, but just like I don't have to work for people I think are d*ckheads, businesses should not have to serve people that they fundamentally object to.
> 
> The number of people adversely affected by religious freedom in this area has to be minute, but the militant PC'ers feel they have to make an example of a few little bakers who dare to oppose their 'rights' to a wedding cake they could probably just as easily make for themselves or find someone else who will do it.




Agreed, they can serve who they like.

The reality is, if a cake shop refuses to serve someone because they are gay, there will be a social media sh!tstorm and they will lose business.  99.9% of businesses will just serve anyone who walks in anyway.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you have some examples of this actually happening ?
> 
> Businesses are there to make money,they will take all the money they can get.




I actually watched a show where people were talking about how hard it was to travel in the USA as a black person in the 1950's. you needed a special guide book to show you where you will be able eat, sleep, buy fuel and where doctors were that would treat you etc.

We don't want to have to go back to this,

Watch this at the 18 minute mark to see the book.



Watch this second video at the 10.45 mark, its one of Tina turner back up dances saying how they used to have to cook in their hotel rooms when travelling because most restaurants wouldn't serve them.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

You keep harking back to the 'old days'. I don't find your examples relevant to today.

I don't think we need a legal system to enforce 'fairness' these days, anyone who blatantly discriminates will be pilloried in the media and that is sufficient incentive not to do it imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Junior said:


> Agreed, they can serve who they like.
> 
> The reality is, if a cake shop refuses to serve someone because they are gay, there will be a social media sh!tstorm and they will lose business.  99.9% of businesses will just serve anyone who walks in anyway.




Exactly the point I 've just made.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

Junior said:


> The overcrowded, already stretched public school system will never 'take over' the parenting of the child.  You are peddling a ridiculous fear campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.



There was a time I might have agreed with your sentiments on this junior, but since viewing just a little of the deplorable "safe schools" programme content, I believe that the evidence of that alone, provides more than ample justification for holding fears about the direction in which our society might now be heading.


> It's not an agenda to turn everyone gay.  It's simply an issue of equality and inclusiveness.  A positive change.



You might have bought the sales pitch, but I most certainly didn't!

One only needs to look to the polls, and the contents of these debates to see how much more divided our society has become as a result of this assault upon the long standing definition of the word "marriage".

I wasn't formerly homophobic, but events of recent years are beginning to incline me towards becoming so!

Furthermore, I am sickened,  to god damned death, of being witness to so much heterophobic behaviour! Our society is becoming more divided, largely it seems, consequent to these concerted efforts, by minorities, to legally impose their elitist definition of "equality" on all and sundry! Hypocrisy, barely even begins to describe that which I am seeing.



> Much like the blacks and women gained the same rights as everyone else, so too will homosexuals, and society will be better for it.



As I am sure has many times already been pointed out, homosexual adults were never denied the opportunity to actually marry!

It's just that marriage, by it's long standing dictionary definition, doesn't accommodate their perceived needs!

Unlike yourself, I cannot boldly claim to know whether or not "society will be better for it".

The widening rifts and vehement behaviours, catalysed from mere discussion of this topic, do seem to speak strongly against the beneficial outcome, to which you appear to have subscribed.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You keep harking back to the 'old days'. I don't find your examples relevant to today.
> 
> I don't think we need a legal system to enforce 'fairness' these days, anyone who blatantly discriminates will be pilloried in the media and that is sufficient incentive not to do it imo.




They are only considered the "old days", because the civil rights movement forced change.

What is the difference between a person saying they won't serve you because you are black and a person saying they won't serve you because they are gay?

Do you think its ok for businesses open to the public to not serve blacks?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you think its ok for businesses open to the public to not serve blacks?




What I think is ok is irrelevant, I'm not a business owner. Some pubs around the country don't serve aboriginals because they are problem drinkers. Is that racist ?

Anyway, I refer you back to comments I and others have made about the bad publicity businesses will get if they discriminate. As someone else has said, if a business intended to discriminate against me for a particular reason I wouldn't want to go there anyway.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Some pubs around the country don't serve aboriginals because they are problem drinkers. Is that racist ?




Yes, if they are simply banning all aboriginals.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, if they are simply banning all aboriginals.




I suggest being called racist is better than having your property smashed up by drunks.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest being called racist is better than having your property smashed up by drunks.




Why not just ban individuals, why should an innocent aboriginal passing through on a road trip with family be denied a meal and a drink.

if you can't see that judging whole races on the actions of a few, I think you need to sort out some of your own issues.

either way, I am out of this conversation, I will leave the haters to fester in their own hate.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> if you can't see that judging whole races on the actions of a few, I think you need to sort out some of your own issues.




I don't have any issues thanks.  I'm not saying what pubs do is right or wrong, they have a business to run so I suggest you take it up with them.

Where pubs ban aboriginals they usually have the support of the police who sometimes actually run the pubs. They are on the ground and know the situation and I'm not going to say they are wrong, because I don't have your all seeing patronism and belief in your own infallibility.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Where pubs ban aboriginals they usually have the support of the police who sometimes actually run the pubs.




I doubt you can provide an example of that


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I doubt you can provide an example of that






> ADAM GILES, NT CHIEF MINISTER: We're seeing a reduction in wholesale consumption of alcohol and what we put that down to is more targeted or better targeted policing operations on the street in the Northern Territory since we've taken office.
> 
> MICHAEL COGGAN: In Alice Springs and regional towns where alcohol-fuelled violence is high, *police stand guard outside bottle shops to check identification.*
> 
> People living in dry Aboriginal communities or town camps aren't allowed to drink at home and face having alcohol seized.




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3957614.htm


----------



## tech/a (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I doubt you can provide an example of that




Mate of mine Owns the Daly Waters Pub. (Just sold it new owners in Oct).
They are banned there.
They do go somewhere else.
There are lots of bottle shops and pubs in the NT and FNQ which wont serve them.
They are talking food stamps.


By the way we do a heap of work for the Gay community
They are great payers ( full incomes )
Great people never had an issue.
We get heaps of referrals.


----------



## grah33 (14 September 2017)

Can someone give us a summary of the main issues dealt with, without any bias. Usually there is a winner in debating, or a draw.

In real debating an audience watches. If you get good answers that make sense but you keep knocking them back, you lose points. You will see the pros acknowledging good explanations. Also, some arguments are not worthy.


----------



## Junior (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> You might have bought the sales pitch, but I most certainly didn't!
> 
> ...
> 
> Furthermore, I am sickened,  to god damned death, of being witness to so much heterophobic behaviour! Our society is becoming more divided, largely it seems, consequent to these concerted efforts, by minorities, to legally impose their elitist definition of "equality" on all and sundry! Hypocrisy, barely even begins to describe that which I am seeing.




Who is issuing a sales pitch?  Many groups on both sides are advertising their slogans and sales pitches to support their own agenda or beliefs.

Like many, I've come to my own belief and view on the issue.

The media, the ABC and many on the extreme left are certainly very loud on the topic and I'm sick to death of that as well.  Likewise from many who are vehemently opposed to the change....also very loud and aggressive (see religious groups, Sky News, Abbott, Bernadi, some on this forum).  Social Media masks the fact that the majority have their opinion and won't necessarily go on and on about it to anyone who will listen.  I think most people just want to lodge their vote and see the Government honour the outcome.  Then we can stop hearing about it (or hear less about it for now, at least).

The polls show that at the very least, near half of the population of this country support the change.  This change has already happened throughout much of the Western world and Australia is lagging in that respect (incl. our close friends of Australia UK, US and NZ).  That is why the voices are loud and relentless, it is an important issue to many people.  It's not the minorities imposing an elitist view, it's much of the majority strongly supporting the view that this IS a matter of equality, not some fear campaign BS about trying to turn more people gay or destroy the traditional family unit.


----------



## McLovin (14 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Can someone give us a summary of the main issues dealt with, without any bias. Usually there is a winner in debating, or a draw.




Right: Gay marriage will destroy society...

Left: No it won't, you homophobes...

The other 90%: How 'bout the footy finals...

The end.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3957614.htm




Your claim was that there are pubs that are run by police officers where aboriginals are banned.

do you have an example of one of them?


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Mate of mine Owns the Daly Waters Pub. (Just sold it new owners in Oct).
> They are banned there.
> They do go somewhere else.




are you talking about this pub.
http://www.dalywaterspub.com

Because I just got off the phone with them and they said they haven't banned aboriginals.

But either way, is your mate a police officer? because rumpoles claim was that there are pubs owned by police officers that have banned aboriginals.


----------



## tech/a (14 September 2017)

Certainly is
Talk to Shane
Tell him your talking with JR.
They aren't going to tell you are they!
They just don't serve them booze.
As such they aren't there.


----------



## Tink (14 September 2017)

Junior,

I disagree, as Marriage is a man and a woman.

There is no equal status between a man and a woman, and two men/two women.

Civil unions gives them the exact same rights


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Certainly is
> Talk to Shane
> Tell him your talking with JR.
> They aren't going to tell you are they!
> ...




Shane wasn't available, how ever I spoke to a second staff member, I told them myself and my family were going to be stopping by next week on driving holiday on our way to Darwin, and that we were aboriginal and I asked if we would have trouble being served, she said we would have trouble, and were welcome to accommodation too.

I asked if they had a ban on aboriginals or denied them service, and she said there wasn't a blanket ban on aboriginals, but they would deny service to individuals who were trouble makers.

Maybe Shane hasn't communicated his policy well enough to his staff.

But either way, is Shane a police officer? because that was Rumples claim.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

Wow! In all the time I have been reading his posts, I never would have guessed that VC was an indigenous Australian!


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Your claim was that there are pubs that are run by police officers where aboriginals are banned.
> 
> do you have an example of one of them?




I didn't mean 'run' as in owned, supervised would be a better word as shown in the link I posted.


----------



## tech/a (14 September 2017)

Alcohol and the indigenous don't mix well in the top end.
Its pretty clear you haven't spent a lot of time out of a capital city.

By the way police don't tend to lock up the drunk and unruly
indigenous---often choosing a 20K ride in the back of the Paddy
over bumpy dirt roads then walking back to clear their head.

If you don't think there is a problem out there your sadly
mistaken.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

> she said we would have trouble



I meant that to say we wouldn't have trouble.



cynic said:


> Wow! In all the time I have been reading his posts, I never would have guessed that VC was an indigenous Australian!




I am not, I only said that to see if they would openly deny an aboriginal family on a road trip to see if the claims of a blanket ban were true.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Alcohol and the indigenous don't mix well in the top end.
> Its pretty clear you haven't spent a lot of time out of a capital city.





when I was in the Army, we worked out of Port Hedland for a little while doing some training with the pilbara regiment, and I have also worked out of Darwin, but Never saw a pub that had a blanket ban on Aboriginals. I am not saying they don't exist, but it certainly would be against the law. 

Dress codes etc were often enforced, but never a clear ban on race I never saw.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I didn't mean 'run' as in owned, supervised would be a better word as shown in the link I posted.




The article doesn't say Aboriginals were banned from pubs by police either


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2017)

Triathlete said:


> I thought the YES campaigners have been telling everyone that safe schools has nothing to do with the marriage equality debate...Better tell these people then......                             http://bernardgaynor.com.au/safe-schools-communist-activists-lead-marriage-equality-rally/



Another example of modern day ill-informed, device thumbing, trash talking, world conquering youths. Interesting how Emma (rainbow coloured glasses) Alberici guesses a connection between the safe schooling program and homosexual marriage. Can't wait for the next "in thing" to consume us.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The article doesn't say Aboriginals were banned from pubs by police either




The article said whole aboriginal communities were declared "dry" and banned from drinking.

Racist ?

Anyway, for another thread perhaps unless they are gay as well.


----------



## Value Collector (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The article said whole aboriginal communities were declared "dry" and banned from drinking.
> 
> Racist ?




Thats for everyone in that community, its not just an aboriginal ban, So no not racist.


----------



## pixel (14 September 2017)

Received the Question in today's mail. Made my cross and licked the return envelope shut.

Now, here is an observation to consider:
Several letterboxes in our community are overflowing because residents are not bothering to check every day. The Postie doesn't care much, just squeezes the letters as far in between the junk mail as it goes - and most of it sticks out. Many elderly residents will also leave their letterbox unlocked, expecting a friendly neighbour to empty junk mail and bring them the regular mail when they come for a chat.
Which raises the question: Who can be sure that the cross on the returned form has been made by the person it's been sent to? And that uncertainty doesn't only apply to Strata complexes or share houses, but goes right down to families. Take a pigheaded bigot of a bible-thumping patriarch: What's stopping him to cross off every form that arrives at his family's home in the only way he approves of? Or a kid "helping" Grandma make the "right" cross to save her the hassle of getting the reading glasses she'd need to find the No box?

Makes me even madder about the utter waste of the Nation's money on an inconsequential, ineffective, unreliable process that could've been finished within half an hour max in open conscience vote by members of Parliament, doing what they're paid for in the first place. If  workers refuse to do what they're hired to do, it's the sack. We really ought to treat our Pollies more equitably, in line with community practice and expectations.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Can someone give us a summary of the main issues dealt with, without any bias. Usually there is a winner in debating, or a draw.
> 
> In real debating an audience watches. If you get good answers that make sense but you keep knocking them back, you lose points. You will see the pros acknowledging good explanations. Also, some arguments are not worthy.



A viewpoint from both sides 2 x 1 hour addresses...

The Yes case > http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1706C033S00#playing

The No case > http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1706C034S00#playing

PS: ABC bias is on clear display here... The NO video is 87 seconds longer than the YES video


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

It's certainly a sub standard process. But who do we blame. a. the Liberals for not allowing a free vote or b. Labor for not going with a "real" plebiscite when we still get the open debate anyway.

Take your pick, they have both politicised the issue.

Personally I think there should have been a plebiscite at the last election. That would have saved the dosh and a lot of trouble as well.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

@pixel that's a good point. I could easily knock off a hundred forms where I live.

Chances are there's probably one on my windscreen already 

----------------

FORMS for the same-sex marriage survey have only been landing in mailboxes for two days now, but Australians have already exposed a number of potential security flaws with the ballot.

People have reported voting up to seven times after receiving multiple forms at their address thanks to former residents who failed to update their electoral details.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...a/news-story/576c61c236aa2a8e4b770d255d2fd515


----------



## Tisme (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's certainly a sub standard process. But who do we blame. a. the Liberals for not allowing a free vote or b. Labor for not going with a "real" plebiscite when we still get the open debate anyway.
> 
> Take your pick, they have both politicised the issue.
> 
> Personally I think there should have been a plebiscite at the last election. That would have saved the dosh and a lot of trouble as well.





Should have been done online, just like the census


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Should have been done online, just like the census




Yeah, the Russians would hack it and force a NO vote.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

Yeah, bloody communists


----------



## grah33 (14 September 2017)

if it goes through, wait till you see the new type of TV programs that come out.  the TV is toxic enough already as it is.  gay marriage will just be a normal thing.  they'll have to teach it in  class too.  then again, everyone will be spreading that it's not normal.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> if it goes through, wait till you see the new type of TV programs that come out.  the TV is toxic enough already as it is.  gay marriage will just be a normal thing.  they'll have to teach it in  class too.  then again, everyone will be spreading that it's not normal.




Even Dr Who had a lesbian in it.


----------



## Macquack (14 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> I've seen a lot of aggression (including violence) against those people who dare to declare their NO vote.
> 
> *Wallabies star Israel Folau subjected to vile attacks after declaring on Twitter he would vote 'no' to gay marriage*
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tter-opposing-gay-marriage.html#ixzz4sas0AeYg



Who really gives a **** about Issy's opinion. He has been welcomed with open arms by three different football codes.  His contract must be up for renewal.


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

Don't know you position on Gay and Lesbian "equality", however I wanted to remind you a of a few truths that are often not mentioned in the media and are important when you decide on your plebiscite vote:

*The Marriage plebiscite vote is NOT about equality! Homosexuals already have FULL equality under Australian law both in relationships (Under Common Law) and under Anti Discrimination laws*
The plebiscite is seeking to redefine the institution of marriage and the abolishing of free speech, freedom of choice and freedom of religion. They have already said on public record that this is just the first step in their campaign.
The yes vote is NOT about tolerance, but quite the opposite - it is about intolerance of anyone who has a different opinion! Remember that currently all homosexuals are totally not discriminated against, so this is not their seeking equality, as they already have it.
We are already seeing a persecution of Christians in our Australian society, when celebrating Christmas is seen as offensive and having any opinion that is not the same as the current flavour, is now punishable by up to $20,000 fine and up to 2 years imprisonment (announced on radio and TV news yesterday). This is worse than Communism was after World War II (I grew up in Communist Hungary, so I speak from 1st hand experience). 
I urge you to vote NO - and do not fail to send your vote in, as I guarantee that all yes supporters will send in their votes, do not let the lack of response give away your rights. 
Remember that voting NO is ok, and is in no way homophobic or anti gay/lesbian equality. It is a vote to protect your children from being brainwashed at school to change gender, when they don't even understand what that is! A NO vote does not prevent people from making their own choices later in life, but it will help in preserving our rights to have an opinion, to have a Father's Day and a Mother's Day and freedom of religion. Children are already being chastised in our schools, for using the words for Mother or Father (source: news media).
The yes voters are vocal, but are not right! Do not deny children the rights to be raised in a family with a father and mother.
Look at the results of other countries that have taken this step!
Make up your own informed choice and then vote according to your conscience - and I hope it will be a NO vote!


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Who really gives a **** about Issy's opinion. He has been welcomed with open arms by three different football codes. His contract must be up for renewal.




I wonder how different your opinion of him would be if he supported your own view.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> but it will help in preserving our rights to have an opinion, to have a Father's Day and a Mother's Day




Removing a promotion for Fathers Day from Free to Air TV was the last straw for me. I am voting no because the rabid militant PC nazis have gone too far.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...s/news-story/ef54c5d48db77d402cf848c5dfd3d9ca

(One of the few times I have agreed with and quoted Andrew Bolt).


----------



## Macquack (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I wouldn't be too concerned with VC, he'll find God when the straw society he and his mates constructed collapses under its own corruption of the indefatigable innate human bios. It might take a lot of eating crow but he'll have his epiphany for sure, even if it's a bet each way on his death bed.



Posting a prolific number of posts is not a license to be a cryptic smart arse.


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Posting a prolific number of posts is not a license to be a cryptic smart arse.



I guess if you can't think of saying something intelligent, then a rude remark is the next best thing.


----------



## Macquack (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder how different your opinion of him would be if he supported your own view.



My opinion is no different,  if the vehicle (SSM) is used as a self- promotional tool at the instruction of a parasite player manager.


----------



## PZ99 (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Removing a promotion for Fathers Day from Free to Air TV was the last straw for me. I am voting no because the rabid militant PC nazis have gone too far.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...s/news-story/ef54c5d48db77d402cf848c5dfd3d9ca
> 
> (One of the few times I have agreed with and quoted Andrew Bolt).



How about national concrete day twice a year?  LOL


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Actually its a pretty simple construct:
> 
> God is the all powerful eternal spirit. Being eternal means that time is a dimension he does not have to contend with, being a spirit means he has no material dimension, thus not created, just an image that he patented for exclusive use of humans if you believe the bible and who wouldn't with all that evidence.
> 
> ...




That's actually a pretty dam good explanation for something a handful of Arabs just made up a couple of thousands years ago


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> if it goes through, wait till you see the new type of TV programs that come out.  the TV is toxic enough already as it is.  gay marriage will just be a normal thing.  they'll have to teach it in  class too.  then again, everyone will be spreading that it's not normal.



If the question is returned yes unanimously (check ABS for facts)  a new moral standard will be set and it isn't clear what the boundaries will be. A group so desperate to be recognised as 'marriied' will have other societal demands and a soft peen government bowing to them.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> Don't know you position on Gay and Lesbian "equality", however I wanted to remind you a of a few truths that are often not mentioned in the media and are important when you decide on your plebiscite vote:
> 
> *The Marriage plebiscite vote is NOT about equality! Homosexuals already have FULL equality under Australian law both in relationships (Under Common Law) and under Anti Discrimination laws*
> The plebiscite is seeking to redefine the institution of marriage and the abolishing of free speech, freedom of choice and freedom of religion. They have already said on public record that this is just the first step in their campaign.
> ...



One of the consequences of true freedom of speech, includes allowing people to freely cast their votes in accordance with their opinion, irrespective of how ill, or well, informed their opinion might seem to others.

This does, of course, have the unfortunate side effect of rendering our freedom of expression, vulnerable to members of society, whom pursuant to tacit agendas,  seek to induce the populace into voting away that freedom.

Like yourself, I deeply suspect that themes of "equality" and "societal inclusion" are simply part of a sales pitch, and that those willing to take the time to look past the glittery foil gift wrapping, will likely discover some evidence of the agendas described in your post.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Even Dr Who had a lesbian in it.



Are you talking about the silurian?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Are you talking about the silurian?




No, I'm talking about "Bill" in the last series.

She turned into a cyberman, which must have been a new experience for her.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I'm talking about "Bill" in the last series.
> 
> She turned into a cyberman, which must have been a new experience for her.



Spoilers! I am barely halfway through!! Shows how far behind the times I have fallen. I think I might need to grow my own TARDIS so that I can catch up!


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Are you talking about the silurian?



And that matters, how exactly? That a science fiction story had a lesbian alien? It had a lot more that were NOT lesbian, so calculate the percentage and then draw any conclusions...


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Spoilers! I am barely halfway through!! Shows how far behind the times I have fallen. I think I might need to grow my own TARDIS so that I can catch up!




Sorry about that ! Some good and some rubbish in the last series. Win some, lose some.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> And that matters, how exactly? That a science fiction story had a lesbian alien? It had a lot more that were NOT lesbian, so calculate the percentage and then draw any conclusions...




Yes, well it takes something away from the fiction bit if sci fi shows turn into soap operas.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> And that matters, how exactly? That a science fiction story had a lesbian alien? It had a lot more that were NOT lesbian, so calculate the percentage and then draw any conclusions...



Well, apparently none of the silurians were really silurians anyway. Jon Pertwee explained how the error was made back in the 70's, during the episode when they discovered the sea devils.

Edit: And the sontarans were purportedly all clones!

2nd Edit: and the silurians were natives of planet earth, so not aliens at all!


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Sorry, facts are facts. You statement sounds like an excuse for addressing the facts, marriage in decline, divorce on the rise.
> 
> The concept doesn't meet todays needs or requirements, it is "old" fashioned.
> 
> Brave new world here we come



If the concept is failing, then why on earth are the gays fighting to get married? I just don't get it! They already have equality, so just get on with life. But no, they are fighting to destroy the lives of anyone who happens not to be gay!

It's like their freedom of speech only applies to them, slandering anyone who is not supportive. But straight people are vilified for calmly and non-threateningly expressing their opinion!


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I actually watched a show where people were talking about how hard it was to travel in the USA as a black person in the 1950's. you needed a special guide book to show you where you will be able eat, sleep, buy fuel and where doctors were that would treat you etc.
> 
> We don't want to have to go back to this,
> 
> ...





Or Black/Colored Americans having to sleep in their car because there's no Colored hotels for them.

Or inter-racial couples.

But of course some would say that today is all good... we're all equal and do not discriminate, except for the gays getting married.


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> If the concept is failing, then why on earth are the gays fighting to get married? I just don't get it! They already have equality, so just get on with life. But no, they are fighting to destroy the lives of anyone who happens not to be gay!
> 
> It's like their freedom of speech only applies to them, slandering anyone who is not supportive. But straight people are vilified for calmly and non-threateningly expressing their opinion!




How does a gay couple getting married, being recognised as legally married, "destroy" anyone's lives? I mean beside the other gay lover whose love weren't returned and such.

And just because most relationship, marriages failed doesn't mean we shouldn't try having a relationship or a marriage. And it definitely does not mean anyone has the right to ban others consenting adults from entering into their doom either.


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> How does a gay couple getting married, being recognised as legally married, "destroy" anyone's lives? I mean beside the other gay lover whose love weren't returned and such.
> 
> And just because most relationship, marriages failed doesn't mean we shouldn't try having a relationship or a marriage. And it definitely does not mean anyone has the right to ban others consenting adults from entering into their doom either.



You are missing the point. The gay marriage push is trying to make it illegal for a church not to marry gays, even though it is agains their religion. Would you pass a law forcing Muslims to eat pork against their religion? 

Teaching young pre-pubescent children that they should decide if they want a change of gender, IS impacting other people's lives and NOT just the gay couple that got married. Passing legislation to stop anyone having an opinion not in line with the gay ideology also effects others (who are vilified, boycotted, fined, jailed or sacked from work).

When our children are reprimanded in school for referring to their Mum as "Mum" in case it offends some gays, THAT impacts everyone! When the gays want to abolish gender reference in the language, ban Father's Day and Mother's Day - that impacts everyone too.

Now days, no-one straight, is forcing gays to do or not to say anything, so why the reverse?

Gays already have complete equality in the sight of the law, so this plebiscite is NOT about equality at all!


----------



## watchdog11 (14 September 2017)

Today in _The Australian_, Paul Kelly brilliantly articulates 'Why [the] YES case is shoddy'.

No article better explains how politicians are wilfully misleading voters when it comes to changing the _Marriage Act_.

-----

With the Yes case positioned to win the postal plebiscite, it is more important than ever the misleading and false claims of its advocates — that there is no religious issue at stake — be confronted and the ramifications put on the table.

These claims are made by senior Coalition and Labor politicians. Indeed, it seems they think rejection of the religious argument is fundamental to the success of their campaign. This is alarming because it implies the Yes case depends on persuading the public of a false proposition.

The government and parliament, despite years of emotional debate, declined to address the wider religious freedom question. The political class engaged instead in a great pretence: that the only such issue concerned the wedding ceremony and protections in the Marriage Act for clergy and celebrants, an extremely narrow view of religious freedom.

Given legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and laws of most religions will be brought into direct conflict over society’s most essential institution, the one certainty is ongoing legal and political trench warfare over the balance between acceptance of the same-sex marriage norm and the scope for freedom of belief and religion.

There is a litany of examples from the overseas experience. Fatuous remarks that “the world hasn’t come to an end” in countries that have legislated same-sex marriage are just that — and designed to deceive.

Having refused to confront the issue the advocates of the Yes case now get agitated and self-righteous when it has become an issue in the plebiscite. This was inevitable. While some aspects of the No case are obnoxious, its warnings about religious freedoms risks are entirely valid. What matters is that the many highly intelligent political champions of the Yes case are trapped: they are selling a shoddy intellectual bill of goods and many of them know it.

The first point is that religious freedom guarantees in this country are inadequate. This was agreed and documented in February’s Senate select committee report. Unlike many Western nations, Australia has no statutory expression of a stand-alone right to religious freedom. There are far greater legal protections in relation to sexual orientation than in relation to religious belief.

This is an anomaly given that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights freedom of religion is an inviolable right. The risk now is our parliament undermining Australia’s commitment to the ICCPR.

Evidence presented to the Senate committee shows that statutory protection of religious belief is weak both in federal law and a number of states. It mainly exists as “exemptions” from anti-discrimination law. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney made the obvious point to the committee that this failed to treat freedom of belief and religion as a fundamental human right. Marriage Alliance said: “We submit that religious freedom is a fundamental human right (and) that framing a debate in terms of exemptions misunderstands this fact.”

There was strong support in submissions for parliament to legislate to enshrine religious guarantees as a protected attribute in federal anti-discrimination law. This is the pivotal point. The committee unanimously agreed there was a “need to enhance current protections for religious freedom”. The Human Rights Law Centre said: “Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Committee chairman Liberal David Fawcett warned that “if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal” then such action on religious freedom is essential. What was the reaction of the Turnbull government and Labor to the Senate report?

It varied between disregard and contempt. The reason is apparent — politics. Labor has abandoned any interest in addressing the inadequacy of religious protection laws with its embrace of the LGBTI cause. As for the Coalition, the story is the weakness of its conservative caucus. The deeper point is the churches are vulnerable and the politicians know it.

The lamentable situation was summarised by the University of Sydney’s Patrick Parkinson: “There have been numerous bills introduced into parliament to enact same-sex marriage over the last few years and what has been common to most of them has been a minimalist protection for freedom of conscience.”

The second core conclusion is that this battle over rights will continue after same-sex marriage is legislated. In Denmark the Lutheran Church has had its rights restricted. The Swedish PM has said priests should no more be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples than medical professionals should be exempt from abortion procedures. The Speaker of the British House of Commons says “proper equal marriage” won’t happen until the churches are compelled to obey by law. Australian Greens formally say they want the religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law to be wound back. Many in the ALP left have the same view.

We are being put on notice. You would have to be politically blind to deny the reality (an option many politicians have deliberately chosen). The post-same-sex marriage battle is already under way. This is because while many people genuinely see same-sex marriage as an issue of non-discrimination, this was never its essence. It is an ideological cause seeking fundamental changes in Western society, laws and norms. It will continue apace after the law is changed.

Marriage equality is an ideology and ideologies, by nature, do not settle for compromise victories. As Benjamin Law says in _Quarterly Essay_: _Moral Panic 101_: “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.

He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.

The pretence by Yes case politicians that the plebiscite has no consequences for the Safe Schools program treats us like fools. Legislation of same-sex marriage will tilt the scales decisively in this struggle between sexual rights and religious freedom. This legal and cultural change will influence decision-makers everywhere — public servants, corporates, media and educational institutions.

The churches will remain a prime target and the fact their protections are weak makes them highly vulnerable once the assault gains momentum.

The Yes case bases its campaign on human rights but misses the exquisite irony that you cannot cherry-pick human rights and keep your integrity. As Parkinson said, consistency of principle means those who justify their campaign on human rights need to give proper consideration to how rights can be balanced.

That hasn’t happened in Australia, not even remotely. Every sign is Australia will legalise same-sex marriage devoid of any serious attention to religious freedom issues and, as a result, religious protections will be exposed and sacrificed.

The politicians are doing this because they think they can get away with it. They are entitled to that judgment. What they are not entitled to is a gross deception. The assurances they give on religious protection are worthless — their inaction proves that. People, regardless of how it affects their vote, need to know the reality.

_Paul Kelly, The Australian_


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> You are missing the point. The gay marriage push is trying to make it illegal for a church not to marry gays, even though it is agains their religion. Would you pass a law forcing Muslims to eat pork against their religion?
> 
> Teaching young pre-pubescent children that they should decide if they want a change of gender, IS impacting other people's lives and NOT just the gay couple that got married. Passing legislation to stop anyone having an opinion not in line with the gay ideology also effects others (who are vilified, boycotted, fined, jailed or sacked from work).
> 
> ...




Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right? 

For an anti-discrimination law to permit certain group to discriminate based on "their values" or "their religious teaching"... then what's the law for?

And it's not the same as forcing people to eat what they don't like. 

No on is asking Christians or any of those religion and religious leaders/people to become gay. Just simply served a gay couple as they would any other couple who, for some reason, decided to have a grudging God as Witness to their marriage. Maybe it's not all out of spite... just some people are seriously religious, gay or otherwise.

I don't know where that ban on "Mum" or Father's Day stuff is from. If true, that's rubbish and we shouldn't take it seriously. There are gay idiots out there too.

As to teachings pre-pubescent kids about sex and gender identity... you know you can't turn a kid gay by exposing them to the idea of gayness. And you'd want to teach kids about sexuality BEFORE they reach the stage, not way after it. 

Our teachers are quite sensible... they wn't be teachings sex-ed to kindy kids if that's the concern.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right?




 So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ? 

Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ?
> 
> Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.



Yes! But one of them will still always be gay, so might as well make the other bloke happy, unless of course, it happens to be a religion that was designed by gays, for gays!


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ?
> 
> Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.




That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.




So you have no opinion ? What would you do ?

Anyway, as far as I am aware a lot of religious organisations employ gay people, they just don't like exhibitions of gayness or pro gay proselytising while they are on the job.

Similar for a lot of organisations like universities who employ Christians but don't like Creation Science being taught in biology classes.


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Yes! But one of them will still always be gay, so might as well make the other bloke happy, unless of course, it happens to be a religion that was designed by gays, for gays!




All religions are designed by gays. Think about it.

God Almighty is single. Create life all by himself, in his image.

The Buddha was a prince, has a harem full of women and a beautiful princess as wife child bearing. Then ran away in the night "to find enlightenment", all by himself, not being persuaded by the devil and his enticements with beautiful women...

And they all hate gays.

I mean, who else but a bunch of repressed homosexuals would come up with that trash.

[correction: the dieties might or might not hate gays. It's their representative on Earth that interprets it that way].


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So you have no opinion ? What would you do ?
> 
> Anyway, as far as I am aware a lot of religious organisations employ gay people, they just don't like exhibitions of gayness or pro gay proselytising while they are on the job.
> 
> Similar for a lot of organisations like universities who employ Christians but don't like Creation Science being taught in biology classes.




Depends. 

There's no such thing as both person being equally qualified/capable. Not perfectly equally. That and some job/work might favour one person over another, with their gayness or straightness being either a plus or a minus depends on the job... not their sexuality/gender, but the attribute such gender would, maybe, show up in their behaviour. 

That and I'll call a panel together. That way I won't be the only idiot getting sue if the outcome favour one over another.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is discrimination really?



Bias toward a person or group based on Race, Religion, Gender, Age and the biggy, Sexual Preference. Note they blocked me out of this photo. I had a placard written "Equal Pay for Equal Work". 

1969: Equal Pay rally at the Trades Hall, Carlton, Victoria


----------



## cynic (14 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.



Easier still, why not just direct the gay guy to take two stone tablets, read the ten inscribed aramaic instructions before swallowing, and if gaiety persists more than 40 days and 40 nights, be sure to consult the family rabbi.


luutzu said:


> All religions are designed by gays. Think about it.
> 
> God Almighty is single. Create life all by himself, in his image.
> 
> ...



It seems you have heard of neither hermaphrodites nor amoeba!

P.S. Where the FTSE did you buy your degree!

( I didn't realise that flea markets were selling university qualifications!)


----------



## luutzu (14 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Easier still, why not just direct the gay guy to take two stone tablets, read the ten inscribed aramaic instructions before swallowing, and if gaiety persists more than 40 days and 40 nights, be sure to consult the family rabbi.
> 
> It seems you have heard of neither hermaphrodites nor amoeba!
> 
> ...




There are lots of things I haven't heard, lots of things I don't know (obviously )... does that mean I'm as Climate Change "sceptic"? 

You don't need uni when you got YouTube buddy. That and yea, the first uni I went to was kinda like a flea market... went to a second, fancier uni with limestone buildings and big names... they're both the same, just more expensive at the latter.

Lesson was, if a person have access to a library and can stand to read the books in it, they too can write big sentences no one can understand


----------



## pixel (14 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Who really gives a **** about Issy's opinion.



So true, Mac.
That's the problem with social media: Every twit and every face with a facebook account can claim to be an expert in anything and everything. If one has been seen on TV once or twice, or demonstrated skill in a field that's remotely considered entertaining, "followers" devour every tweet and take it, starry-eyed, as Gospel. Doesn't matter whether the person's claim to fame comes from looks alone, or another physical "skill". The skill be requiring less than two functioning brain cells; they can have flunked every school test since kindy, but they're celebrities and everything they utter counts - even if it's utter rubbish.


----------



## grah33 (15 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right?





Christian theology doesn't work like that. It's one man , one female. You have so much knowledge elsewhere, but can't seem to discern something basic here. Their loyalty would be to God first, so they couldn't serve them. You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done.  And yes it is like eating pork (for a jew) - the action would be 'unclean' to them.


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done.



His absence from this thread is a good starting point. Couldn't find him on farcebook either 

Maybe the financial realm ? _"Your search - *ASX:god* - produced no matches" _Nup, no dice


----------



## Triathlete (15 September 2017)




----------



## wayneL (15 September 2017)

Okay I have a question.  Much has been made of Howard changing the marriage act in 2004 to make it man and woman. 

Why then was there no ssm previous to that?


----------



## basilio (15 September 2017)

Changing the marriage Act to allow SSM is a change of the civil law.  How about looking a the analysis of a Senior Law Lecturer who can establish what the legal realities are around our current Marriage Laws and teh poposed change.

* We need more analysis and less emotion in the marriage equality debate *
From religious freedom to infringing rights, if we apply principled reasoning to the same-sex marriage debate, most opposing arguments don’t stack up




‘In any event, the entire religious freedom argument suffers from a fatal flaw: Unlike in the case of a religious celebrant performing a sacrament, the sale of a cake is not a religious act.’ Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA

*Shares*
851
 
* Comments*
 18 
Bede Harris

Thursday 14 September 2017 07.31 BST   Last modified on Thursday 14 September 2017 08.09 BST

The debate on marriage equality has been strong on emotion but short on principled analysis. What foundations should guide us in determining this question?

First and foremost is the principle of individual autonomy in relation to personal choices, which is a value that lies – or ought to lie – at the foundation of a free society. This principle was famously applied more than 50 years ago in the United States in the decision of Griswold v Connecticut. In that case, the supreme court struck down the law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. The court said that people have a right to privacy, in the sense of a “zone of autonomy”, regarding intimate life choices. The court held that the more intimate the area, the less justification there was for the state to interfere. Clearly the choice of marriage partner is among the most intimate one can make, and in 2015 the court applied the same principle to invalidate laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Apart from intruding on autonomy, the prohibition on same-sex marriage discriminates on grounds of sexual orientation. At its base, marriage is simply a contract licensed by the state. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to whom one may marry is therefore as offensive as would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to registering a transfer of land. Or, to put it differently, what principled difference is there between restricting whom one may marry on grounds of sexual orientation and restricting choice of marriage partners on racial grounds, as under apartheid in South Africa?

What of the arguments raised by opponents of marriage equality that its legalisation would cause harms or infringe other rights?

We can dismiss the bizarre argument that by recognising same-sex marriage the institution of heterosexual marriage would be harmed. A rational basis for this argument has never been presented, and it is difficult to see how it could be – unless its proponents believe that the opportunity to contract a same-sex marriage would somehow entice people away from heterosexual unions, a line of reasoning which would be valid only if one believed that sexual orientation was chosen rather than innate.

The second circumstance which needs to be considered is the argument that respect for freedom of religion requires that business people be entitled to decline involvement in same-sex unions. Liberal (now Conservative) senator Cory Bernardi said that all businesses should be able to discriminate “for any or no reason” (including against same-sex couples), while Liberal National MP, George Christensen, said that venue owners, bakers and photographers should have the right to refuse custom to same-sex couples. Does this argument have any validity?

First, the freedom of religion argument cuts both ways: Among the clauses in the freedom of religion provisions contained in s 116 of the constitution is one prohibiting the establishment of any religion. Compliance with this requires that the state be secular in its approach to public policy. Restricting marriage to different-sex couples reflects a particular religious perspective, and thus imposes a religious view on others, contrary to s 116. It is therefore the prohibition of same-sex marriage, not its legalisation, which constitutes a denial of religious freedom.

Leaving aside religious celebrants, who would not be compelled to marry same-sex couples under any of the bills presented to parliament – what of the argument that religious freedom requires that people be able to refuse services to same-sex couples?

A case of this type recently arose in the United States: The owner of a wedding cake shop refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple. The Colorado court found that the shop owner had breached state law which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in places of “public accommodation” – broadly defined as any place where a business offers goods or services to the public.

The case has now been appealed to the US supreme court, where it is likely to fail. This is because, in a line of cases from the civil rights era, courts in the US have pointed the affront to dignity that is caused by discrimination and have upheld laws making it unlawful for businesses to discriminate on prohibited grounds such as race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. The mere fact that these cases involved contractual relationships did not immunise them from the reach of anti-discrimination law. In other words, although mutual agreement lies at the heart of contracts, which can therefore be said to be “private” in nature, once a business offers goods or services to the public, it steps into the public arena and breaches equality rights if it discriminates on a prohibited ground. For this reason, the argument that the religious beliefs of a person engaging in public commerce entitle them to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation has no more validity than did the argument, also rejected by the supreme court, that the right to hold segregationist political beliefs entitled business owners to refuse custom to African Americans in restaurants or bus stations.

In any event, the entire religious freedom argument suffers from a fatal flaw: Unlike in the case of a religious celebrant performing a sacrament, the sale of a cake is not a religious act. That is why non-religious marriage celebrants, cake-makers, photographers and limousine drivers ought not to be allowed to discriminate in the provision of what are simply commercial services. Unless a business were to offer its services only to members of a particular religion, there is no consideration of conscience which logically justifies discrimination against people on the ground of their sexual orientation.

In Australia, anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as well as on grounds of marital and relationship status. It also prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities and so would prohibit businesses from engaging in discrimination against same-sex couples. This is as it should be – and this is what opponents of marriage equality are trying to reverse.

Bede Harris is senior lecturer in law at Charles Sturt University
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-less-emotion-in-the-marriage-equality-debate


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Okay I have a question.  Much has been made of Howard changing the marriage act in 2004 to make it man and woman.
> 
> Why then was there no ssm previous to that?



Because it was a legal loophole, all though in Australia a SS couple couldn't be married in the eye of the law there was no provision to say that SS marriages overseas wouldn't be recognised in Australia.  This had never been an issue prior because no country had legalised SSM.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

Freedom of speech, not in the eyes of the church



> A Victorian church refused to marry a young couple and cancelled their wedding plans because the bride-to-be expressed support for same-sex marriage on Facebook.  The 26-year-old bride and 25-year-old groom were to be married in November at their Presbyterian church, Ebenezer St John's in Ballarat, by minister Steven North.




http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

I have a glass of wine with my next door neighbour once a week, her daughter is gay.
I ended up voting YES simply because if I have 3 glasses instead of 2 I'll probably confess.
I don't feel comfortable with that decision so I'm confessing here.
Can't win either way..........


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

watchdog11 said:


> Would you pass a law forcing Muslims to eat pork against their religion?





The question is would you ban pork just because muslims don't like it?

Thats the big difference, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage (or eat pork)

You want to keep a law that prevents gays getting married (e.g. ban pork)

You aren't happy to live by your own silly rules, you want to force them on others.


----------



## dutchie (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> I have a glass of wine with my next door neighbour once a week, her daughter is gay.
> I ended up voting YES simply because if I have 3 glasses instead of 2 I'll probably confess.
> I don't feel comfortable with that decision so I'm confessing here.
> Can't win either way..........



The evil of drink


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> The evil of drink



I would have found it difficult when the subject came up, that's no excuse I could have used the argument that I was concerned about men adopting children but I acted impulsively. 
If YES gets up by one vote I'll feel even worse.


----------



## dutchie (15 September 2017)

I bet that not one person has been swayed by the rhetoric of these 50 odd pages, either way.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> I would have found it difficult when the subject came up, that's no excuse I could have used the argument that I was concerned about men adopting children but I acted impulsively.
> If YES gets up by one vote I'll feel even worse.




If you feel that strongly about it then you could always call up and say you made a mistake on your vote and they will send you a new one out, I think they will then void your original vote in this situation.  You've put a new meaning to beer goggles though.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

overhang said:


> If you feel that strongly about it then you could always call up and say you made a mistake on your vote and they will send you a new one out, I think they will then void your original vote in this situation.  You've put a new meaning to beer goggles though.




Just tried no can do.


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

If you voted NO on ASF it balances out


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> I have a glass of wine with my next door neighbour once a week, her daughter is gay.
> I ended up voting YES simply because if I have 3 glasses instead of 2 I'll probably confess.
> I don't feel comfortable with that decision so I'm confessing here.
> Can't win either way..........




You are granted absolution my son. 

I've just done mine and the answer is still No, but I'm not a good picker in these sort of things.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> Just tried no can do.



What did they say?  It said something on the form about contacting them in the case of a mistake and they will issue a new one.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> If you voted NO on ASF it balances out



Ha, in the interests of honesty I will tell my neighbour how and why I voted YES and why I should have voted the other way.....if the subject comes up.
She will probably then tell me her daughter voted NO


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

overhang said:


> What did they say?  It said something on the form about contacting them in the case of a mistake and they will issue a new one.



It was a very short conversation, 
"Have you posted it "
"Yes" 
"Then no you can't change it"


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You are granted absolution my son.
> 
> I've just done mine and the answer is still No, but I'm not a good picker in these sort of things.




I feel much better thank you Rumpy.


----------



## basilio (15 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Freedom of speech, not in the eyes of the church
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html



Well ceratainly not in the eyes of this particular Minister.
IMO a really poor decision.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> It was a very short conversation,
> "Have you posted it "
> "Yes"
> "Then no you can't change it"



Oh, bugger.  Maybe they're trying to keep the postage costs down 

Could be worse, you could have voted for Gillard in 2010 because you didn't catch the 1 interview on election eve night where she said a win would giver her a mandate for a carbon tax after previously claiming there would be no carbon tax under her government.


----------



## watchdog11 (15 September 2017)

MrBurns said:


> I would have found it difficult when the subject came up, that's no excuse I could have used the argument that I was concerned about men adopting children but I acted impulsively.
> If YES gets up by one vote I'll feel even worse.



It's ok to vote NO. It does not mean that you dislike gays, or are "against" them. Don't confuse the issue here.


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

Put it this way @MrBurns - it's the naive people who are easily swayed by the inconsequential ramblings of extremist propagandists from either side coupled with those who do multiple voting that will distort the outcome. Not someone having a few 

Having said that - I'm happy to vote NO on your behalf LOL


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2017)

basilio said:


> ...............
> 
> In Australia, anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as well as on grounds of marital and relationship status. It also prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities and so would prohibit businesses from engaging in discrimination against same-sex couples. *This is as it should be – and this is what opponents of marriage equality are trying to reverse.*
> 
> Bede Harris is senior lecturer in law at Charles Sturt University




In his opinion it is how it should be, but in reality people are being denied their God given right to dislike someone or something and getting pinged by authorities for doing so. This bloke is a typical pointy head who probably lives a beige life, would carry a Gladstone bag to work it he could and never ever plied his hand at the rigours of owning a business and trying to make a quid from it.

I would London to a brick that there would be customers in that cake shop who are so appalled at witnessing two gay men demanding a cake be made for them, that they would take there own business elsewhere...who pays for the loss of income when rafts of people start side stepping the business, a business that caters to gay people who use victimisation as a tool to get what they want and they want it now!?

And of course the courts are going to saddle up to the gays, the courts are full of zionists who advocate for gays as part of their profile. It's one of the reasons they got into strife in Europe in the early part of the 20th century.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

All I hope is that if YES wins, they then STFU and stop attacking majority society, leave Mothers Day and Fathers Day alone, keep their queer gender theory out of schools, stop demonising anyone who disagrees with them and don't try and pretend that gays raising children is normal or desirable.

Do we think they will do that ? I don't believe it for a minute.


----------



## MrBurns (15 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> All I hope is that if YES wins, they then STFU and stop attacking majority society, leave Mothers Day and Fathers Day alone, keep their queer gender theory out of schools, stop demonising anyone who disagrees with them and don't try and pretend that gays raising children is normal or desirable.
> 
> Do we think they will do that ? I don't believe it for a minute.




I think this may lead to the resurgence of "poofter bashing"......no I guess not.

I have noticed a marked increase in the visible numbers of gay men in society lately, almost every coffee shop has a couple working there whereas in the past it was hidden they have all "come out" and the numbers are surprising.


----------



## overhang (15 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> All I hope is that if YES wins, they then STFU and stop attacking majority society, leave Mothers Day and Fathers Day alone, keep their queer gender theory out of schools, stop demonising anyone who disagrees with them and don't try and pretend that gays raising children is normal or desirable.
> 
> Do we think they will do that ? I don't believe it for a minute.




Agreed and I also hope that if the yes vote wins that Abbott and the like have no input into the legislation.  They had the opportunity to negotiate a bill to put towards parliament but they kicked and screamed demanding a public vote, they don't get to hedge their bets both ways.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

What seems absolutely nuts to me is the number of people who say they are voting No for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual question, eg  voting No because they think Australia is to pc, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> All I hope is that if YES wins, they then STFU and stop attacking majority society, leave Mothers Day and Fathers Day alone, keep their queer gender theory out of schools, stop demonising anyone who disagrees with them and don't try and pretend that gays raising children is normal or desirable.
> 
> Do we think they will do that ? I don't believe it for a minute.



Can you imagine what it will be like if "yes" doesn't win?

The vote isn't a remedy! It's just another symptom of the same disease which brought us that "let's all brainwash our preadolescent children", "educational" programme.

Either way, it looks like I may need to furnish a closet to "hide out" in, lest I be gang bashed by one of the many rampant homophilic lynch mobs, brought to us courtesy of incitement by the academic elite, all of whom, ardently attest, to the sweetness of the aroma surrounding their personal flatulence.

No matter which way this vote goes, I fail to see any possibility of a win for our society.

Until the underlying problem is truly recognised and understood, efforts to devise, and/or implement, solutions, are nothing more than an exercise in folly, for which our society will very likely end up paying a heavy price.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Okay I have a question.  Much has been made of Howard changing the marriage act in 2004 to make it man and woman.
> 
> Why then was there no ssm previous to that?





Homosexuality was illegal upto around 1985 so to campaigning for gay marriage would be a VC style non sequitur.

In 1985 Mr " Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality" Hawke made sure his mate Neal Blewett wouldn't be outed and charged.

In between 1985 and 2004 people had some residual common sense, even in the face of the tidal wave of political correctness that flooded onto our shores thanks to the Republicans in the USA using PC as a weapon to bludgeon their Democrat rivals ... that worked well, so well the new left took it and repurposed it.

From the 90's on, parliament has played host to Bob Brown, Penny Wong, Louise Pratt, Janet Rice, Robert Simms, Dean Smith, etc

In 2004 GW Bush moved to outlaw gay marriage because he didn't want his lesbian daughter closing the door on the possibility of waking up to herself and finding a man to marry. Being the deputy sherriff of the USA, John got on the case also.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What seems absolutely nuts to me is the number of people who say they are voting No for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual question, eg  voting No because they think Australia is to pc, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.





What's dumb about it? I'm guessing you are too young to remember the days before PC and various freedoms lost since then.

Thin end of the wedge my son, thin end of the wedge


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> What's dumb about it? I'm guessing you are too young to remember the days before PC and various freedoms lost since then.
> 
> Thin end of the wedge my son, thin end of the wedge




Because the question is about gay marriage, not whether you want more pc or not.

It's dumb because if you are asked a genuine question, you should answer the question, not some other question you made up in your head. 

They want your opinion on ssm, not your opinion on pc, they will have no idea about the question in your head you made up.


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Because the question is about gay marriage, not whether you want more pc or not.
> 
> It's dumb because if you are asked a genuine question, you should answer the question, not some other question you made up in your head.
> 
> They want your opinion on ssm, not your opinion on pc, they will have no idea about the question in your head you made up.




This stirs you up VC.

Most of us realize its not that simple.
Dumbing it down with words on a PC
doesn't turn us blind.

And if your Incinerating that I'm Dumb Ill Sue your Arse off.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> This stirs you up VC.
> 
> Most of us realize its not that simple.
> Dumbing it down with words on a PC
> ...



I would never incinerate that! I wouldn't even dare to insinuate it either!


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2017)

Think its a HOT topic!

I'm a member of the ADN
National Dyslexics Association.


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Think its a HOT topic!
> 
> I'm a member of the ADN
> National Dyslexics Association.



I hope you get your stock picks right ?

Then again you can't go wrong with BUB


----------



## dutchie (15 September 2017)

cynic said:


> No matter which way this vote goes, I fail to see any possibility of a win for our society.



There will be trouble further down the road no matter who wins.
If NO gets up there will be protest after protest.
If YES gets up there will be protest over the legislation (which should have been decided *before *the vote).


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2017)

I have received my postal vote form, ticked a box and returned it in the reply paid envelope supplied.

Whilst I'm of the view that two consenting adults can do as they please, marriage is between a man and a woman.

I have also now cast my vote in this thread reflecting the above.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2017)

Hey! I just noticed that the "yes" vote in the poll on this thread has dipped below 60%.

Have we had a lot of latecomers to the "no" party, or are members reversing their "yes" votes?


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> And if your Incinerating that I'm Dumb Ill Sue your Arse off.




I said "it's Dumb", e.g. in my opinion the action is a dumb. 

I didn't say "You are Dumb", but if you can't see the difference perhaps I need to reconsider.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Have we had a lot of latecomers to the "no" party,




Yes, such as watchdog, who only joined yesterday and who's only 12 posts all appear to be a the gay marriage thing.

and I suspect this forum probably isn't the only one he joined recently to spread his opinion, and after this vote, will probably won't hear from him again.


----------



## drsmith (15 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Hey! I just noticed that the "yes" vote in the poll on this thread has dipped below 60%.
> 
> Have we had a lot of latecomers to the "no" party, or are members reversing their "yes" votes?



I did notice after voting that there is an option to change vote.

I may have been the one that tipped "no" over 40%.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, such as watchdog, who only joined yesterday and who's only 12 posts all appear to be a the gay marriage thing.
> 
> and I suspect this forum probably isn't the only one he joined recently to spread his opinion, and after this vote, will probably won't hear from him again.



During the past 24 hours, I have read a number of posts by watchdog11 in other threads within this forum , so please, let's not allow our personal prejudices to obscure our view of actual facts!


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

Whichever way you look at it, 99 votes is a pretty good turnout for a forum.

@Joe Blow have you voted yet ? LOL


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What seems absolutely nuts to me is the number of people who say they are voting No for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual question, eg  voting No because they think Australia is to pc, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.




Actually I don't think it is dumb, even if Tony Abbott agrees with it. 

There are some times when you have to draw a line and show some people that the majority have had enough of a small but loud minority who want to shut US up and shape majority society to their world view. eg designing whole anti bullying school courses around one particular issue important to them and ignoring a multitude of other factors that impacts on children and their welfare. That is a pernicious bias that shouldn't be allowed to continue.

As I said before, I think a better solution is not to change the Marriage Act, but to have separate legislation for LGBxyz unions, which will recognise the rights of consenting adults to marry but to also send a message that the majority want to keep their own traditions intact and will not be infiltrated by a noisy few.


----------



## PZ99 (15 September 2017)

Well there goes the first $60million 



> Almost half of all Australians eligible to take part in the same-sex marriage postal survey will receive ballots before the weekend.
> 
> More than four million forms have been delivered and millions more are expected to land in letterboxes on Friday, a Senate inquiry has been told.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...e/news-story/59ed123e2e6d1c6a0da516f673e507d1


----------



## ianna (15 September 2017)

My first instinct when seeing this survey was to vote yes without giving it much thought.  I now have to admit to changing my vote from yes to no.  It's not as simple as the yes campaigners make out.  This really is a matter that should have been dealt with by the parliament that's why it's there, but because of the conservatives and the lack of backbone in MT we have this $122 million dollar joke.  If it is so necessary to have public input why don't we have plebiscites on emigration, asylum seekers, euthanasia, spending billions of dollars on submarines and a host of other more significant issues.   With this survey we are being asked to vote on something without seeing the small print.  It's a bit like being asked if you'd like a loan to buy a house, car or whatever and after you sign on the dotted line you'll then be told the terms and conditions.  If this had to go to the public the proposed legislation should have been available for consideration before conducting the plebiscite/postal survey.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

cynic said:


> During the past 24 hours, I have read a number of posts by watchdog11 in other threads within this forum , so please, let's not allow our personal prejudices to obscure our view of actual facts!




out of his 12 posts.


7 - are on the same sex marriage thread

1 - is an anti islam post

1 - is asking if self promotion is ok

1 - is telling another member he likes his humour

1 - about scaffold 

1 - is his signature 


So yes, I do think he may have been drawn to the public forum to just spread his "Vote No" message, but I am happy to be proved wrong, lets see if he stays around, or starts posting in more diverse topics.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> out of his 12 posts.
> 
> 
> 7 - are on the same sex marriage thread
> ...



Thanks for clarifying your position on this. What you suggest is certainly one of several potentially valid possibilities.

Anyway, I am sure you are able to understand the noticable difference between, that which you are acknowledging here, and your earlier statement:


Value Collector said:


> Yes, such as watchdog, who only joined yesterday and who's only 12 posts all appear to be a the gay marriage thing.
> 
> and I suspect this forum probably isn't the only one he joined recently to spread his opinion, and after this vote, will probably won't hear from him again.




and how that difference gave rise to my objection regarding your former summarisation of the facts.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 September 2017)

I crossed the NO box several times (though refrained from adding that four letter word and off) because some people just can't take NO for an answer.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

ianna said:


> If this had to go to the public the proposed legislation should have been available for consideration before conducting the plebiscite/postal survey.




I believe the proposed legislation is as simple as changing the words "between a man and a woman" to "between two consenting adults" in the Marriage Act.

But I agree that the terms of the question is vague. It only refers to "the law", and this could mean altering the current Marriage Act or introducing supplementary legislation separate to the Marriage Act the latter of which I may well have voted for if I was given that option.


----------



## Logique (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> What seems absolutely nuts to me is the number of people who say they are voting No for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual question, eg  voting No because they think Australia is to pc, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.



With respect VC, I think the No case has been covered abundantly and clearly, in many posts on this thread, and is there for anyone to read.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

Logique said:


> With respect VC, I think the No case has been covered abundantly and clearly, in many posts on this thread, and is there for anyone to read.




Thats the thing, I have read all the posts where people are giving reasons for why they are saying no, and almost none of them are relevant to the actual question.

The question is "Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry"

But, some people hear are saying things like, "I am saying No, because I am sick of PC" which has nothing to do with the question.

Others are saying No because they don't want gay men to have children, Which again is not the question.

Another person has said Yes they agree with same sex marriage but said No because they can't see the legislation, which is also silly because this survey is to gauge public opinion to see if its worth discussing details.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> But I agree that the terms of the question is vague. It only refers to "the law", and this could mean altering the current Marriage Act or introducing supplementary legislation separate to the Marriage Act the latter of which I may well have voted for if I was given that option.




So you are basically agreeing that a No vote should not mean an end of discussion, because you and a lot of other people have basically said they have voted No, not as a final answer to the topic, but because they don't like the structure of the question or some detail, or stupidly they have said NO as a protest against some other issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> which is also silly because this survey is to gauge public opinion to see if its worth discussing details.




Oh come on, that's like me asking you if you want to buy my car and you say yes without even seeing it.


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Thats the thing, I have read all the posts where people are giving reasons for why they are saying no, and almost none of them are relevant to the actual question.
> 
> The question is "Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry"
> 
> ...



Because the question is couched in simple binary terms without reference to attendant legislation or potential consequences for free speech etc. 

Cases have been made, but you just don't want to accept those arguments


----------



## SirRumpole (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So you are basically agreeing that a No vote should not mean an end of discussion, because you and a lot of other people have basically said they have voted No, not as a final answer to the topic, but because they don't like the structure of the question or some detail, or stupidly they have said NO as a protest against some other issue.




The "other issue" may well be relevant to the question at hand.

The structure of the question is important because we don't really know what we are getting into. Like the Republic was knocked back because we didn't know what that really meant in terms of powers, elections etc.


----------



## Tisme (15 September 2017)

Crikey! it can't just be Safe Schools that have all the attempted suicides:

https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.a...de-self-harm/facts-about-suicide-in-australia


----------



## luutzu (15 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Christian theology doesn't work like that. It's one man , one female. You have so much knowledge elsewhere, but can't seem to discern something basic here. Their loyalty would be to God first, so they couldn't serve them. You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done.  And yes it is like eating pork (for a jew) - the action would be 'unclean' to them.




What is, and what is not, "Christian" changes with the times. What is written in those good books can be interpreted quite differently, depending on who you ask.

But let's assume the basic Christian/Abrahamic religions' beliefs that there is only one God and that Creator create everything (in six days, takes a holiday on the 7th... bloody commie)... if we believe that core, then we/Christians will have to belief that God made homosexuals and all other gender identities too. 

So a good Christian, one who love and worship God and all his creations, must also "learn" to love the gays too. That or they can go the Tony Abbott way and just screw and blunder, as "God intended" for Man to do.


To force a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork... that would be like forcing a Christian to be gay themselves. No one is forcing anyone to be gay, or to be friends with gay people. Just be accepting of them and their rights as fellow citizens. It's like the Jews and Muslims only eat Kosher/Halal food, but they do not stop others from eating chicken feet, intestines and all other horrible stuff that others find tasteful. 

Legalising or permitting anyone to do anything that does no one any harm, yet in return make a few people happy... that's a supposedly Christian thing to do.


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?

They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.

From the stuff I have seen hear I think the survey has been botched, it was silly from the start, but it's been further ruined by silly irrational answers.

So given reasoning behind your answers, you can't expect a No to make the issue go away.


----------



## luutzu (15 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?
> 
> They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.
> 
> ...




Are you telling me that we just spent some $10m on a freaking survey? Not to mention the time/costs on those surveyed. 

Whatever happened to size sampling; political leadership and stuff like that?


----------



## Value Collector (15 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Are you telling me that we just spent some $10m on a freaking survey? Not to mention the time/costs on those surveyed.




Yep.


----------



## sptrawler (16 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?
> 
> They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.
> 
> ...




I don't think you will ever get away from people trying to convince the mass, that non natural behaviour, is normal it will go on ad infinitum.
It supports their belief in the behaviour.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2017)

Can you define natural, and what you mean by it in this context.

Because same sex partnership do occur in nature, so I guess they are natural, at least by the dictionary definition of natural.

While many things that are "normal", are not indeed natural, eg flying in planes, using birth control, operating to remove cancer etc.

So I don't really get your appeal to "natural" in this case, because we all ready know that many un-natural things have improved life, while we also know that the topic at hand does play out in nature, so I am confused on both fronts.


----------



## Tink (16 September 2017)

“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

----------------------------

Same sex couple have civil unions which gives them the same rights.

Marriage is a man and a woman.


----------



## Tisme (16 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Can you define natural, and what you mean by it in this context.
> 
> Because same sex partnership do occur in nature, so I guess they are natural, at least by the dictionary definition of natural.
> 
> ...




You're pretty quick to lump us into a mob of low intellect animals to prove your stubborn predispositions. And the long bows your draw about trying to redefine natural human behaviour are really quite illogically fantastic.

By all means go live with wild animals and see how long you last without human tools, rulz and empathy.


----------



## wayneL (16 September 2017)

VC, in biological terms,  same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens,  but it's not normal. 

Same in humans, its an abberation,  it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such. 

Just like my eyesight,  i have astigmatism.  It is not normal,  it is an abberation...  a common one, yet still abberent.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> While many things that are "normal", are not indeed natural, eg flying in planes, using birth control, operating to remove cancer etc.



Who cares.


> So I don't really get your appeal to "natural" in this case, because we all ready know that many un-natural things have improved life, while we also know that the topic at hand does play out in nature, so *I am confused on both fronts*.



Relative facts can do that.

"About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Dr. Google.


----------



## pixel (16 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> VC, in biological terms,  same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens,  but it's not normal.
> 
> Same in humans, its an abberation,  it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such.
> 
> Just like my eyesight,  i have astigmatism.  It is not normal,  it is an abberation...  a common one, yet still abberent.



Spelling aside, there is nothing wrong with an aberration.
Same sex coupling happens throughout the animal kingdom, albeit usually only in a small number of cases. That's why biologists call it _*aberrant*_, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.
Where Bible Bashers and Quran Quoters go wrong is when they redefine _*aberration *_as an _*abomination*_, attach _*moral *_values to what they see as _*normal*_, and denounce behaviour that _*deviates*_ from the norm as _*devious*_.
Thousands of years ago, among Middle-Eastern desert tribes, such aberration may well have been counter-productive as it deprived the tribe of child-bearing potential, necessary for the tribe's survival. "Every sperm is sacred" - especially if it's from a "successful" male. "Line up the wombs in a production line." And then let Nature do the culling, making sure that only the most useful products survive.

Do we want to go back to those sacred principles? By all means, but you can't have one without the other. If an ethnic or religious group wants to enforce the ancient concept of mandatory conception, it has to accept natural culling to balance the scale. No human intervention with medicine, food aid, ante- and post-natal support. It was God's will that this child be born, now let him alone decide how long the creature has to wait before being "called to Heaven."
Could it be that the proponents of those "sacred ways" accept the need for increased culls, if only subconsciously? ISIL and their various sympathisers seem to be doing quite an efficient job wherever they go. And is it mere coincidence that the very same forces that oppose basic freedoms like family planning and euthanasia, are the staunchest supporters of dirty power, military might, and global environment pollution?

I would prefer a world that moves forward, a world where every child brought into it can survive in a healthy environment, where everyone enjoys the same dignity and respect.

I know, I'm dreaming. But I'll sleep easier.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> VC, in biological terms,  same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens,  but it's not normal.
> 
> Same in humans, its an abberation,  it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such.
> 
> Just like my eyesight,  i have astigmatism.  It is not normal,  it is an abberation...  a common one, yet still abberent.



Normal means - common, typical or expected.

Now it s common, typical and expected that a certain percentage of the population is going to be gay, so that's normal, it's normal for a certain percentage of people to be gay.

In fact being gay is more common than having red hair, but I wouldn't describe a person with red hair as being "not normal".


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You're pretty quick to lump us into a mob of low intellect animals to prove your stubborn predispositions. And the long bows your draw about trying to redefine natural human behaviour are really quite illogically fantastic.
> 
> By all means go live with wild animals and see how long you last without human tools, rulz and empathy.



I am not "redefining natural human behaviour", you are trying to limit what is considered "normal" to just a narrow band of thing that you agree with.

Are human tools and rules "natural", it was sprawler that was making the claim that we should stick to only "natural things", I simply pointed out that most things we do these days aren't natural, while the thing he protests actually is.

I am happy to be unnatural and ride around in planes and have pizza delivered to me, you and sprawler can live in the wild if you wish.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Who cares.
> Relative facts can do that.
> 
> "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Dr. Google.



That's my point, no one cares whether things are natural when it comes to other stuff, hence why you said "who cares"

However, they try to appeal to nature to justify banning same sex marriage, when as you pointed out, same sex couples happen in nature.


----------



## tech/a (16 September 2017)

So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.

So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect
If not now---going forward.

Then the world can get back to normal.


----------



## Macquack (16 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I crossed the NO box several times (though refrained from adding that four letter word and off) because some people just can't take NO for an answer.
> 
> View attachment 72633



Who were you directing the "**** off" to? The politicians or roughly half the population?

Looks to me that some people can't accept YES as a possible answer.


----------



## tech/a (16 September 2017)

Yes is a convenient answer 
No is my answer


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2017)

pixel said:


> That's why biologists call it _*aberrant*_, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.




I think I made that point a while back, although I called it 'abnormal' and got told off for using that term.


----------



## wayneL (16 September 2017)

pixel said:


> Spelling aside, there is nothing wrong with an aberration.
> Same sex coupling happens throughout the animal kingdom, albeit usually only in a small number of cases. That's why biologists call it _*aberrant*_, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.
> Where Bible Bashers and Quran Quoters go wrong is when they redefine _*aberration *_as an _*abomination*_, attach _*moral *_values to what they see as _*normal*_, and denounce behaviour that _*deviates*_ from the norm as _*devious*_.
> Thousands of years ago, among Middle-Eastern desert tribes, such aberration may well have been counter-productive as it deprived the tribe of child-bearing potential, necessary for the tribe's survival. "Every sperm is sacred" - especially if it's from a "successful" male. "Line up the wombs in a production line." And then let Nature do the culling, making sure that only the most useful products survive.
> ...



That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post as I never mentioned religions or abominations and will never do so. 

My point is that it is ridiculous to categorize LBGT as normal. Its not meant to insult or dininish,  just stating reality. 

Our dealings with children in this matter should reflect such.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 September 2017)

pixel said:


> I would prefer a world that moves forward, a world where every child brought into it can survive in a healthy environment, where everyone enjoys the same dignity and respect.




I'm sure everyone wants that, no one should be knocking kids bought up in circumstances that are not their fault, but if we are to care about kids then we should have a right to point out where we think that some conditions are not ideal for them, and one of those conditions imo is not having male and female role models in their home.

A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.


----------



## tech/a (16 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I think I made that point a while back, although I called it 'abnormal' and got told off for using that term.




I'm a very slow duck.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.



That is the best speech I have seen you put on Rumpole. The best paragraph on this whole thread.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Who were you directing the "**** off" to? The politicians or roughly half the population?
> 
> Looks to me that some people can't accept YES as a possible answer.



That is to the government that didn't have the balls to say it because of political correctness and popularity votes. Should never have been an issue to be publicly thrashed out.


----------



## Value Collector (16 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
> As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.
> 
> So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect
> ...



Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect? Should we change DNA to make us all blonde hair and blue eyes and be "normal"?

You guys are starting to sound like you have been reading mein kampf, anything that doesn't conform must be suppressed


----------



## pixel (16 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post



It wasn't meant to be a sequitur off your post; I only used the term _aberration _that you had introduced as an entry point. Or launch pad, if you prefer. I tried to clarify that the technical term may have its place in Biology as a science, but falling outside the usual doesn't make a trait objectionable per se. In biblical times and earlier, our astigmatism may well have meant a shorter life expectancy, as would have been food poisoning from shellfish or pork that may have been "off" past its use by date. Therefore a taboo on certain foods - or sexual practices - did make sense for cavemen and desert tribes, even if it deprived some members of their right to happiness. 
Today though, religious mumbo-jumbo no longer has any rationale behind it and efforts to turn the clock and public mores back to ancient rules and superstition are only causing more discord and unhappiness. That's why I ticked Yes.


----------



## crackajack (17 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure everyone wants that, no one should be knocking kids bought up in circumstances that are not their fault, but if we are to care about kids then we should have a right to point out where we think that some conditions are not ideal for them, and one of those conditions imo is not having male and female role models in their home.
> 
> A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.



Just more attention seekers like that jerk in North Korea. WTF is wrong with this world? Too much social media and global warming ... Wish I could get a ride off this planet because the way it is going is not looking that flash.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2017)

Video of the clash between homosexuals and heterosexuals is at the Telegraph website 14/09/2017 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...s/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

The story briefly ...



> On Thursday, about 15 students, including members of the uni’s Catholic Society, set up an information table on the main campus thoroughfare with placards saying: “It’s OK to Say No”.
> They offered free kebabs and two large bowls of delicious Lebanese hummus made by one of their mothers.
> It was the first time the No campaign has had a presence on campus where “Marriage Equality” stalls have featured almost every day this semester.
> “The idea was pretty much to give the No campaign perspective on campus,” said 21-year-old IT student, Francis Tamer, one of the organisers.
> ...


----------



## Tink (17 September 2017)

The Stalinists target the children.

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect? Should we change DNA to make us all blonde hair and blue eyes and be "normal"?
> 
> You guys are starting to sound like you have been reading mein kampf, anything that doesn't conform must be suppressed




Stupid comparison.

Short people would have made a bette point!


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect? Should we change DNA to make us all blonde hair and blue eyes and be "normal"?
> 
> You guys are starting to sound like you have been reading mein kampf, anything that doesn't conform must be suppressed





You obviously don't know the two sacrocanct rules:

1) " Never go the full retard"
2) "Never use a ranga by example"


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect?




It depends on the environment.

A black polar bear would be abnormal and certainly would be a problem in trying to hide in the snow.

Is being gay a defect ? Not 90% of the time. Gay people are very succesful in many areas, maybe one reason is that not having to raise families in a lot of cases gives them time to concentrate on careers. 

It's when they try to do things that they were not designed for, like raising children that there starts to be a problem.

Maybe they should concentrate on things that they are good at instead of trying to prove an "equality" status in everything for the sake of it.


----------



## basilio (17 September 2017)

We noticed that Tony (Mr Sensitive) Abbott came out with his considered comments on the SSM question. There was a neat analysis of what he said and the logical  vaccuum and dishonesty behind the comments.  

* A voluntary, non-binding open letter to former prime minister Tony Abbott *

*Michael Short*
411 reading now

Dear Mr Abbott,

It is right to give you praise for your compelling, although inadvertent arguments, for ending the outlawing of same-sex marriage.

Your piece on our opinion pages last week was such a masterful mix of lies, baseless assertions, illogical contortions and brazen inversions, I could kiss you for it.

You write that it's important to maintain "intellectual integrity"._ "Like most, I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay."_ (Decent of you. They must have been grateful.)

_``They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn't mean that we can't continue to reserve the term 'marriage' for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children." _(The "but" is utterly unreasoned.)

_"I want a country where everyone gets a fair go ..."_ (Problem is your actions have created a credibility deficit for you on this one with Australia's 2-million-plus queer community, their families and friends and the millions more who support marriage equality) "_...and where no one is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, political opinion or sexuality."_  (George Orwell – who knew a thing or two about the way language could be manipulated and subverted – would have wanted to kiss you, too.)

_``It's a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common."_ (Bangs head on desk. LGBTI young people, for example, endure far more bullying and persecution than their heterosexual peers, and consequently suffer tragically elevated rates of mental ill-health, self-harm and death by suicide.)

_``Same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married."_ No, Mr Abbott, they do not.   

_``This debate is about changing marriage, not extending it. And if you change marriage, you change society; because marriage is the basis of family; and family is the foundation of community."_ (Humanity is the foundation of community.)

_"So far, it's the supporters of change, not the opponents, who've been responsible for bullying and hate speech."_ (An insulting perversion of reality. The children of same-sex couples have been denigrated as a "stolen generation" at heightened risk of sexual abuse. These families are being told they are dangerous, abnormal and inferior to those of heterosexual couples, the only category worthy of marriage. Further, you are in effect saying a victim who stands up to a bully is actually the guilty party.) 

_``No one is saying that one type of loving relationship is better than another, just that they can be different. By all means, let's find a way to solemnise what is intended to be a sacrificial love between two people of the same sex; but it remains a different love even though it's not a lesser one."_ (Once again the "but" doesn't make sense.)

_ ``When big businesses from Uber, to Subway, to the makers of Magnum ice cream are virtue signalling on same-sex marriage, it's time to say that political correctness has got completely out of hand and to vote `no' to stop it in its tracks."_ (This is not about freedom of religion or speech, nor about political correctness. It is about human liberty; the only thing that will happen when we join most of the rest of the industrialised world, is people in love will get married.) 

When one strips away all the obfuscation and dissembling, the only conclusion that stands the intellectual scrutiny you claim to champion is that you discriminate against non-heterosexuals. There is no justification for that.

In his novel, _Animal Farm,_ George Orwell nails the unfairness of those who seek to maintain control: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The following is an excerpt of some writing published on Facebook by my mother, a committed Christian who studies theology and is a specialist in early childhood development.

"I write as a grandparent of two young people who we love dearly and who are exemplary humans. They are kind, compassionate and caring, as well as showing a tremendous joy of life, maturity beyond their years, and who are wonderful contributors at school, university and in the wider community.

"We are similarly proud of their parents, two mothers who have raised their children within a loving, stable and consistent family environment, as well as a wider extended family, friend and neighbourhood environment … How I wish our parliamentarians had taken courage, acted with love and shown they would not allow children and their families to be the target of hate, vitriol and misinformation.

"What is Australia doing to itself? What is it doing to so many children and adults who simply wish to be given the same opportunity, value, respect and love, as are others in our country? Where is the example of Jesus?"

Mr Abbott? 

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...ime-minister-tony-abbott-20170915-gyi05m.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2017)

Ohhhh my heart bleeds. Have you got any 5 page excerpts of SSM advocates throwing themselves down on the ground if they don't get their way? Who is Tony Abbott?


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2017)

basilio said:


> We noticed that Tony (Mr Sensitive) Abbott came out with his considered comments on the SSM question. There was a neat analysis of what he said and the logical  vaccuum and dishonesty behind the comments.
> 
> * A voluntary, non-binding open letter to former prime minister Tony Abbott *
> 
> *Michael Short*




It's not an analysis at all, it's another obsessive gay apologist prattling on and on and on. He has form as being a a gay warrior.


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2017)

If it's a no
The whole world will fall apart for the minoriy.
If it's a yes the majority will simply accept it.

Who's more tolerant?


----------



## wayneL (17 September 2017)

After this Dunkirk (barring any Trumpian surprise), the true war begins basilio. enjoy wearing your brown shirt as long as you can,  as slowly, I notice people are waking up to the real agenda.


----------



## wayneL (17 September 2017)

Shared from a friend on FaceAche :

~ Promises, Promises ~

You know, it occurs to me that in all the history of humankind, there has never been an ideology that has promised so much and delivered so little as communism. Aka Marx Leninism. Aka dialectical materialism. 

In Russia, for example...

The promises were massive: Utopia for everyone, workers liberated from slavery and poverty, injustice erased, an ideal paradise. 

The delivery was the complete opposite: A more oppressive, controlling totalitarian clique was installed (than what previously existed), workers impressed into slavery, but now with no one except the ruling elite having anything but poverty, 60 million citizens murdered, hell on earth. 

This pattern has been the same almost everywhere communism raised its ugly head. 

Flash forward to the 1950's. Die-hard Marxists realized there was no way the Haves vs. the Have Nots - aka violent revolution of the poor - was going to knock down the United States, or Europe, or Australia, etc. Too much prosperity in the Western Christian cultural sphere. 

Solution? Destroy the system from within via corruption. Change classical Marxism to 'Cultural' Marxism, pitting cultural minorities against cultural majorities. Corruption of morals, corruption of family, corruption of all the values that underpin Western prosperity - self-governance, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of economic growth. 

Push moral and spiritual breakdown, promote welfare and reliance on the State as the Big Daddy who would take care of things, promote marriage breakdown by rewarding promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, etc. Destroy sexual mores that lie at the bedrock of any healthy society. 

Then, penetrate to core areas: Education system. Entertainment and eventually Media system. Political system through promising people stuff - aka welfarism - as a leverage for socialist-type programs. 

Bingo. 2017 in Australia. 

But let's think about this. The postal vote goes until November 7. The determined, decided voters on either side will have cast their ballot. But the undecided, the apathetic, and the 'don't affect me' people will still be there. These are the one's whom we need to reach out to. 

Only one way: Education. Information and real truth about the consequences. Aka waking people up. And this is exactly why the rainbow agenda wants to block any information, free communication, and knowledge on the part of these undecided citizens. 

Reach out to those people. Talk about 3 main points why the Same Sex Marriage issue is about more than same sex marriage. Why it is about more than feeling sorry for marginalized gay people. Why it is more about rights, law, coercion, and the well-being of children in education.

Reality of Safe Schools
Reality of firings and attacks on anyone who voices views supporting natural marriage
Reality of the way of religions and charities in nations that have redefined marriage. 

You know, the drivers of the communist agenda never actually cared about the poor hungry proletarians. They just used them, manipulate them, their emotions, resentments, their anger and pain. Then they used them to manipulate young, idealistic, and conscientious people 

Try to remember this. The Rainbow agenda is NOT about improving the lives of people who are same sex attracted, or the gender confused, etc. No. It's the same old pattern. Manipulation of emotions. And many, (but not all) young, idealistic conscientious people have bought into it. They cannot or do not want to see behind the curtain. But they need to. 

The marginalized are once again being used as political fodder by bitter intellectuals bent on destroying anything they cannot control. And they cannot control free-thinking, conscientious, responsible sovereign citizens. 

It's not about gay people. It's ALL about control. 

Time to wake up the sleeping!

https://www.whyvoteno.org.au/lgbt-agenda/


----------



## basilio (17 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> It's not an analysis at all, it's another obsessive gay apologist prattling on and on and on. He has form as being a a gay warrior.



Really Tisme ? SO as usual white is black. 
A deconstruction of  Abbotts nonsense isn't an analysis. And anyway the guy is an obsessive gay apologist warrior.  Therefore he can be trashed and  ipso facto nothing he says needs to be addressed.


----------



## basilio (17 September 2017)

Has anyone considered the history of Christianity in defending Freedom of Religion ? In fact which theocratic State also allows free religious expression for all its citizens ?  Perhaps we have have Freedom of Religious expression *because* we have a secular state which doesn't attempt to dictate what citizens must or must not believe.
Check out this argument.


* The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics *

*Matt Holden*
Former prime minister Tony Abbott was on about it on this website a few days ago, Liberal Party vice-president Karina Okotel said it on ABC Radio recently and Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby repeats it at every opportunity: the debate about marriage equality is not, as the survey question will ask, about whether the Marriage Act should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, but is really a debate about religious freedom.

Hang on a minute – since when has Christianity been so concerned about religious freedom?

Not ever, really, is the short answer.

Since the beginning, Christians have been busy attacking other people's religious freedom by trying to convert them. Christianity has suppressed other people's religious freedom everywhere from Rome to the outback.

Where was Christian concern for religious freedom during the Spanish Inquisition? During the Counter-Reformation, when Catholics persecuted Protestants and drove them out of Europe to the New World?

Where was concern for religious freedom when the traditional beliefs of Africans taken into slavery in the Americas were suppressed? Where was respect for religious freedom when native Americans and Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land – the basis of their spiritual beliefs – and herded onto Christian missions?

Where were the defenders of religious freedom in 2016 when the racist, right-wing United Patriots Front rallied to oppose the construction of a mosque in Bendigo?

Of course, it's not just Christianity – whenever one religion dominates a society, religious freedom suffers. Think of the persecution of people of the Baha'i faith in Iran, of Orthodox Christians in parts of Syria controlled by Islamic State, and of Rohingya Muslims in Buddhist-majority Myanmar today.

This sudden defence of religious freedom by churches and religious lobby groups just doesn't wash.

The best guarantee of religious freedom is a secular society where people of all faiths – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, whatever – and people of no faith are free to practice their beliefs in the privacy of their homes, churches, temples, mosques and synagogues, and don't get to tell anyone else what to believe or how to live.

The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics. The only religious freedom threatened by changing the Marriage Act is the freedom of organised religion – whether established churches or lobby groups – to tell the rest of us how to live. That's a freedom that has no place in our secular society.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...religion-out-of-politics-20170914-gyhjt8.html


----------



## SirRumpole (17 September 2017)

basilio said:


> The best guarantee of religious freedom is keeping religion out of politics.




I can't argue with that really. Religions don't own marriage imo, society does. But we should not force religions (or anyone else) to do what they don't want to do.


----------



## What'sUp (17 September 2017)

I am surprised that 60% voted *Yes* on this site.  I am also surprised that 60% of Australians know what plebiscite means, in fact I’d even be surprised if 10% knew the meaning.

Someone on this forum stated that it is not a vote it’s just a survey.

I googled the word as I admit, I had never heard the word plebiscite in all my 64 years.

_“The meaning of Plebiscite:   The Direct vote of all members of an electorate on an important question such as a change in the constitution.  “the administration will hold a plebiscite for the approval of a constitutional reforms”._

_Synonyms: Vote, referendum, ballot, poll.”_

Doesn’t sound like a survey to me.

This vote will not impact me in any way, crikey I’ll be dead in 20 to 30 years anyway if I am lucky enough to live that long.  However, it is important to future generations, so until you know what your voting for vote *No*.

No way is there enough information out there on the subject or its consequences for people to make an informed decision.

Get on You Tube > look up the “Voice of the Australian Constitution”  
Watch and listen to proud Australian document before you are silly enough to vote emotionally. *Don't be surprised if you don't get the urge to stand up and solute.*

Vote intelligently, find out how it will impact your children and their children.   Imagine having to prove you are not in a de-facto relationship with your flatmate.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2017)

Bruliatrader said:


> Your supposedly against bullying? What about bullying of people who are against same sex marriages?  Does that count or is that different bullying that is allowed? I thought this was an Aussie Stock Forum?  Why aren't you discussing Aussie stocks?




I am opposed to bullying no matter what form it takes or the underlying reason. It's something I've seen enough of and if there's one thing I know about it it is this. Bullies always have a weakness somewhere and will target anyone who is a perceived threat in that regard. 

As for discussion on this forum, well it does have a "general chat" section and the owner of the forum seems to be happy with such subjects being discussed.

Which brings me to another thing I know from experience. Anyone or any "side" of an argument which seeks to limit discussion and analysis does so due to fear of scrutiny. They either lack confidence in their own position or know it to be flawed. Been there, seen this one many times in many scenarios and it's always the same story.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2017)

What'sUp said:


> Someone on this forum stated that it is not a vote it’s just a survey.



Two plebiscites were rejected by the Senate so it is a postal survey and it is non compulsory. Wiki.

At a guess it was blocked by Labor leader Bill Shorten with a rejection from a compulsory vote being more likely.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Really Tisme ? SO as usual white is black.
> A deconstruction of  Abbotts nonsense isn't an analysis. And anyway the guy is an obsessive gay apologist warrior.  Therefore he can be trashed and  ipso facto nothing he says needs to be addressed.





That's about it. You should maybe add in mass hysteria too.

Pavlov would be proud of his prediction modelling and John B. Watson even more astonished his work has been adopted by Australian Govts,complete with a fancy "Safe Schools" name.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2017)

No wonder so many people support SSM and destruction of the nuclear family:

*Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: a national cohort study of two million Danes.*
*Department of Epidemiology Research, Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk*
*Two million people sampled, how many criteria fit your predisposition?:*



> Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18-49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large sibships, and late birth order. For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.


----------



## Macquack (17 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Shared from a friend on FaceAche :
> 
> ~ Promises, Promises ~
> 
> ...



The oldest propaganda play in the book - "Time to wake up the sleeping!" because *the reds are under the bed.

Now the commos are masquerading as gays with the sole purpose of destroying Australia. I can't believe this utter bullsh*t.*


----------



## cynic (17 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> The oldest propaganda play in the book - "Time to wake up the sleeping!" because *the reds are under the bed.
> 
> Now the commos are masquerading as gays with the sole purpose of destroying Australia. I can't believe this utter bullsh*t.*



Perchance, are you worried that these underhanded tactics are being exposed for what they truly are?


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 September 2017)

What'sUp said:


> Get on You Tube > look up the “Voice of the Australian Constitution”
> Watch and listen to proud Australian document before you are silly enough to vote emotionally. *Don't be surprised if you don't get the urge to stand up and solute.*



Yes for people generationally of Australia the freedoms can be taken for granted. Compared to dictatorships and Communism, our British inherited Westminster system operates more toward individual freedoms and rights. Need to drop the religious tilt. I mean Moses and God have no significance in 2017 though I do recognise Christianity having a structural role in our society.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Stupid comparison.
> 
> Short people would have made a bette point!




remember you said this.


> So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
> As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.
> 
> So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect




So, not everyone is born with red hair, in fact only about 2% of people have red hair, which makes it less common than being gay.

So by your definition having red hair is not normal and is a defect, and it appears you are in favour of ridding society of such things that are not "Normal" in your opinion, Hitler also wanted to manage genetics, but we don't normal think of him as being a good guy.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's when they try to do things that they were not designed for, like raising children that there starts to be a problem.
> .





ok, so when they survey asks you a question about gay parenting, you should answer NO then, this question is about gay marriage, not gay parenting.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> ok, so when they survey asks you a question about gay parenting, you should answer NO then, this question is about gay marriage, not gay parenting.




Like the Republic question was about A republic, someone else would decide what sort we would have.

Leave the Marriage Act alone, pass separate legislation for gay marriage.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> .
> 
> Leave the Marriage Act alone, pass separate legislation for gay marriage.




Whats the best reason to not just change the marriage act though?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Whats the best reason to not just change the marriage act though?




Symbolism and tradition. The traditional Marriage Act is the foundation of the family. Man + woman = children, bound and nurtured by shared genetics , something that SS couples cannot do.

Of course you can argue about childless heterosexual marriages, but they are in the minority and they are still a man and a woman.


----------



## Value Collector (18 September 2017)

I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. I can’t think of any valid reason why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. The “No” camp, are trying to confuse the issue, by bringing up misinformation and arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, but let me address here some of the misinformation and irrelevant arguments made by the no camp. 

Here are some of the reasons I have heard people use to justify a “No” vote, and why I believe it is not a valid reason.

1. “I think it will expose children to paedophiles” - this argument is wrong for several reasons, a) being gay doesn’t make you more likely to be a paedophile, b) most child molestation cases are straight men abusing young females c) The question is about marriage rights, not parenting rights, same sex couples already have parenting rights, so this isn’t a parenting question.

2. “I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent, because as pointed out above, this isn’t a question about parenting, its about marriage. As I said above same sex couples already have the right to parent anyway.

3. “It’s not natural or normal” - firstly same sex couplings are found in nature in many other species, and just under 5% of human populations consistently turn out to be gay or bisexual so it is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be interested in same sex coupling, actually being LGBT is more common than having red hair. But it’s not “natural” to fly around in planes or use mobile phones but we do that, so banning some thing because it’s not “natural” is silly.

4. “Its against my religion” - Well thats your issue, if its against your religion, then don’t have a same sex marriage, no one will force you to have one. Would you accept a ban on pork because its against Muslim law, of course not you would just expect the muslims to avoid pork, its the same here, banning same sex marriage because of your religion isn’t you exercising your religious freedom, its you trying to force your religious rules on others.

5. “I find it yucky” - Again thats your issue, if you are invited to a gay wedding, just don’t go, but you don’t get to stop others doing things just because you find it ewwwy.

6. “If we allow gay marriage people will want to marry their dogs next” - Well if you don’t want people to marry dogs, then vote no when the survey is asking about that, for now the question is about same sex marriage, stick to that topic, other wise you are committing the “slippery slope logical fallacy”, just stick to the question.

7. “Allowing gays to marry takes away something from straight marriages” - No it doesn’t, it won’t take anything away from straight couples, its simply going to mean that same sex couples have their marriages recognised by the government, thats it.

8. “Its a lifestyle choice I don’t want to support” - Firstly its not a choice they are born that way, but even if it were a choice, why should it be banned, the law should allow for maximum freedom, and only ban things that cause harm, allowing same sex couples to have their marriages recognised is harmless, none of the No arguments show where genuine harm would exist, if you want it banned you need to be able to show how marriage alone would cause harm that doesn’t currently exist, without appealing to logical fallacies.

Think about how you would want your children or grandchildren treated if they were gay, or how you would want society to treat you if you just happened to be the same sex as your current partner, Marriage is meant to be about unconditional love, so why have conditions put on it?choose to be on the right side of history, sooner or later gay marriage will happen.

 I think this is an important vote, and you need to seriously look at the actual issue, not the red herring and confused arguments put forward by the no camp.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> “I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent, because as pointed out above, this isn’t a question about parenting, its about marriage. As I said above same sex couples already have the right to parent anyway.




You can have your opinion about "what's it about", but intelligent people can see beyond a simplistic reduction and see what derives if ss marriage is approved, and that is actually a degradation of traditional parenting by pretending that gay parenting is equivalent and socially endorsed because the 'parents' are married.

I won't accept that gay parenting is equal to biological parenting and no pretending or distraction by the gay community will convince me otherwise .


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. I can’t think of any valid reason why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. The “No” camp, are trying to confuse the issue, by bringing up misinformation and arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, but let me address here some of the misinformation and irrelevant arguments made by the no camp.
> 
> Here are some of the reasons I have heard people use to justify a “No” vote, and why I believe it is not a valid reason.
> 
> ...



You seem to have some confusion regarding where the burden of proof truly rests!
Those campaigning for change need to demonstrate that no harm will result from the promoted changes!
Until such time as that happens, I consider it unwise to entertain this proposal any further.


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2017)

More than ever,  I am a no.

Rowan Dean encapsulates :

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/the-classical-liberal-case-against-same-sex-marriage/


----------



## tech/a (18 September 2017)

I think you'll find that the Gay community as a whole are widely accepted as they are
Put it in the faces of everyone (as it has been) and society will be less tolerant.

You can argue till your blue in the face whether its right or wrong--it simply is.
The more you try to shove it down peoples throats the less you'll find it (or most) things
accepted.


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

I thought this story  illustrated how deeply conservative people can come to terms with the reality of SSM

* Over fish and chips and a floral tablecloth, my grandparents and I talked about marriage equality *
Maya Newell During a campaign paved with irony and absurdity, we have to revive our sense of generosity and create spaces where mutual understanding can breathe

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dparents-and-i-talked-about-marriage-equality


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> I thought this story  illustrated how deeply conservative people can come to terms with the reality of SSM
> 
> * Over fish and chips and a floral tablecloth, my grandparents and I talked about marriage equality *
> Maya Newell During a campaign paved with irony and absurdity, we have to revive our sense of generosity and create spaces where mutual understanding can breathe
> ...



It's not about acceptance, that's a furphy, it's about this 

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/the-classical-liberal-case-against-same-sex-marriage/


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> “I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is *irreverent*,




Interesting choice of words from a non religious person.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

> As I wrote in the SMH last week: "Supporters of same sex marriage say they are concerned about the bigotry and intolerance that will be whipped up by the plebiscite now going ahead. So far, it’s the supporters of change, not the opponents, who’ve been responsible for bullying and hate speech." Case in point.
> 
> Tony Abbott


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. *I can’t think of any valid reason* why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. ................




Going by the arguments you have put up I can't think of any valid reasons why same sex couples should be granted marriage status.

State marriage isn't predicated on love for love's sake and facebook memes. It's a serious contract, not a comedy farce that SSM supporters would treat it. The state got involved to protect the children, to give financial benefit for nation building, the nuclear family and protect estates, etc. It wasn't institutionalised to celebrate long term committment to vaginal or anal sex, mardi gras, suck face and rainbows.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

World on farcebook (so it has to be true) is that the cost to change laws to accomodate SSM will exceed $2000,000,000


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

Your cracked Tizzie. Pure and simple. You can't construct a coherant argument against the SSM question so you resort to  illogical and incoherant raves that don't make sense.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Your cracked Tizzie. Pure and simple. You can't construct a coherant argument against the SSM question so you resort to  illogical and incoherant raves that don't make sense.





You wouldn't be cross thread trolling would you bas?

Your anger is predictable. Undoing conditioning can be like giving up opiates I'm told..... you spend a whole lifetime believing in unicorns, Barby doll ponies and candy canes and a big bad man comes along and spoils the fantasy by revealing the truth that young men really do wear breeches and life isn't giving away the inherited family tapestries to strangers in favour of more Mattel world values.

I think cogent is the word you were looking for ...I'm a walking abridged version of lexicon


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post as I never mentioned religions or abominations and will never do so.
> 
> My point is that it is ridiculous to categorize LBGT as normal. Its not meant to insult or dininish,  just stating reality.
> 
> Our dealings with children in this matter should reflect such.





Legalise it; penalise those who discriminate against it... and it will soon be as normal as drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a Jewish carpenter thinking he's the son of God because he says so and because the Romans crucified him for blasphemy.


----------



## basilio (19 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You wouldn't be cross thread trolling would you bas?
> 
> Your anger is predictable. Undoing conditioning can be like giving up opiates I'm told..... you spend a whole lifetime believing in unicorns, Barby doll ponies and candy canes and a big bad man comes along and spoils the fantasy by revealing the truth that young men really do wear breeches and life isn't giving away the inherited family tapestries to strangers in favour of more Mattel world values.
> 
> I think cogent is the word you were looking for ...I'm a walking abridged version of lexicon




No I'm just fed up to the back teeth with the rubbish you serve to justify your attacks on gay people who want theiir relationships recognised in the same way as straight people.

I certainly can see you point about undoing conditiong. Like you I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was a crime, a perversion and a good reason to go xxxx bashing with a righteous air. Fifty years later one can see that trashing people because they have a different sexual orientation is about as reasonable as saying blacks and orientals are subhuman, slavery makes sense and women really don't have the brains or capacity to vote. 
Absolutely nothing wrong with re evaluating conditioning Tisme. It goes with evualiting unmitigated  BS.


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2017)

I'm surprised you still have back teeth bas, after all your wailing and gnashing of them


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2017)

Its not all roses.

Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion. All happened in my late 20s
and 30s. As its more accepted it will be more prevalent.


----------



## PZ99 (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Its not all roses.
> 
> Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
> I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion. All happened in my late 20s
> and 30s. As its more accepted it will be more prevalent.



Not me. Anyone who would try would end up genderless for life


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

This is one more reason why people should vote* NO*. Blatant discrimination and denial of employment for expressing an opinion. This person should be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. Disgusting.

*SSM: Canberra kids' party organiser ditches entertainer who said it's OK to vote no*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...-canberra-business-ditches-contractor/8958176


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 September 2017)

Bill (out of the closet) Shorten said today to ignore religious belief as No reasoning. He said just vote yes and get this done.


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2017)

Shorten will oppose anything remotely resembling a NO from the Libs.
If the libs were YES he'd be a no.
He goes where he "believes' the popular vote is. If it is a yes you'll get the constant bleating
about what a waste of time and money it was for *EVERYONE TO VOICE THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT!.*

If its NO he will retreat into what SHOULD BE! How he would have championed the cause.
After all he didn't block it!!!


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Bill (out of the closet) Shorten said today to ignore religious belief as No reasoning




Super dangerous.
This equates to dictatorship.
If it suits government then ignore other groups.

What else should we ignore
The 40-60% of NO's who don't want to see it?
That's what he and the YES brigade want!


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
> I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion.



Oh come on Tech. I thought you considered homosexuality as normal. 



tech/a said:


> Shorten will oppose anything remotely resembling a NO from the Libs.
> If the libs were YES he'd be a no.
> If its NO he will retreat into what SHOULD BE! How he would have championed the cause.
> After all he didn't block it!!!



Yeah can see him coming all slippery eel like a mile away.


----------



## notting (19 September 2017)

Shorten is a corrupt c@nt.
I know from first hand experience that this guy is  union thug.
He has betrayed some of our greatest law enforcement guys who are simply hero's, nothing less, in terms of what they did to 'out corruption,' putting themselves and families at huge risk!!
Shorten attacked them, slurred them knowingly for his own union corruption and power protection.
The phone calls Shorten illegally instigate that went out to stacks of voters, lying about what lib's would do to health care and the lib's agenda, on the eve of the election should have put Shorten in jail.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Super dangerous.
> This equates to dictatorship.
> If it suits government then ignore other groups.
> 
> ...



They (of the us and them) say it is a simple question with no consequences.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

notting said:


> Shorten is a corrupt c@nt.
> I know from first hand experience that this guy is  union thug.
> He has betrayed some of our greatest law enforcement guys who are simply hero's, nothing less, in terms of what they did to 'out corruption,' putting themselves and families at huge risk!!
> Shorten attacked them, slurred them knowingly for his own union corruption and power protection.
> The phone calls Shorten illegally instigate that went out to stacks of voters, lying about what lib's would do to health care and the lib's agenda, on the eve of the election should have put Shorten in jail.




So why isn't he ? 

The Libs had a stacked Royal Commission that didn't lay a glove on him.

They had their chance.


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Its not all roses.
> 
> Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
> I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion. All happened in my late 20s
> and 30s. As its more accepted it will be more prevalent.



Yes! 
More than three times.

But I do have some sympathy for a few of the individuals concerned, as I can readily imagine how difficult it must have been, to identify the few potentially receptive candidates, available within a largely heterosexual human populace.


----------



## notting (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Yes!
> More than three times.
> 
> But I do have some sympathy for a few of the individuals concerned, as I can readily imagine how difficult it must have been, to identify the few potentially receptive candidates, available within a largely heterosexual human populace.




At least you can sympathize with women in general.
Perhaps this is an upside! - Empathy with women who are less able to make it 'not pretty' for the unwanted attention giver.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> But I do have some sympathy for a few of the individuals concerned, as I can readily imagine how difficult it must have been, to identify the few potentially receptive candidates, available within a largely heterosexual human populace.




And you had such a cute ass so why wouldn't they try it on ?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Its not all roses.
> 
> Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
> I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion. All happened in my late 20s
> and 30s. As its more accepted it will be more prevalent.




Yes, when I was 17. I was still really a boy and the guy was a lot older and it wasn't nice. Still feel a bit ill thinking about it over 30 years later.


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> And you had such a cute ass so why wouldn't they try it on ?



And here I was thinking it was my magnetic persona coupled with hypnotic charm!


----------



## PZ99 (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Shorten will oppose anything remotely resembling a NO from the Libs.
> If the libs were YES he'd be a no.
> He goes where he "believes' the popular vote is. If it is a yes you'll get the constant bleating
> about what a waste of time and money it was for *EVERYONE TO VOICE THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT!.*
> ...




Sorry, but.. the analogy governing your emotive statement is worth about two dead flies


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Sorry, but.. the analogy governing your emotive statement is worth about two dead flies



I have six (freshly swatted earlier today).

Do we hear seven!

Six deceased flies going once... do we hear seven?... going twice...


----------



## tech/a (19 September 2017)

Im a Duck
Ill take it!!


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Im a Duck
> Ill take it!!



Sold!


----------



## PZ99 (19 September 2017)

And no money changed hands. Nice commerce fellas 

OOH lookie - someone just voted YES


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

basilio said:


> No I'm just fed up to the back teeth with the rubbish you serve to justify your attacks on gay people who want theiir relationships recognised in the same way as straight people.
> 
> I certainly can see you point about undoing conditiong. Like you I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was a crime, a perversion and a good reason to go xxxx bashing with a righteous air. Fifty years later one can see that trashing people because they have a different sexual orientation is about as reasonable as saying blacks and orientals are subhuman, slavery makes sense and women really don't have the brains or capacity to vote.
> Absolutely nothing wrong with re evaluating conditioning Tisme. It goes with evualiting unmitigated  BS.




Yeah but I only quote facts, Mr Objectivity is my second name. Truth always hurts people who build arguments on fantastic yarns and subjectivity.

You still haven't debunked anything I have said as not true. Instead yo keep attacking me instead of the issue and throw up LGBTxyz fictional narratives to support your unbreachable predisposition that is predicated on bigotry to normal plug + socket behaviours, preferring socket² and plug² instead


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Its not all roses.
> 
> Has anyone here besides myself been placed in an un wanted Homosexual situation in their life?
> I have 3 times and wasn't pretty for me or them on each occasion. All happened in my late 20s
> and 30s. As its more accepted it will be more prevalent.




So you're the fella who spurned my advances on all three occasions!!


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

Who says SSM doesn't hurt anyone.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...d-hanson-young-loggerheads-over-postal-survey


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with you tech/a.
> 
> Refer to the video posted by Tisme in the other thread.
> 
> ...





They could set up a Victims of Paraphilias association?


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

So how much for my vote? 


https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Community-Spirit/Buy-My-quot-Yes-quot-Vote/td-p/2088687


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

Too late for me I've done it, but  wouldn't sell my a**e for it.


----------



## PZ99 (19 September 2017)

I think this whole deal will come down to nothing. Which ever way it goes the losing side will quite rightly challenge the result citing compromised integrity of this survey. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-16/same-sex-marriage-postal-surveys-left-out-in-the-rain/8952156

$120mil straight down the swanny.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I think this whole deal will come down to nothing. Which ever way it goes the losing side will quite rightly challenge the result citing compromised integrity of this survey.
> 
> $120mil straight down the swanny.




Yep, I'm afraid you are right. There should have been a genuine plebiscite at the last election, this is a farce.


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

Remember the children:


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Remember the children:
> 
> View attachment 72681




Nice family. Which one is you ?


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Nice family. Which one is you ?





As if you couldn't tell .... that's me and my wife Beulah, my kids Clark, Spencer, Pearl and Mabel about 10 years ago


----------



## Logique (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> This is one more reason why people should vote* NO*. Blatant discrimination and denial of employment for expressing an opinion. This person should be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. Disgusting.
> *SSM: Canberra kids' party organiser ditches entertainer who said it's OK to vote no*
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...-canberra-business-ditches-contractor/8958176



Deeply concerning, and nothing the 'No' campagners haven't been predicting.  And from a Canberra childrens party organizer!  Not compulsory to hire them is it, so the company might just lose a bit of business as a result







> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...-canberra-business-ditches-contractor/8958176
> ..."The fact that you could share your own personal view on a matter like this and find yourself out of a job is extraordinary," he said.
> "*What this woman actually currently supports is the law of the land* — is [Ms Sims] suggesting that she's not going to employ nearly half the nation?
> "If that's acceptable now, I shudder to think what will become the norm after a vote goes through and the Yes campaign actually wins.
> "We are going into terribly uncharted waters."






> I voted yes. But if someone expresses an opposing view respectfully and thoughtfully, *to be fired for this is certainl*y *an attack on freedom of speech*. A person's political views is irrelevant to your work. The more disturbing thing about this is that because the fired person was an "independent contractor, and not a direct employee", they have *no employment rights, like the right to make an unfair dismissal claim*.
> By Michae1 20 hours ago


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> As if you couldn't tell .... that's me and my wife Beulah, my kids Clark, Spencer, Pearl and Mabel about 10 years ago




I find Mabel strangely attractive...


----------



## Logique (20 September 2017)

> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-marriage-view-hits-back-20170919-gyktsv.html
> *Capital Kids Parties*' [ACT] owner, Madlin Sims... In a public Facebook post later that day, Ms Sims wrote that she didn't want "*homophobes* working for me, especially in an environment with children".



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a publicly uttered defamation?  The anonymous 18 year old target has roundly denied this blatant smear.

Update: Sen George Christensen will take this case to the Human Rights Commission. Now we'll see what the HRC are made of


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Deeply concerning, and nothing the 'No' campagners haven't been predicting.  And from a Canberra childrens party organizer!  Not compulsory to hire them is it, so the company might just lose a bit of business as a result



She obviously doesn't understand the new normal. Will take more effort to bring her around and job rejection should move her in the right direction.



> Update: Sen George Christensen will take this case to the Human Rights Commission. Now we'll see what the HRC are made of



Roz Ward runs that organisation.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a publicly uttered defamation?  The anonymous 18 year old target has roundly denied this blatant smear.




Doubly so I would think.

1. that the person is a homophobe for voting no.

2. that he/she is a danger to children.

With a good lawyer the sacked person should have a good chance in court.


----------



## Value Collector (20 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Remember the children:
> 
> View attachment 72681




All of them, or just the straight ones?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> All of them, or just the straight ones?




I'm not too sure about Clark. 

Maybe he is Clark Kent...dual identity, straight at home gay away.


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not too sure about Clark.
> 
> Maybe he is Clark Kent...dual identity, straight at home gay away.



Too right! Those choosing to fly around the globe, with their flowing red cape, complete with red undies, worn on the outside of blue pantyhose, must surely be advertising their homosexuality!


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a publicly uttered defamation?  The anonymous 18 year old target has roundly denied this blatant smear.
> 
> Update: Sen George Christensen will take this case to the Human Rights Commission. Now we'll see what the HRC are made of





Out and out bigotry to hetrosexuals


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Too right! Those choosing to fly around the globe, with their flowing red cape, complete with red undies, worn on the outside of blue pantyhose, must surely be advertising their homosexuality!





Fair go guys. Sure he can be precious, but I'm certain the good talking to I gave him when he was six will serve him in good stead. What girl wouldn't find him uber attractive. a chip off the old block if ever there was one.


----------



## PZ99 (20 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a publicly uttered defamation?  The anonymous 18 year old target has roundly denied this blatant smear.
> 
> Update: Sen George Christensen will take this case to the Human Rights Commission. Now we'll see what the HRC are made of



First, we need to see what the case itself is made of.

From your link > _"FYI this wasn't a 'you're voting no, you're fired' situation. There were prior conversations had. As a business that works with children of all kinds, we have a responsibility to working with vulnerable people," she wrote.
_
As is frequently the case with these sort of events, there's probably more to the story.
In any event she has zero chance of getting her job back.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> As a business that works with children of all kinds, we have a responsibility to working with vulnerable people," she wrote.




So what qualifications have people that vote Yes got that makes them more able to do a job of entertaining children at a party ?

The quote above reeks of insinuation that the sacked person was a danger to children. Unless she can back up that claim the sacking is pretty clearly discrimination based on personal opinion.


----------



## PZ99 (20 September 2017)

Oh I'm not questioning she was discriminated. No issue there. I'm more interested in what hasn't been reported yet 

BTW this is a umm.... "crack up"...





Now I know why they use the "square" barcodes. That's bad! LOL

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4504561/australia-gay-marriage-vote-bumsex-barcode/


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Now I know why they use the "square" barcodes. That's bad! LOL
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4504561/australia-gay-marriage-vote-bumsex-barcode/






Funniest thing I've seen for weeks !


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Funniest thing I've seen for weeks !




How are the pointy heads apologising for something the SSM sect are proud to proclaim!!! Hardly defamatory


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> How are the pointy heads apologising for something the SSM sect are proud to proclaim!!! Hardly defamatory




If one of the barcodes read "VOTENO" you would hear the protests in NZ.


----------



## Macquack (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what qualifications have people that vote Yes got that makes them more able to do a job of entertaining children at a party ?



Empathy, acceptance of others that may be different.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Empathy, acceptance of others that may be different.




Assume there are 30 children at a party, and they are probably in the age range 6-10. How many are even likely to know they are gay at that age ? 

Is it the entertainers job to talk with each of them and find out their innermost thoughts and problems or just put on a show for half an hour ?

Come on, lets get real. The sacking was blatant heterophobia.


----------



## crackajack (20 September 2017)

basilio said:


> No I'm just fed up to the back teeth with the rubbish you serve to justify your attacks on gay people who want theiir relationships recognised in the same way as straight people.
> 
> I certainly can see you point about undoing conditiong. Like you I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was a crime, a perversion and a good reason to go xxxx bashing with a righteous air. Fifty years later one can see that trashing people because they have a different sexual orientation is about as reasonable as saying blacks and orientals are subhuman, slavery makes sense and women really don't have the brains or capacity to vote.
> Absolutely nothing wrong with re evaluating conditioning Tisme. It goes with evualiting unmitigated  BS.



I am fed up with that crappy TV ad lol
Also still believe it is just an excuse to sponge the dole like single mums. I vote no. Single not gay pissed off supporting spongers in this do gooder society.


----------



## crackajack (20 September 2017)

these people watch too much reality tv and spend their money on tats piercings etc lol wow no wonder you stand out like a sore thumb.


----------



## crackajack (20 September 2017)

gees free to air tv sux, much like the advocates of same sex marriage. bunch of attention seekers/rorters.


----------



## crackajack (20 September 2017)

I bet that jerk from North Korea is a closet gay. lol Especially with a hair do like that.


----------



## tech/a (20 September 2017)

crackajack said:


> I bet that jerk from North Korea is a closet gay. lol Especially with a hair do like that.




Hope so
End of blood line


----------



## crackajack (21 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Oh I'm not questioning she was discriminated. No issue there. I'm more interested in what hasn't been reported yet
> 
> BTW this is a umm.... "crack up"...
> 
> ...



Yeah well just about sums up the ABS lol what a bummer hey, fudged liked all the crud that comes from them lol


----------



## Tink (21 September 2017)

We should have had the full plebiscite, but then, imv, we should never have got to this.

Marriage should never have been debated to start with, as there is nothing equal in the gold standard/traditional marriage (father, mother and the children) and same sex couples (two men and two women).

As many have said, they should have something created for their union, as it is, they have civil unions.

What people do in their private property is their business, and the government should not be coming in to tell us how to think.

Just listening to their 'right side of history', the Stalinists and their advocates are intent on destroying all this country was built on.
Family, faith, life, beauty...

This is a big change for society.

We have all voted NO.
Standing up for the family.

--------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing the video, whats up.


As I have said on this forum many times, what religion are you talking about?
Christianity, the foundations of this country?
The public holidays that reflect our nation?

Our countries foundations are Christian, and are based on our Christian values.
How this country was established.
Our language, our culture are all based on Christianity.

Do they even know what Christianity is?

Those re education camps they call schools, need to be made private, imv, as they don't reflect this country, but are pushing their own agenda.
Taxpayers should not be paying for these schools that go against what this country was built on, imv.
http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

These advocates (political terrorists) rampaging our city, Melbourne, need to be made accountable for their actions.
The taxpayer should not be paying for their destructive behaviour.

This is my view.


----------



## Tisme (21 September 2017)

Tink said:


> The taxpayer should not be paying for their destructive behaviour.
> 
> This is my view.




I think you'll find there is a correlation between the uptake of medications (e.g. anti depressants) and changing attitudes to social taboos. Voting yes to end the anxiety of argument will be a big factor in the vote ... Australians today aren't the cohesian fighters of yesteryear.


----------



## PZ99 (21 September 2017)

crackajack said:


> Yeah well just about sums up the ABS lol what a bummer hey, fudged liked all the crud that comes from them lol



I now actually think it's a hoax. Although the ABS did apologise they obviously didn't run those letters through a barcode generator. If they did it would look completely different


----------



## PZ99 (21 September 2017)

Here you go @Tink 



Someone has an agenda with gender...


----------



## jersey10 (21 September 2017)

I believe in marriage equality - it should not be allowed for heterosexuals either.


----------



## tech/a (21 September 2017)

Comparing an Orange and an Apple
With 2 lemons 

Nothing remotely similar.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Voting yes to end the anxiety of argument will be a big factor in the vote ... Australians today aren't the cohesian fighters of yesteryear.



Bow to demands, appease the bully? Australia coud be invaded and taken over in one day just to avoid conflict. That is not what my grandfather fought for.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

'Yes' campaign thugs at it again, head-butting a former PM in Hobart. The thuggery is overwhelmingly from the 'Yes' campaign, although the apologists will swarm out today, pretending it's on both sides.







> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...esex-marriage-campaigner-20170921-gymfgr.html
> ..."*He says 'I want to shake your hand'. I went over to shake his hand and he headbutted me*...
> ...Mr Abbott said his staffer grappled with the man who ran off "swearing his head off."
> He said the *attack exposed the ugly side of the Yes campaign*.
> "It was just a reminder of how ugly this debate is getting and the ugliness is not coming from the defenders of marriage as its always been understood," the former prime minister said... someone who was* advocating a 'yes' vote, under the guise of wanting to shake your hand in fact try to give you a so-called Liverpool kiss*."


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

Well said Sam Newman!







> http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...port-of-samesex-marriage-20170921-gymhau.html
> 22 September 2017- *Sam Newman slams 'sycophantic' AFL over logo change in support of same-sex marriage*
> Football identity Sam Newman has slammed the AFL following the organisation's controversial decision to change its logo to 'Yes' in support of same-sex marriage.
> Newman told a cheering Footy Show audience that the AFL were "obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores" that had "no right to get involved in political messages".
> "*Let people go to the football and do what they want to do, just watch the game*."....


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

As I said imagine if a NO got through

Carnage in the streets
Stamping of little feet and red faces.
It's just not fair.

Yes ----- well just accept.
Or 
Will they!

Personally I think they should have let sleeping dogs lie!


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> 'Yes' campaign thugs at it again, head-butting a former PM in Hobart. The thuggery is overwhelmingly from the 'Yes' campaign, although the apologists will swarm out today, pretending it's on both sides.




The ABC, spearheaded by Virginia Trioli, needs to take some the of responsibility instead of trying say they warned everyone violence would happen .... their agitation to fight the fight for demolition of social foundations makes them culpible ..... SSM = "hurts no one" was always patently B.S.

Even good members on this forum have resorted to verbal abuse.


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

ABC has everything else on twatter except Tony Abbott attack.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2017)

Creating a climate of fear not a good way to win. This will be a phiric victory.


----------



## PZ99 (22 September 2017)

It tends to back up what I said some time ago - everyone complains about the debating skills in parliament but on the street it's demonstrability worse. And that goes for the Alan Joyce pie in face case too.


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

For who?



> This will be a phiric victory




In my own little survey I've now asked 47 people
14 yes!!!


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> For who?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A phirric victory for the yes campaign. they may win but they will have caused immense damage to Australians goodwill towards gay marriage.
I've gone from yes, to not putting my vote in.


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

What's the point of that!

if you've decided to not vote YES.
Your back at the status quo.
To remain at that you need to vote no.
If enough people do as you do yes will be very
happy---its as good as a yes--its one less NO.

20000 Yes---20000 Don't want to vote yes
15000 No
Yes gets it!!! So what your not prepared to
support your prepared to allow???
Why didn't you support it?


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> For who?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One of my guys was telling me yesterday how his wife asked on Sunday if she should vote YES. He said that's her choice, but he'd be voting NO wherein she protested that at the party the previous night he had agreed with SSM. Of course he agreed, he didn't want to get into an argument with the loud mouths talking on behalf of everyone else.

Similar thing happended down the pub on Sunday night, where the pretty girl procalimed love was all that mattered and viv SSM. All the blokes agreed quite enthusiastically, until she left and one wag uttered "I think that went pretty well" and we all laughed.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Of course he agreed, he didn't want to get into an argument with the loud mouths talking on behalf of everyone else.
> 
> .




I assumed that is what happened in Tech/a's "little survey", if people already know your views, and they are employees or staff or people that don't want a discussion, they will probably just lie to you.


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I assumed that is what happened in Tech A's "little survey", if people already know your views, and they are employees or staff or people that don't want a discussion, they will probably just lie to you.




Well yes, it was intended as a parable fo all.


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

No 24 were staff
The rest are clients suppliers
Friends.
I do disclose my position after they give me an answer.
I'm surprised by how many women are No voters.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I assumed that is what happened in Tech/a's "little survey", if people already know your views, and they are employees or staff or people that don't want a discussion, they will probably just lie to you.




I think there are a lot more "faking" Yes than No to avoid being called homophobic, just like the Brexit vote they didn't want to appear to be standing in the way of progress but are actually conservatives at heart.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> No 24 were staff
> The rest are clients suppliers
> Friends.
> I do disclose my position after they give me an answer.
> I'm surprised by how many women are No voters.




So the majority were in a position where they might not want to offend you, and may want to go with the flow? e.g. staff or had some business relationship.

were their answers given in private? or was a group discussion, where answers might have been swayed by not wanting to go against the group?


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I think there are a lot more "faking" Yes than No to avoid being called homophobic, just like the Brexit vote they didn't want to appear to be standing in the way of progress but are actually conservatives at heart.



we will see I guess.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> I'm surprised by how many women are No voters.




You might also be surprised to know that a lot of people will do or say things to avoid any hint of interpersonal conflict.  5 minutes later, someone wearing a rainbow scarf is asking them the same question and they find themselves saying 'yes'.  What's worse, they will then backwards rationalize some ridiculous reason for the change in mind.  The avoidance of disapproval drives almost all human behaviour (invisibly).


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

Staff were around a BBQ with lots of discussion!
The rest were Phone or one on one.
I don't think anyone cares if they offend me.
They aren't surprised at my no vote.
Although my P/A who is a real girly girl and a tree
hugger couldn't fathom ANYONE saying no.

Personally I think its more polarized than we think.

GB
I agree there are a lot of spineless people existing out there.
Going with the flow of (In their mind) least resistance.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> They aren't surprised at my no vote.
> .





Thats my point, if they already feel like you are a No, they may be just saying they also think No, for some other reason, e.g. you employ them, they don't want an argument, they don't want to go against the group etc etc


----------



## overhang (22 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> ABC has everything else on twatter except Tony Abbott attack.



The ABC are giving the attack a lot of airtime yet I heard nothing from them when Kevin Rudds godson was punched in the face by a no voter, heard nothing about AFL headquarters having to evacuate their officers after receiving threats less than 24 hours after installing a Yes logo.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

Human's have a tendency to conform to group think, thats why I don't think your chat around the BBQ was a valid assessment, check out this short video experiment, and it doesn't have to be just "going with the group" it also happens via "going with the dominant person in the group".

You may be surrounded by yes men tech.


----------



## grah33 (22 September 2017)

Marriage is a religious thing by nature. Don't know why certain groups want to hijack the idea.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Marriage is a religious thing.




Nope, it predates pretty much any religion you can think of, and is across pretty much all cultures.

I think you will find it was religions that hijacked marriage, marriage is an important Human thing, that religions hijack to try and control the humans.


----------



## grah33 (22 September 2017)

not so.  J C was the one to firmly establish the idea - one man, one woman only. which revolutionized the world. and that is the marriage which aus has been built on


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> not so.  J C was the one to firmly establish the idea - one man, one woman only. which revolutionized the world. and that is the marriage which aus has been built on




two points,

Marriage existed before "JC", hence why there is marriage in the bible part 1, when the "JC" character didn't enter until part 2.

Secondly, "Religious marriage" isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about legal recognition under Australian Law, you can do what ever silly religious marriage you want, and it doesn't mean anything legally until the government recognises it.

There is no difference between having a priest do the service or an Elvis impersonator, So yeah, its not about religion at all.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> A phirric victory for the yes campaign. they may win but they will have caused immense damage to Australians goodwill towards gay marriage.
> I've gone from yes, to not putting my vote in.



Knobby, you must act in accordance with your own conscience!

Who do I feel most sorry for? It's the genuine LBTQIA community out there - I little doubt that they are respected in their local communities.  But their quest for acceptance is actively being undermined by a few inner-city based thuggish idiots.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

overhang said:


> The ABC are giving the attack a lot of airtime yet I heard nothing from them when Kevin Rudds godson was punched in the face by a no voter, heard nothing about AFL headquarters having to evacuate their officers after *receiving threats less than 24 hours after installing a Yes logo.*



Because they took the 'Yes' logo down


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Although my P/A who is a real girly girl and a tree
> hugger couldn't fathom ANYONE saying no




You had better sack her.

We can't have these heterophobes infiltrating can we ?


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

Wont be doing that

Her wife would haunt me!


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Human's have a tendency to conform to group think, thats why I don't think your chat around the BBQ was a valid assessment, check out this short video experiment, and it doesn't have to be just "going with the group" it also happens via "going with the dominant person in the group".
> 
> You may be surrounded by yes men tech.





Hope so I pay a lot for Yes's
But most are No men!


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> two points,
> 
> Marriage existed before "JC", hence why there is marriage in the bible part 1, when the "JC" character didn't enter until part 2.
> 
> ...




So the Gay community wont be marrying in churches then.
If so why not just have a commitment ceremony?


----------



## tech/a (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Because they took the 'Yes' logo down




Sam was right!

Should have kept out of it!!


----------



## overhang (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Because they took the 'Yes' logo down



Possible but unlikely given it wasn't exactly news that it was changed back.  More likely one of the many angry individuals from the no camp has called the threat in.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

overhang said:


> Possible but unlikely given it wasn't exactly news that it was changed back.  More likely one of the many angry individuals from the no camp has called the threat in.



Nice try. But no, the more likely cause is the observed pattern of left-wing thuggery from the 'Yes' [or else] campaign.

The term 'angry' defines these people. They have no respect for the democratic process.


----------



## Junior (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> So the Gay community wont be marrying in churches then.
> If so why not just have a commitment ceremony?




I grew up and reside in inner suburban Melbourne.  I'm mid-30s, most of my friends have been married in the past 6-7 years (maybe 20 weddings which I attended), more than 90% were not in a church and had no religion involved at all.  Most of these people were from Anglican background & attended Anglican private schools, and had no interest in being married by a priest in a church.  Some were of Jewish or Catholic background, again, no church for >90%.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> So the Gay community wont be marrying in churches then.




Its up to them, whether they choose a minister in church, an Elvis impersonator or some other wedding type at the park or the beach, but none of them will be legal without the government paper work being filed.



> If so why not just have a commitment ceremony?




Why do religious people file paper work with the government, why isn't their religious wedding enough? Why no just be happy with the church service?

The truth of the matter is even the religious people still want their marriage recognised by the government, and probably wouldn't actually feel married without the government recognition, so its not a religious thing.


----------



## overhang (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Nice try. But no, the more likely cause is the observed pattern of left-wing thuggery from the 'Yes' [or else] campaign.
> 
> The term 'angry' defines these people. They have no respect for the democratic process.




There was no outrage by the yes side when the AFL took the yes sign down, but we saw countless levels of anger from the no side when the sign went up.  This is quite a ridiculous notion to suggest the yes side were behind the threats.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

overhang said:


> There was no outrage by the yes side when the AFL took the yes sign down, but we saw countless levels of anger from the no side when the sign went up.  This is quite a ridiculous notion to suggest the yes side were behind the threats.



Has the 'No' side sacked anyone. Has the 'No' side head-butted anyone? Has the 'No' side intimidated anyone at a public rally?

The 'Yes' side activists are behind the attempted intimidation, and more. To the detriment of the genuine LGBTIA community.. Who the ringleaders are just using. 

Gays & lesbians - you're just dates for the Prom.


----------



## Junior (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Has the 'No' side sacked anyone. Has the 'No' side head-butted anyone? Has the 'No' side intimidated anyone at a public rally?
> 
> The 'Yes' side activists are behind the attempted intimidation, and more. To the detriment of the genuine LGBTIA community.. Who the ringleaders are just using.
> 
> Gays & lesbians - you're just dates for the Prom.




The country is divided in two on this issue.  There is violence and anti-social behaviour on both sides of the debate.  It is ridiculous to say 'a NO voter wouldn't do that'.  You are vouching for somewhere around half the population of the country.



> A FAR right group, one of the chief organisers of the Cronulla riots anniversary events, has a new target — people voting yes for same-sex marriage.
> 
> The Party for Freedom will hold a ‘Straight Lives Matter’ protest on Saturday in Sydney to campaign for “white heteronormativity”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

No Junior,
I'm telling it like it is. The violent and anti-social behaviour and intimidation - is coming from one side only, the 'Yes' campaign thugs.

Vote for same sex marriage - or else! That's their idea of democracy!


----------



## overhang (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Has the 'No' side sacked anyone. Has the 'No' side head-butted anyone? Has the 'No' side intimidated anyone at a public rally?
> The 'Yes' side activists are behind the attempted intimidation, and more. To the detriment of the genuine LGBTIA community - who the ringleaders are just using.
> 
> Gays & Lesbians - you're just dates for the Prom.






> A Victorian church refused to marry a young couple and cancelled their wedding plans because the bride-to-be expressed support for same-sex marriage on Facebook.



Of course churches get a free pass to discriminate so this all above board.....



> Former prime minister Kevin Rudd's godson has allegedly been attacked and verbally abused after attempting to stop a man removing banners supporting the "yes" vote in the same-sex marriage survey.




Stop trying to take the moral high ground, there are shitty humans on both sides of the spectrum.


----------



## Value Collector (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Has the 'No' side sacked anyone. Has the 'No' side head-butted anyone? Has the 'No' side intimidated anyone at a public rally?




Well yes I think so, because gays and lesbians have faced sackings, violence, rejection and all sorts of things for years, and they still happen, Now I don't think the people who have done this have all of a sudden decided to be part of the Yes camp, they would be No voters.

Of course its not all no voters that do it, but neither is it all yes voters, as overhang said, shitty people on both sides.

I am ignoring that, and focusing on the question. Its not right for me to deny gays the right to marriage.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

Overhang,
you supply no links to your spurious claims, no surprise.  At least the grub who head-butted Tony Abbott has been taken into custody. Head-butting people, that's the way to win an argument. Let's see you refute this Underhang







> Man charged over Tony Abbott 'headbutt'
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ver-tony-abbott-headbutt-20170922-gymv7l.html  - 22 Sept 2017:  SMH:  Michael Koziol
> Police have charged a 38-year-old man from North Hobart over the alleged headbutt attack on former prime minister Tony Abbott on Thursday....


----------



## Junior (22 September 2017)

No one here is defending the headbutt guy.  Simpy pointing out there are f*ckwits voting yes and f*ckwits voting no too.  They are in the small minority of voters.


----------



## overhang (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Overhang,
> you supply no links to your spurious claims, no surprise.  At least the grub who head-butted Tony Abbott has been taken into custody. Head-butting people, that's the way to win an argument. Let's see you refute this Underhang



Here are your links
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html

My intention isn't to refute the story or defended the thugs actions but just to point out that your No side doesn't have clean hands in this debate either.  A bit more respect by both sides would go a long way.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

Duly noted Overhang and Junior. 
Like most in here, I know plenty of gays & lesbians, and I would _never_ want them to feel second-best. As I'm sure many of the the LGBTIA community do feel, sadly. 

I say this only to the SSM lobby, don't let yourselves be infiltrated by left-wing opportunists, whose agenda is wider than yours.


----------



## Belli (22 September 2017)

My annoyance is with the whole process.  Parliament overall has abnegated responsibility.  It's there to govern and pass legislation for the public good but, nup, a rubbish survey will suffice.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Duly noted Overhang and Junior.
> Like most in here, I know plenty of gays & lesbians, and I would _never_ want them to feel second-best. As I'm sure many of the the LGBTIA community do feel, sadly.
> 
> I say this only to the SSM lobby, don't let yourselves be infiltrated by left-wing opportunists, whose agenda is wider than yours.



Ding ding.

That's the problem,  and why my intrinsic yes is a no... the wider agenda. 

If people were actually aware of it this would go down in a landslide.

Like you mate, it grieves me that real people are affected.


----------



## Junior (22 September 2017)

Well......the headbutt guy has spoken.  Nothing to do with SSM he says:



> "It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It's just about Tony Abbott – the f---ing worm that he is," Mr Labe told the _Hobart Mercury_.
> 
> "All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I'd had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the c---."


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

You can do better than that Junior.

Stand up for Australian freedoms.


----------



## Macquack (22 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Even good members on this forum have resorted to *verbal abuse*.



Get off you soap box, and go back and have a read of some of your own posts. It may take you some time.


----------



## Junior (22 September 2017)

Logique said:


> You can do better than that Junior.




Huh?  I haven't done anything.  I copied and pasted from a news article.



> This was nothing to do with the Yes campaign, I'm not a campaigner, I'm a lone anarchist that felt the need to headbutt Tony Abbott because I didn't think it was an opportunity I'd get again.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2017)

Junior, 
what you have once again done, is publish unattributed quotes


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2017)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-22/astro-labe-charged-over-alleged-assault-of-tony-abbott/8975454


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 September 2017)

So d'head funknukl (name tells a lot) was upset at Mr. Rabbit because of his NO to homosexual marriage stance. Now d'head funknukl wants to distance the incident from SSM debate. D'head funknukl should be incarcerated and bullied by some young tough inmates. Gutless prick.


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> So d'head funknukl (name tells a lot) was upset at Mr. Rabbit because of his NO to homosexual marriage stance. Now d'head funknukl wants to distance the incident from SSM debate. D'head funknukl should be incarcerated and bullied by some young tough inmates. Gutless prick.



That might give hate-fornication, a greater depth of meaning! One can but hope!


----------



## satanoperca (22 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> D'head funknukl should be incarcerated and bullied by some young tough inmates. Gutless prick.




And how is your stance any different to d'head funknukl. 
*
You are still advocating violence.*


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Get off you soap box, and go back and have a read of some of your own posts. It may take you some time.




Obviously I wasn't referring to you.

Nonsense hater stuff.  You can crawl back into you hole now and learn how to read and tell the truth, if you have mental capacity .


----------



## Tisme (22 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> So d'head funknukl (name tells a lot) was upset at Mr. Rabbit because of his NO to homosexual marriage stance. Now d'head funknukl wants to distance the incident from SSM debate. D'head funknukl should be incarcerated and bullied by some young tough inmates. Gutless prick.




Surely assaulting an ex PM carries 10 years minimum?  Gutless is too good for him


----------



## satanoperca (22 September 2017)

just another hero at you.

Like all States and Territories, Tasmania has a number of offences for dealing with indecent assault and sexual assault. For example, assaulting someone with indecent intent is a summary offence, with a possible maximum penalty of *50 penalty units* (ie $7,000) or *2 years imprisonment*.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> And how is your stance any different to d'head funknukl.
> *
> You are still advocating violence.*



Not at all. It is puishment for that one individual.  Terrorising an old man = gutless prick.


----------



## grah33 (22 September 2017)

Wayne (if you're still here), you've got some strong views... Where do you think (assuming SSM goes through) this is all headed?


----------



## Macquack (22 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Obviously I wasn't referring to you.
> 
> Nonsense hater stuff.  You can crawl back into you hole now and learn how to read and tell the truth, if you have mental capacity .



Obviously the NO side have NO bullies.


----------



## basilio (22 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Surely assaulting an ex PM carries 10 years minimum?  Gutless is too good for him




_Surely Life without Parole and Hard Labour would be a bare minimum for disturbing the lip of our Beloved Abbott. Really Tizze have you gone *SOFT* in your dotage ?_
_Can't have the riff raff behaving like common hoons can we ?_


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

basilio said:


> _Surely Life without Parole and Hard Labour would be a bare minimum for disturbing the lip of our Beloved Abbott. Really Tizze have you gone *SOFT* in your dotage ?_
> _Can't have the riff raff behaving like common hoons can we ?_





Nah I'll never get soft bas, but the problem here is that ex PMs, especially, are known to handpump even morons when asked. That he didn't throw up at the sight of said (obviously a two bricks short of a Kelso self mutilating gay) moron is amazing in itself, but I suspect if he didn't have the boxing reflex it would have been whole different story. 

As much as I detest Tony for what he did to the convention of governance, I cannot abide vulnerable civic leaders being physically abused. I would feel the same if it happened to you regardless that you may have a passionate opinion for something disagreeable to me.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> Obviously the NO side have NO bullies.




Not in your league they don't, on this forum. I must admit I did think you were a better man than to go all gutter ghetto and personal.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

SSM brigade invading my privacy by SMS texting relentlessly. I might have to send them a payload worm in return


----------



## SirRumpole (23 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> SSM brigade invading my privacy by SMS texting relentlessly. I might have to send them a payload worm in return




How did they get your number ?


----------



## pixel (23 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> How did they get your number ?



They SMS to a range of 04 numbers. If they get an "undeliverable" back, they scratch it off their list. All the others, they keep ... and may even sell the list of negatives to call centres to recoup their expenses.

I also received the SMS. Replied that I had already voted. No more SMS since.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> How did they get your number ?




Not sure. Do you reckon "1902babes"  might have sold my details?


----------



## Junior (23 September 2017)

I just received the text.  I don't like that at all.  

Are there really people out there who will Vote Yes because an unsolicited text message told them so?  There are plenty of people voting No because they are fed up with being told to vote Yes.  Very poor form by Equality Campaign.


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2017)

Junior said:


> I just received the text.  I don't like that at all.
> 
> Are there really people out there who will Vote Yes because an unsolicited text message told them so?  There are plenty of people voting No because they are fed up with being told to vote Yes.  Very poor form by Equality Campaign.





Be interesting to see what corporations are spending shareholder monies on the cost of the calls.


----------



## stevo2 (23 September 2017)

I want the word married to indicate a heterosexual union. If the homosexual / lesbian community want a legal union don’t call it marriage, that word is already taken.
The word "gay" has already been hijacked, they might try to come up with something original.


----------



## PZ99 (23 September 2017)

When I get my SMS I'll reply that I've been having the "same-sex" with my GF for decades


----------



## pixel (24 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Not sure. Do you reckon "1902babes"  might have sold my details?



If you're a big spender on their merchandise, they may keep your number to themselves. But if you're a spendthrift or lousy tipper, they'll get their money's worth out of you by selling your number to a bunch of call centres.

Seriously: regardless whether you use an iPhone or Android, your Master (Apple or Google) will know your phone number. They also know more about you, your opinions and interests than you think possible under your personal concept of "Privacy". Their concept of privacy is vastly different from yours.


----------



## Logique (24 September 2017)

Vote Yes - or else


> *Jackboots in Rainbow Hues*
> John Rigo - 23 September 2017, Quadrant Online: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/jackboots-rainbow-hues/
> I fled communist tyranny to breathe and speak freely, to live without the fear and obligatory debasement of paying lip service to evil. Don't think me dramatic when I say the the Left in general and same-sex marriage bullies in particular have inspired a deeply unsettling sense of deja vu ...


----------



## Tink (24 September 2017)

The jackboots are door knocking as well as sending texts.

We have already voted NO.


----------



## Junior (24 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Vote Yes - or else




We're talking about weddings here, it's not the end of civilisation as we know it.


----------



## tech/a (24 September 2017)

It is according to the Yes camp!


----------



## Betavegeta (24 September 2017)

I feel like if this is going to be approved there should be an approval rating of least 80%. It's not right to pass a law if a large portion of ppl are still against it.


----------



## stevo2 (24 September 2017)

The only people who should be eligible to vote are those who are already married. The vote is about letting others into "our" club


----------



## Junior (24 September 2017)

Perhaps we should also exclude those who have been divorced, married more than once, committed adultery (only applies to women), or had children outside of marriage?  

They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2017)

*Marriage - A Question of Tradition.
*
How traditional should we make out Marriage Act ?  For instance should we :

1) Allow children of primary school age to be maried ?  (12 years of age) 
2) Forbid marriage between aborigines and white people ?
3) Proclaim that since husbands and wives are married it is legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife?

Can you remember when these  regulations were part  of the Australian Marriage Act ?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/en...ion-we-need-to-recapture-20170922-gymw5y.html


----------



## cynic (24 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> SSM brigade invading my privacy by SMS texting relentlessly. I might have to send them a payload worm in return



Yesterday, shortly after drifting off to sleep, I was awoken by a chime from my mobile phone.
Thinking it must have been a text about something important, I roused myself from my much needed slumber, to read this latest text telling me to "vote YES for a fairer Australia".

I resisted the temptation to reply to those YES-morons with the suggestion that, if they truly believed me to lack the capacity for independent thought, then they could all go and hate FTSE themselves.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Yesterday, shortly after drifting off to sleep, I was awoken by a chime from my mobile phone.
> Thinking it must have been a text about something important, I roused myself from my much needed slumber, to read this latest text telling me to "vote YES for a fairer Australia".
> 
> I resisted the temptation to reply to those YES-morons with the suggestion that, if they truly believed me to lack the capacity for independent thought, then they could all go and hate FTSE themselves.




Your thoughts are echoed by others.

Being bothered by unsolicited advertising is a sure way of turning people off.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/yes-campaign-thousands-receive-same-sex-marriage-texts/8979030


----------



## Triathlete (24 September 2017)

Another poll favouring the "No" campaign.
The poll shows 18% had changed their vote to No...maybe people are starting to wake up or are fed up with it all....
I guess that is why we are getting bombarded with the SMS text messages....www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/polls/62


----------



## Junior (24 September 2017)

The 'yes campaign' has the support of leaders of both major parties, and a host of large companies, and even some religious groups & churches.  Why f*ck it up with unsolicited text messages and door-knocking??  

This postal survey already has widespread media coverage, there is no need to go further to 'educate' or 'create awareness'.  Everyone is aware already!


----------



## grah33 (24 September 2017)

Junior said:


> Perhaps we should also exclude those who have been divorced, married more than once, committed adultery (only applies to women), or had children outside of marriage?
> 
> They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.





You're hinting at a deeper underlying problem – society doesn't really believe in marriage anymore (hence the massive divorce rates). And yes, it causes problems, especially for children. Gay marriage will just lead to even more problems. It's a progression in non-belief in the marriage idea.

Look at other nations out there. Some are polygamous. Some people might say that they don't actually believe in marriage either, since many here might think that that kind of marriage isn't a real or valid marriage. Many also say that they aren't good countries to live in.  Perhaps though, if their marriage beliefs were the same as our marriage (at least before the massive divorce figures started happening), they might actually be rivaling the world in terms of living conditions and economic activity. The values a society believes in are reflected in the law.

(note: as i said b4, i don't always express properly what i really mean.  that applies to every single post i've written)


----------



## pixel (24 September 2017)

Now isn't that interesting: John Howard, sly old fox, pulled another swifty. How did he get away with it? Was the Opposition asleep?  


> The "no" case against same-sex marriage hopes that Australia will be captured by its ahistoric amnesia, frightened into a timid stasis under the impression that today's arrangements are somehow a sacred artifact preserved unchanged from "time immemorial", as Abbott put it.
> 
> In fact, John Howard's 2004 decision to legislate marriage as between only a man and a woman is a politician's trick to hoodwink history. The people plumping for the status-quo don't want Australia to be reassured by its proud progressive tradition. John Keane, a professor of politics at Sydney University, observes that "tradition is not just for conservatives".


----------



## pixel (24 September 2017)

Junior said:


> They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.



Just check your facts! Wikipedia will tell you this:
It's only been in 2004 that the law has been changed to specify a man and a woman.
Until the enactment of the _Marriage Amendment Act 2004_, there was no definition in the Act of "marriage". However, the _Family Law Act 1975_ treats de facto relationships, including same-sex relationships, and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2017)

pixel said:


> Just check your facts! Wikipedia will tell you this:
> It's only been in 2004 that the law has been changed to specify a man and a woman.
> Until the enactment of the _Marriage Amendment Act 2004_, there was no definition in the Act of "marriage". However, the _Family Law Act 1975_ treats de facto relationships, including same-sex relationships, and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup.




So why did we not have a plethora of same sex marriages before Howard changed the Act ?

Seems to me that the SSM push is basically just "the politics of envy" rather than a real desire to actually tie the knot.
.


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> S...
> 
> Seems to me that the SSM push is basically just "the politics of envy" rather than a real desire to actually tie the knot.
> .




It's spite and payback because they feel deprived ,,,,,, a double whammy because they are already missing out on true sex and true love, replacing it with rapacious lust for sexual self gratification. 

The very nature of gay is multiple sexual encounters with many partners, even when they are supposedly monogomous. This is an undeniable fact they they will confess to when out of earshot of the do gooder supporters.


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2017)

My prediction: as the old fellas lose all their testestorone and the estrogen based meds kick in, they will be targetted in their retirement and aged care homes by gayboys for sexual favours, be convinced to marriage for continued company and have all their residual wealth at death stripped from their progeny.... one can only hope those men are the paternal family heads of people who voted YES.


----------



## Logique (24 September 2017)

Betavegeta said:


> I feel like if this is going to be approved there should be an approval rating of least 80%. It's not right to pass a law if a large portion of ppl are still against it.



I agree it should be a strong majority.  For example, 55%-45% would ensure it remained a divisive issue, as would this thread's current 58%-42%.

Don't know about 80%, but a good solid 70-75% majority would be reasonable I think


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2017)

Junior said:


> The 'yes campaign' has the support of leaders of both major parties, and a host of large companies, and even some religious groups & churches.  Why f*ck it up with unsolicited text messages and door-knocking??



Because nobody trusts them anymore, the unanimity of the establishment creates suspicion.

But the brownshirts aren't helping either.

I think this may actually go down


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

Mark Latham:



> Rainbow Labor stopped me speaking at Smithfield RSL on March 31. Now rest of Aust is witnessing the Gay-Left Militancy I saw first-hand.


----------



## Logique (25 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Because nobody trusts them anymore, the unanimity of the establishment creates suspicion.
> But the brownshirts aren't helping either.
> I think this may actually go down



Merkel only got 33% of the vote in Germany. In NZ, New Zealand First will be the government-maker.
This isn't over by a long chalk.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

Logique said:


> Merkel only got 33% of the vote in Germany. In NZ, New Zealand First will be the government-maker.
> This isn't over by a long chalk.





We are being herded into a worldwide course of history. It's natural to have a gut instinct that things aren't quite right, even with patent political distractions and arguments like SSM designed to draft us into sheep pens for sorting.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2017)

Dealing with a gay son in an Australian Lebanese family.

* How time and the same-sex marriage survey helped settle my family's feud *
Antoun Issa
It’s been 15 years since I came out and was almost disowned by my parents. But last week they showed they still have the capacity to surprise me




‘Even my grandmother ... extended her embrace. “Is there any way you can change?” she once asked me in Arabic. “ This is how God made me,” I replied.’ Photograph: Jonny Weeks for the Guardian

*Shares*
9
 
* Comments*
 12 
Contact author

 
@antissa

Monday 25 September 2017 02.30 BST   Last modified on Monday 25 September 2017 02.49 BST

Mum sat me down for “the talk.” Her 17-year-old son was taking his teenage rage a tad too far – frequent late nights, sometimes disappearing for whole weekends, and this time, rolling into the home with a hickey on his neck.

“I know you’re at the age where you’re starting to have sex. I had the same conversation with your brother at his age. I just want to make sure you’re using protection,” she calmly advised. I suspected this was her attempt to obtain the truth of my activities, and orientation, and responded in kind. “What if I told you I like boys instead of girls?” Her face froze and almost lengthened in anguish. “What?” she replied in the faintest of voices, hoping what I said was a mistake of her hearing. I repeated my question, slowly so there was no disputing the fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...marriage-survey-helped-settle-my-familys-feud


----------



## grah33 (25 September 2017)

basilio said:


> It’s been 15 years since I came out and was almost disowned by my parents. But last week they showed they still have the capacity to ‘Even my grandmother ... extended her embrace. “Is there any way you can change?” she once asked me in Arabic. “ This is how God made me,” I replied.’ Photograph: Jonny Weeks for the Guardian



You know Basilo, 'love' is a really silly thing. A woman might have a great husband, and a couple of kids (no major problems yet), but for 'love' (another man in this case) she leaves them all behind. Not smart imo. Or some girl feels strongly for another girl, and comes to the conclusion she has to be with them.  If I had such a child, I would tell them to not be troubled by it at all, and ignore it.  Our actions (not emotions) are only important


----------



## Value Collector (25 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Or some girl feels strongly for another girl, and comes to the conclusion she has to be with them.  If I had such a child, I would tell them to not be troubled by it at all, and ignore it.  Our actions (not emotions) are only important




This is an example of why teaching LGBT issues in school is needed, a large amount of parents just don't understand the issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> This is an example of why teaching LGBT issues in school is needed, a large amount of parents just don't understand the issue.




This could be done by sending a couple of pamphlets home with the kids, there doesn't need to be a whole course done at school that the parents don't know about.


----------



## grah33 (25 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> This is an example of why teaching LGBT issues in school is needed, a large amount of parents just don't understand the issue.



i only wrote 2 lines, but i  get it don't I? What part am i not understanding?


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Dealing with a gay son in an Australian Lebanese family.
> 
> * How time and the same-sex marriage survey helped settle my family's feud *
> Antoun Issa
> ...




So what's the moral of that story? That it took 15 years to give up all hope and forgive him?


----------



## grah33 (25 September 2017)

interesting that 'nero' is mentioned as one of many gay examples in some pro gay marriage articles...they're trying to normalize it with Nero.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 September 2017)

Had a brief discussion with a work mate and they admitted voting yes. Their reason was "any tax paying citizen should have the right to marry". I stood by my no vote logic that marriage is between a man and a woman. They walked away disappointed.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Had a brief discussion with a work mate and they admitted voting yes. Their reason was "any tax paying citizen should have the right to marry". I stood by my no vote logic that marriage is between a man and a woman. They walked away disappointed.




I'm guessing your mate wasn't thinking about juvenile shop assistants, social welfare recipients, and pensioners?


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> interesting that 'nero' is mentioned as one of many gay examples in some pro gay marriage articles...they're trying to normalize it with Nero.




and other primitives, like the Hellenistic elite imbred Greeks.   oh and 19th century blacks in the deep south of the USA for some reason.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing your mate wasn't thinking about juvenile shop assistants, social welfare recipients, and pensioners?



No and they also mentioned the high divorce rate with [traditional] marriages.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> No and they also mentioned the high divorce rate with [traditional] marriages.





Did he know what the divorce rate really is =  0.2% ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Did he know what the divorce rate really is =  0.2% ?



2015 ABS stats. 2 in 1000?


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2015 ABS stats. 2 in 1000?





Yep...always rely on facts rather than fiction I say


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> You know Basilo, 'love' is a really silly thing. A woman might have a great husband, and a couple of kids (no major problems yet), but for 'love' (another man in this case) she leaves them all behind. Not smart imo. Or some girl feels strongly for another girl, and comes to the conclusion she has to be with them.  If I had such a child, I would tell them to not be troubled by it at all, and ignore it.  Our actions (not emotions) are only important




Not the same though.

I'm sure a gay person could just leave the kids and his/her husband/wife just the same if they're that type of people. 

So if your daughter love another woman... telling her to ignore the love for a woman but find a man to love instead... that's not the same. A similar advise would be, don't love that woman because she's a real nasty piece of work, you'll find a more deserving woman to love etc. etc.


----------



## tech/a (26 September 2017)

Heavens
Have you noticed the closing vote in the 
Poll above?


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

Latest Newspoll reflects similar trends.

I think the next one will be more telling after these SMS's






_
_


----------



## Tink (26 September 2017)

As has been mentioned on here before, there is no 'right' to marry.
So polygamy, incest etc, all have a right to marry?

The 'free love' .
Love is love.
---------------------------------------

The law is as is for a reason.

Marriage is
one man and one woman
Not blood related.
And not a child.

It is about a mother and father raising their children.
It is about taking responsibility for your children.

A 'mother and a father and their children' is not equal to 'two men/two women'.

They are pushing to change the marriage act to 'genderless/transgender' marriage, where mother and father do not exist.

This is my view

----------------------------------

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Heavens
> Have you noticed the closing vote in the
> Poll above?




Only 15% of ballots have been posted back, so there doesn't seem to be the imperative for SSM as they would have had us believe.  

For me I don't think we should have been put in this position in the first place. SSM should never have been entertained and it is shameful our parliament should bow to social vandals and lobbyists for populist cheap vote catching.

I still stand by my belief that Govts have no right to legislate people's rights to, interfere with and to reward "love" or lust;  *it is a shallow, superficial basis for marriage*. They have no right to relegate children and consign them to a deliberate second rate misfit life of gender imbalance role modelling, vilification, grooming and guilt.

I also believe the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who are/were married and they should decide if they want to gift away their privilege and replace it with a circus farce parody that denies the evolutionary physical and emotional needs truths  for male/female unions now and going forward.


----------



## Junior (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yep...always rely on facts rather than fiction I say




That is 2 divorces per 1,000 resident population in that particular year.

Or you could use a relevant statistic:  



> The probability that a marriage will end in divorce has been increasing over time. Based on the nuptiality tables, around 28% of marriages entered into in 1985–1987 could be expected to end in divorce. This proportion increased to 33% for all marriages entered into in 2000–2002.
> 
> For divorced men, the average time that could be expected to be spent divorced increased from 11 years for those divorcing in 1985–1987 to 17 years for those divorcing in 2000–2002, while for women divorcing in each period, the average time spent divorced increased from 18 years to 24 years. Several factors are expected to have contributed to this increase including increasing life expectancy, not entering into a formal remarriage and/or the tendency to live alone following divorce.




http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/26D94B4C9A4769E6CA25732C00207644?opendocument#DIVORCE


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

I've always believed every adult should be allowed to vote for change regardless of the topic


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

Junior said:


> That is 2 divorces per 1,000 resident population in that particular year.
> 
> Or you could use a relevant statistic:
> 
> ...




No I just use the ABS unadulterated data.

If the argument is going to be ubiquitous, universal rights then the same statistical boundaries must apply. 

It would be interesting to see how many of those "marriages" are actually defacto.


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I've always believed every adult should be allowed to vote for change regardless of the topic





Define adult. And do you think we should have the right to legislate for love?


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Define adult. And do you think we should have the right to legislate for love?



Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.

And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then


----------



## Tink (26 September 2017)

But the Stalinists tried to stop us voting.

And you were all for the public being silenced.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

What Stalinists? You mean the Howard Govt when they changed the marriage act, changed the IR laws and sold off our T3 public asset without taking it to the people? Those Stalinists?


----------



## Junior (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> No I just use the ABS unadulterated data.
> 
> If the argument is going to be ubiquitous, universal rights then the same statistical boundaries must apply.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how many of those "marriages" are actually defacto.




That is ABS data.  De facto arrangement can't end in divorce.


----------



## Tink (26 September 2017)

The Marriage Act was stated by common law, as I have said already.

Our foundations are Christian.
Just like our public holidays that reflect this nation that the Greens despise.
Our Western Culture.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stalinism


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

The Marriage act was altered by the Conservative Govt of yester-century to pay lip service to paranoia from their mostly Catholic self-appointed masters-of-the-universe support base. It's where the majority of their funding comes from hence the *dictation* of their social agenda culminating into some of the most evil policies ever seen in this land - and out of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Conservatism


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> This could be done by sending a couple of pamphlets home with the kids, there doesn't need to be a whole course done at school that the parents don't know about.




Yes, because a couple of pamphlets will suddenly make Tink, Tisme or Graph capable of providing their child with an appropriate level of understanding of LGBT issues. <this post contains sarcasm>

people with those sort of views can mess up their kids if it turns out their kids are LGBT, and no doubt even though their kids are probably straight, they can raise them with issues that will cause them to not treat their children well should they be LGBT.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.
> 
> And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then




That is a very subjective opinion. 

My objective opinion is that we have become substantively less civilised.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> That is a very subjective opinion.
> 
> My objective opinion is that we have become substantively less civilised.



An objective opinion is one free of emotive sensationalism.

Show me posts in this thread that illustrate left wing PC paranoia, the elitist righties' hyperbole of communism, the alleged destruction of our culture, the rage against atheists, the scare of mutant kids and the removal of our freedoms and I'll show you a subjective opinion.

And I say bring them on because liberating the above sensationalism is inviting a challenge.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> An objective opinion is one free of emotive sensationalism.
> 
> Show me posts in this thread that illustrate left wing PC paranoia, the elitist righties' hyperbole of communism, the alleged destruction of our culture, the rage against atheists, the scare of mutant kids and the removal of our freedoms and I'll show you a subjective opinion.
> 
> And I say bring them on because liberating the above sensationalism is inviting a challenge.



There is much objectivity in those subjective opinions however. 

Cultural Marxism by its very nature is entirely subjective though... like 21 freakin genders? 

Holy ****, genetic aberrations not withstanding, a human either has balls or not.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> There is much objectivity in those subjective opinions however.
> 
> Cultural Marxism by its very nature is entirely subjective though... like 21 freakin genders?
> 
> Holy ****, genetic aberrations not withstanding, a human either has balls or not.



The anachronisms in the marriage act aren't confined to who has balls or not. They also create inheritance problems for you and your partner unless you plan to go through some very messy legislation and expensive legal proceedings. As much as people like to deny it, civil unions and marriage are still two very different things hence the debate.
There's more to SSM than just four stars and Wham-Bam-Thankyou-Man.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/gay-couple-want-right-to-marry-before-they-die/6703756

Cultural Marxism? Too much paranoia from the conspiracy theorists for my liking Wayne. And people who aren't awake fall for it hook, line and sinker. Just look at the BUMSEX barcode thing. Someone claimed they received it but later on I proved on here it was a fake. What made it funny was the ABS sheep got conned into apologising for a algorithmic error that didn't even happen.

People should try independent thinking.... it's free!


----------



## grah33 (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Not the same though.
> 
> I'm sure a gay person could just leave the kids and his/her husband/wife just the same if they're that type of people.
> 
> .





Yes , it's the same. Sure, different types of love, but in all cases they're just silly. Think of a 20 year old woman that falls for an 80 year old man...(the other way around as well). Or the girl who has a crush on another woman  (just silly love).  Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings. Some people just don't marry, they can't for whatever reason (e.g. sick people).  it doesn't have to be the end of the world.  And it really shouldn't be.

We all gotta learn control , or we'll be remarrying all the time.  and most married couples i know are bored of each other. but for the kids, being married makes sense.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> The anachronisms in the marriage act aren't confined to who has balls or not. They also create inheritance problems for you and your partner unless you plan to go through some very messy legislation and expensive legal proceedings. As much as people like to deny it, civil unions and marriage are still two very different things hence the debate.
> There's more to SSM than just four stars and Wham-Bam-Thankyou-Man.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/gay-couple-want-right-to-marry-before-they-die/6703756
> 
> ...



Ah subjective ad hominem and accusations of tin foil hat wearing. 

Cmon Mate, Thats Guardian tactics for the komrades in the echo chamber.

Try some real debate, might be interesting


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Or the girl who has a crush on another woman  (just silly love).  Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings.





The stupidity and ignorance of that comment is amazing.

Again, this is why the Schools have had to bring up LGBT issues, past generations have done a terrible job at understanding and raising LGBT children.

There are parents out there with similar views to graph, tink and tisme with LGBT children, and those childrens only hope for any sort of education about the issues they are facing is school.

Not only that, but even if the children are straight, they may become bullies etc or bad parents in the future due to the one sided views of their parents.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ah subjective ad hominem and accusations of tin foil hat wearing.
> 
> Cmon Mate, Thats Guardian tactics for the komrades in the echo chamber.
> 
> Try some real debate, might be interesting



Ad hominem Guardian tactics have used by anti leftists all through this thread who are boo hooing about a wider agenda with nothing to back up their claims...

The postal vote is about whether people of the same sex should get married or not.

That's the real debate mate - wanna lead the way?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Not only that, but even if the children are straight, they may become bullies etc or bad parents in the future due to the one sided views of their parents.




If we want to go into gender theory then it should be an after hours session with parents present.

Really, the lgbti lobby have grabbed hold of this bullying bandwagon and made it all about them.

What about those who suicide or attempt it because of poor school marks, poor body image, maybe they are too bright or too dull and get bullied, hold religious beliefs or have a learning disability ? These kids seem to be totally ignored in the rainbow New Society.


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

I sent  my old mate John Birmingham an email, pointed him in the direction of this thread and asked (nicely) if he thought he could summarise the 10 critical No arguments on the subject outlined by ASF members.

I thought he did a good  job !!
* The top 10 reasons I'm voting 'no' on same-sex marriage *







*John Birmingham*
*1.* Because the YES campaign secretly loaded a U2 album onto my iPhone and now I'm with Team Bigot.

*2.* Because a red-headed Tasmanian tried to headbutt Tony Abbott and he missed and if I can’t have the only thing that could make me truly happy neither can you, gay people.

*3.* Because won't somebody think of the children who’ll be stuck with two dads and they’ll have to stop in at the bakery every day for emergency cheddermite scrolls for school lunch and probably breakfast too because everyone knows dads are hopeless, so vote no for the kids.

*4.* Because this country can’t afford to let gay weddings delay a moment longer the vital infrastructure projects this country needs that will be delayed when queeros start marrying their favourite bridges and other transport nodes.

*5.* Because if religions have their religious freedoms taken away from them we might one day live in a country where witches cannot be dunked into a river or set on fire by priests.

*6.* Because if gay people get married there will be no freedom of speech anymore because Tony Abbott and Lyle Shelton and Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham and Fred Nile and Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt and Bernard Gaynor and Ray Hadley and Janet Albrechtsen and Chris Kenny and the entire line-up from Sky News After Dark will be so terrified that they will never stand up in Parliament or go on the telly or the radio, or write columns for _The Australian_ or the _Daily Telegraph_ or the _Herald Sun_ ever again.

*7.* Because that guy from the Cronulla riots held a "Straight Lives Matter" rally on the weekend and only got a dozen single men in identical T-shirts to meet him in a park because everyone knows that with gay marriage all the parks will be full of the gays marrying each other and having even a dozen men without girlfriends in the same adorable T-shirt gathered in one place could only be a provocation to those insatiable gays, oh god I hope Cronulla riot guy is alright!

*8.* Because marriage is a sacred institution that has always had a special place in our society, a place we call prime time, which we traditionally reserve for the quiet contemplation of the spiritual bond between a man and a woman on _The Bachelor_, _The Bachelorette_, _The Farmer Wants A Wife_, _Married at First Sight_, _Bridezillas_, _Whose Wedding is it Anyway_, _My Redneck Wedding_ and _Divorce Court_.

*9.* Because it says so in the Bible, somewhere, in the Old Testament I think, and if we ignore that we would also have to ignore the bit that tells us it’s OK for a dude to sell his daughter into slavery, and totally legit to stone adulterous women and disobedient children to death and then we’d be on a slippery slope to hell in a handbasket, wouldn’t we.

*10.* Because have you ever seen a gay man eat a pie? No you haven't and when the gay marriage law enslaves the bakers of this country and forces them to make homosexual wedding cakes and nothing else there will be no more pies so I will vote NO.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/satir...-no-on-same-sex-marriage-20170925-p4yw43.html


----------



## dutchie (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> I sent  my old mate John Birmingham an email, pointed him in the direction of this thread and asked (nicely) if he thought he could summarise the 10 critical No arguments on the subject outlined by ASF members.
> 
> I thought he did a good  job !!
> * The top 10 reasons I'm voting 'no' on same-sex marriage *
> ...




Pretty pathetic satire.


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

dutchie said:


> Pretty pathetic satire.



I thought given the  dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If we want to go into gender theory then it should be an after hours session with parents present.





Why?


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Ad hominem Guardian tactics have used by anti leftists all through this thread who are boo hooing about a wider agenda with nothing to back up their claims...
> 
> The postal vote is about whether people of the same sex should get married or not.
> 
> That's the real debate mate - wanna lead the way?



The real debate is the proposed legislation, what additional clauses thete are,  what extraneous legislation there is. 

But of course they haven't told us have they? 

It was like the Republican referendum....  yeah but what sort of Republic? 

On that instance we plebeians refused to write the proverbial blank cheque.  

We should do the same now,  until we know what we're voting for or against.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> I thought given the  dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.



Nope, not even proper satire,  just petulant foot stamping.


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Nope, not even proper satire,  just petulant foot stamping.




Off course Wayne. And only someone as tone deaf and brain dead as you could fail to recognise the way John mashed the No arguments.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> The real debate is the proposed legislation, what additional clauses thete are,  what extraneous legislation there is.
> 
> But of course they haven't told us have they?
> 
> ...




The proposal as I see it is to remove "man and woman" from the definition of "marriage" and replace it with "two people". The draft act governing the proposal is here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0/upload_pdf/Exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (same-sex marriage) bill.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0"

You're right that it could be subject to change but then again legislation gets amended all the time.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Why?




Because you are always telling us that parents don't understand the LGBTI.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Off course Wayne. And only someone as tone deaf and brain dead as you could fail to recognise the way John mashed the No arguments.



Tone deaf now? LMAO!

The new insult for defenders of the culture,  the crusaders against marxism.

I shall wear that badge with honour my curmudgeonly comrade


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> The proposal as I see it is to remove "man and woman" from the definition of "marriage" and replace it with "two people". The draft act governing the proposal is here:
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0/upload_pdf/Exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (same-sex marriage) bill.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="publications/tabledpapers/2b2b575d-4317-40ae-9eb3-027e8f666ff0"
> 
> You're right that it could be subject to change but then again legislation gets amended all the time.



Turnbull is on record as saying if yes,  then it will be turned over to a private members bill. That pdf isnt worth the pixels it uses


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

*AND DON'T FORGET "BRAIN DEAD" WAYNE.!!  IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY YOU KNOW !!*
(we need bolds and caps for this insight into the vagueries of the caped crusaders against Marxism, Turnballism, Shortenism, Pxxxxism, ad infinitum.)


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Turnbull is on record as saying if yes,  then it will be turned over to a private members bill. That pdf isnt worth the pixels it uses



You can't have a private members bill unless you have a bill to construct. That pdf is the bill.


----------



## dutchie (26 September 2017)

What a joke

University lecturers BAN maths students from using the word 'marriage' as it might cause offence

It's the name of a *maths theorem*, you stupid lecturer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urers-BAN-maths-students-saying-marriage.html


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

A longer term view of marriage. How/why it started. How it has evolved.

* Historically, the idea of marriage is always evolving *

*David Dawkins*
15 reading now
 Show comments
Throughout almost all of human existence there was no such thing as family and marriage. Family and marriage first appeared around the same time as agriculture: the two were symbiotic.

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott tells us that marriage was created for the safety of women and children. Far from being protected by marriage and family, it conscripted women and children into agricultural servitude.

Initially, humans lived communally in hunter-gatherer groups that enjoyed a promiscuous, matriarchal culture: children were primarily cared for by their mothers, and collectively by the group's adults. When family-based farming communities replaced forager groups, patriarchy reigned supreme and children were put to work.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/hi...riage-is-always-evolving-20170925-gyo4bn.html


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott tells us that marriage was created for the safety of women and children. Far from being protected by marriage and family, it conscripted women and children into agricultural servitude.




That's a pretty broad statement.

If the head of the family died suddenly the registered next of kin were first in line to the estate, and that did protect the wife and children.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> *AND DON'T FORGET "BRAIN DEAD" WAYNE.!!  IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY YOU KNOW !!*
> (we need bolds and caps for this insight into the vagueries of the caped crusaders against Marxism, Turnballism, Shortenism, Pxxxxism, ad infinitum.)



At the end of the day,  that's all you Marxists have - name calling.

Sexist, racist, Homophobe,  islamophobe, -ist this, -phobe that,  now tone deaf and brain dead.

What next?

Anyway,  thanks, I have a very amusing mind picture of you tantruming bas


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Yes , it's the same. Sure, different types of love, but in all cases they're just silly. Think of a 20 year old woman that falls for an 80 year old man...(the other way around as well). Or the girl who has a crush on another woman  (just silly love).  Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings. Some people just don't marry, they can't for whatever reason (e.g. sick people).  it doesn't have to be the end of the world.  And it really shouldn't be.
> 
> We all gotta learn control , or we'll be remarrying all the time.  and most married couples i know are bored of each other. but for the kids, being married makes sense.




There are bad relationships, sure. There are bad choices in who to love, what attracts a person to it. Sure.

Gay people don't just fall in love with the first gay person they meet. There are gay people who are also a-holes. You know, being a prick as well as gay. Same with straight people. 

So the idea that being attracted to a pefectly awesome person who also loves you, but that person happen to be of the same sex/gender... That's very different to having foolish crushes and bad choices in a partner. 

i.e. same sex does not equate to "bad choice". 


Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them. 

To make it illegal for people who can and wants to get married... that's a whole different ball game. One we slam other civilisations for doing when they're doing it.


Some people, I supposed, thought marriage and relationship is always about going on dates and taking holidays - with the other side always making the effort and tap in the cards. 

Life have its difficulties; people do age and body parts do sag; that and who the heck has the time or the money to go on dates and eat out most days of the week? 

Hence, relationship and marriages do break down. The gayness has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.
> 
> *And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt*. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then




You got a copy of that text?


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> I thought given the  dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.





You have to admit it's rather embarrassingly juvenile level satire. Cringe worthy really


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> There are bad relationships, sure. There are bad choices in who to love, what attracts a person to it. Sure.
> 
> *1) Gay people don't just fall in love with the first gay person they meet.* There are gay people who are also a-holes. You know, being a prick as well as gay. Same with straight people.
> 
> ...




I'm supposing you have some personal insight into those statements luu, coz even I wouldn't venture so far into that quagmire


----------



## Value Collector (26 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Because you are always telling us that parents don't understand the LGBTI.



Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.





Mate, unlike you bods I actually socialise with gays, I actually postulate on facts not anecdotes, I actually think with an objective mind not a hysteria, etc. Demographicals is core interest of mine professionally and it would be remiss of me to follow emotion over fact.

My kids were very well educated and well informed. The last thing I would do is actively use and parade them as pawns in social warfare to prove a point against stupid people who don't agree with me....what's the point trying to change intractable Narnia and similar fantasy urban belief systems.

You are going to have to pull your heads in taking potshots at me, not one of you heterophiles has produced any proofs when I have asked. It's all just piffle about precedence in past barbarian cultures and mateship confused as love.


----------



## grah33 (26 September 2017)

basilio said:


> A longer term view of marriage. How/why it started. How it has evolved.
> 
> * Historically, the idea of marriage is always evolving *
> 
> *David Dawkins*




You read this article and think it true. Not so on certain points regarding Christianity. I've studied the christian religion before, so I know a few things. JC was the one to institute marriage as one male and female. Also, in his own words, it was like that in the very beginning (he would now reestablish the original proper form). They were only given polygamy (old testament) since proper marriage was too hard to follow (again his own words), as they were a nation of parent killers, slave traders, had intercourse with animals etc (they lacked morality, settling down with one woman only was too much for them). So you have to understand that mainstream Christianity will think there is only one valid marriage that can occur. You have to give them freedom to practice that. Interestingly enough I just heard that in the NT they are already drafting new laws to force synagogues/churches to marry them. I guess that will be the end of democracy then. Sure, who cares about weddings etc., but when they're willing to do that , they'll be willing to do whatever else they want , you would think.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You got a copy of that text?



Are you after the text of previous marriage acts?


----------



## grah33 (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> <<So the idea that being attracted to a pefectly awesome person who also loves you, but that person happen to be of the same sex/gender... That's very different to having foolish crushes and bad choices in a partner.




not so. The "attractions" are all similar - whether adult child love or gay or incest they're all feelings. 

<<Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.

The point is some of us just can't get married and we need to accept it  and still be happy. Often it's our very own self that makes us unhappy.  Think of some kid who studies for a profession at uni. He really wants to get through it, his parents want it for him too, but he finds he has this problem and it's devastating for him – he's not smart enough to do the work. he's struggling. Now he can say “oh no! it's the end for me “, or he can say “oh well, this course isn't for me. I'm not worried. life goes on ”. The point is, if you can't get married , you have to still find a way to be happy. Just like the guy in the wheel chair has gotta be content or be miserable every day. Life is hard and you gotta keep being mindful of the positives in your life.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yep...always rely on facts rather than fiction I say



Looks like Junior trumped that stat.    LGBTIQRFHSV mob have all the answers and soon the Marriage Act will be theirs to shape as they wish. The wave of homosexuals surging around the globe has crashed on the shores of Australia washing away the time immemorial Marriage of a male and a female. 

*Netherlands legalises same-sex marriage*
*April 1, 2001*
*The Netherlands becomes the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples.

*


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Are you after the text of previous marriage acts?





You quoted love


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Looks like Junior trumped that stat.    LGBTIQRFHSV mob have all the answers and soon the Marriage Act will be theirs to shape as they wish. The wave of homosexuals surging around the globe has crashed on the shores of Australia washing away the time immemorial Marriage of a male and a female.
> 
> *Netherlands legalises same-sex marriage*
> *April 1, 2001*
> ...





yes stats are like bullets, in the hands of those that don't respect guns they fire them indiscriminately


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You quoted love



Because you used it in your question. _"[who] should have the right to legislate for love?"_


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Because you used it in your question. _"[who] should have the right to legislate for love?"_




 No no you talked about redefinition of love in the marriage act... this is your chance to reveal the facts rather than be servile to Labor Party policy.

Menzies and Howard wren't stupid, perhaps I missed something.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> No no you talked about redefinition of love in the marriage act... this is your chance to reveal the facts rather than be servile to Labor Party policy.
> 
> Menzies and Howard wren't stupid, perhaps I missed something.



Lucidity seems to be an issue here. My original comment was every adult should be allowed to vote. The point being the right to vote shouldn't be restricted to one group or another.

I don't understand how "_legislate for love" _in your question fits in the above context if it's not about changes to the marriage act?

And how did the Labor Party get into it? I have no connection with them. The "U" went out of Labour years ago. Which probably explains why they were opposed to us voting in the first place.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> You read this article and think it true. Not so on certain points regarding Christianity. I've studied the christian religion before, so I know a few things. JC was the one to institute marriage as one male and female. Also, in his own words, it was like that in the very beginning (he would now reestablish the original proper form). They were only given polygamy (old testament) since proper marriage was too hard to follow (again his own words), as they were a nation of parent killers, slave traders, had intercourse with animals etc (they lacked morality, settling down with one woman only was too much for them). So you have to understand that mainstream Christianity will think there is only one valid marriage that can occur. You have to give them freedom to practice that. Interestingly enough I just heard that in the NT they are already drafting new laws to force synagogues/churches to marry them. I guess that will be the end of democracy then. Sure, who cares about weddings etc., but when they're willing to do that , they'll be willing to do whatever else they want , you would think.




You do have the freedom to practice your religion, no one is going to force you to have a same sex marriage.

But you aren't happy with just following your own silly rules, you want the rest of society to submit to your cult, and thats not going to happen.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.




That's your opinion. I think a lot of people would attend just to see what is going on. If the people who conduct these courses have nothing to hide then they should welcome the parents as well.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> not so. The "attractions" are all similar - whether adult child love or gay or incest they're all feelings.
> 
> <<Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.
> 
> The point is some of us just can't get married and we need to accept it  and still be happy. Often it's our very own self that makes us unhappy.  Think of some kid who studies for a profession at uni. He really wants to get through it, his parents want it for him too, but he finds he has this problem and it's devastating for him – he's not smart enough to do the work. he's struggling. Now he can say “oh no! it's the end for me “, or he can say “oh well, this course isn't for me. I'm not worried. life goes on ”. The point is, if you can't get married , you have to still find a way to be happy. Just like the guy in the wheel chair has gotta be content or be miserable every day. Life is hard and you gotta keep being mindful of the positives in your life.




Incest or paedophilia _harm _the victim and their family. So while it might be emotional or "feeling", it fail the first test of being an acceptable behaviour.

Being gay and wanting to marry to another consenting adult... that's different. That does not do anyone any harm... maybe hurt some people's feelings, made them feel wrong seeing how their God or their parents don't approve and neither will they etc. It's those people who should shut the hell up and deal with it.

Yes, not being married is not the end of the world. There are a lot of things worst than being gay but can't be married legally. That doesn't mean any idiot politician or religious group or fellow citizens can somehow have the right to tell someone else to not get married. 

I thought conservatives don't like the nanny state. 

Life is hard, let's not make it harder for children born gay, or adults who are gay, more miserable. 

I mean, that's like saying those with any form of disability cannot be married because it's not normal. can't run around with kids; God didn't invent the wheelchair or IVF or modern technology to help the disabled to live and have a family.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm supposing you have some personal insight into those statements luu, coz even I wouldn't venture so far into that quagmire




They're human being McGee. They just happen to be attracted to those of the same gender.

To think that gay people would bang the first other gay person they meet... and that's not to say that some gays don't do that... us straight people have more self-control do we [see what I did there? ]

Point was, gay people do find and fall in love with compatible [or opposite, being attracts and what not] gay people. To say that they would just marry or sleep with any gay person is like saying that all straight Irish men would sleep with any drunk redheads with freckles they meet.


----------



## Tink (27 September 2017)

*Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. 
*
Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage

-------------------------------


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Lucidity seems to be an issue here. My original comment was every adult should be allowed to vote. The point being the right to vote shouldn't be restricted to one group or another.
> 
> I don't understand how "_legislate for love" _in your question fits in the above context if it's not about changes to the marriage act?
> 
> And how did the Labor Party get into it? I have no connection with them. The "U" went out of Labour years ago. Which probably explains why they were opposed to us voting in the first place.




I'm trying to get you to explain on what basis you made the comment "*And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt" .*

 I am not aware that any govt until this one has had the audacity to legislate on placating a citizen's love, unrequited or otherwise? Anyone know to contrary, anyone?


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm trying to get you to explain on what basis you made the comment "*And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt" .*
> 
> I am not aware that any govt until this one has had the audacity to legislate on placating a citizen's love, unrequited or otherwise? Anyone know to contrary, anyone?



The explanation as far as I'm concerned is "love" in legislation terms was redefined when the marriage act was changed in 2004. I don't see this being any different. Is there a difference?

Prior to that it was changed when homosexuality was decriminalised.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

Tink said:


> *Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
> *
> Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
> Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
> ...





I hope the next time you go to the ballot box, you reconsider any vote for the LNP now many in their ranks have shown their disregard for the nuclear family in favour of comedic farce. Even our fizzer PM has swung behind SSM to add to his agenda of breaking our cultural ties (republic, flag, universal health care, industry, etc).


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> The explanation as far as I'm concerned is "love" was redefined when the marriage act was changed in 2004. I don't see this being any different.
> 
> Prior to that it was changed when homosexuality was decriminalised.




You just know where I'm going to go with this don't you LOL

So now you are saying homosexuality is a love concept rather than activity. Interesting and explains why so many people are voting yes.

Insofar as legislation, we fortunately have a tidy little compendium called The Interpretations Act that is useful, rather than using a moral compass which points west.


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> You just know where I'm going to go with this don't you LOL
> 
> *So now you are saying homosexuality is a love concept rather than activity. Interesting and explains why so many people are voting yes.*
> 
> Insofar as legislation, we fortunately have a tidy little compendium called The Interpretations Act that is useful, rather than using a moral compass which points west.



Yep, that's my view. Homosexuals are attracted to each other the same way heterosexuals are. They love each other and they want to get married and that's it. 

Now...to me, it's an alternative lifestyle that has no appeal to me but I can still respect it because in my view it's harmless. It doesn't affect me at all. I personally feel that my time on this planet is better from living in a society that no longer marginalises people because of their race, colour, height, weight and sexual preferences. It's all good


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> because in my view it's harmless.




AIDS ?


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> AIDS ?



What about it ?


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Yep, that's my view. Homosexuals are attracted to each other the same way heterosexuals are. They love each other and they want to get married and that's it.
> 
> Now...to me, it's an alternative lifestyle that has no appeal to me but I can still respect it because in my view it's harmless. It doesn't affect me at all. I personally feel that my time on this planet is better from living in a society that no longer marginalises people because of their race, colour, height, weight and sexual preferences. It's all good





Yeah we already know who the bleeding hearts are, I just want some kind of recognition that the the SSMers are using emotive rather than factual to bias the arguments, when the point that is being debated is a factual one.

Sure, if I was to say "coloured people are jealous of white male privilege" then that is an analogue that is debatable. But to say current marriage legislation is based on love and love prejudice is a big misnomer that obviously is highly infectious to those susceptible.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> What about it [AIDS] ?




It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.



So the issue is unprotected sex. Not AIDS. AIDS was equally spread by injecting drug users.

Being married or unmarried has nothing to do with it.

Here's a thought...

If anything, gays getting married could even mitigate the spread of AIDS if we can assume a married couple are less likely to have unprotected sex with multiple partners


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Here's a thought...
> 
> If anything, gays getting married could even mitigate the spread of AIDS if we can assume a married couple are less likely to have unprotected sex with multiple partners




People who love each other don't have sex with others. A piece of paper has nothing to do with it, it's called commitment.


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> People who love each other don't have sex with others. A piece of paper has nothing to do with it, it's called commitment.



In other words you are saying gays who love each other are unlikely to spread the AIDS virus.

Fine with me.

A piece of paper IS the commitment.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

PZ99 said:


> So the issue is unprotected sex. Not AIDS. AIDS was equally spread by injecting drug users.
> 
> Being married or unmarried has nothing to do with it.




See this is where we are all at a disadvantage of censorship in play. We are denied the whole story because laws have been put in place to deflect attention away form minority groups, regardless of their culpability of poor societal behaviours that put that same society at risk.

We see it with the way anything Islamic is sacrosant, anyone coloured is sacrosanct, anyone queer is sacrosanct, Jewish, etc. We are educated and inculcated by a redacted fact sheet, and so we fill in the blanks with tall tales and yarns from Wiki, farcebook and twatter. I say "we"and "all" because I want to sound benevolent and one of the boys 

We all know the activities, promiscuity and practices of gays was the reason for AIDS spread and probable incubation. Denial is futile. You want to know what gays really get upto and what many infants in their care will bear witness too:-  here's a random pick by example:

if you really want to know the risks and marriage qualifications you should make sure you know the culture. This is not pornography or drunken behaviour, but a real daily lifestyle.

And a *WARNING* to those who don't need to know because they have an innate belief in nuclear families and all things wholesome= *DO VISIT THIS SITE *the description says it all

And no running off to the boss with PMs complaining because this is what you SSMers are promoting by inference.

http://www.thehomoculture.com/2016/07/20/figuring-out-felching/


----------



## PZ99 (27 September 2017)

Now... this won't hurt a bit.... 


Tisme said:


> *✄** ✄** ✄*



Did you just hot-link us to a felching site whilst stating you wanted to be one of the boys ?


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

Tink said:


> *Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
> *
> Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
> Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
> ...






I guess we should take children away from single parents too then. Definitely take kids away from single fathers, we all know men can't raise kids.

But that's only if the kid/s are straight. 'cause we only care about straight kids with all these laws. If the kid looks queer... not sure what the final solution would be.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> I guess we should take children away from single parents too then. Definitely take kids away from single fathers, we all know men can't raise kids.
> 
> But that's only if the kid/s are straight. 'cause we only care about straight kids with all these laws. If the kid looks queer... not sure what the final solution would be.





Child abuse statistics are never wrong, unless it's a SSM household


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It decimated the gay community and spread around the world. It was spread by unprotected sex with multiple partners , a feature of the gay male community.




and as reward for services rendered in killing and diseasing millions of innocent people we give them marriage rights?


----------



## Logique (27 September 2017)

If 'Yes' loses, this will be a big part of the reason why. Sorry there's a paywall.







> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...g/news-story/f5d47b788812540816179e2730aaf40e
> Miranda Devine - September 27, 2017
> *The failure of ‘Yes’ to control its militant wing*
> ...The militant left has hijacked the debate in frightening fashion.
> ...


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

Logique said:


> If 'Yes' loses, this will be a big part of the reason why. Sorry there's a paywall.



http://sheikyermami.com/2017/09/burn-churches-not-queers-homo-marriage-is-only-the-beginning/


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

What hope do we have when Liberal and Labor gang up and decide what blasphemy is:

Even the IPA is getting distressed at Malcolm:



> The idea that, in his own words, Turnbull would lead a “thoroughly Liberal government” is but a fond and distant memory. Under Turnbull taxes are up, government spending is up, and red tape has increased. With things like the bank tax, retrospective superannuation taxes, and telling energy companies who they can sell their gas to and for how long they must keep their plants operating, the Coalition is making the arbitrary administration of policy an art form.




http://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/in-the-news/malcolm-turnbulls-thoroughly-liberal-blasphemies


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's your opinion. I think a lot of people would attend just to see what is going on. If the people who conduct these courses have nothing to hide then they should welcome the parents as well.



it just seems weird to me that parent aren't demanding to attend physics, chemistry, math or any other classes.

Yet on this one topic which is shrouded in stigma and religious nonsense and which clearly is not being handled well at home, parents suddenly want to interfere.

The naysayers want to stop any discussion of the topic, and thats clearly not healthy.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> it just seems weird to me that parent aren't demanding to attend physics, chemistry, math or any other classes.
> 
> Yet on this one topic which is shrouded in stigma and religious nonsense and which clearly is not being handled well at home, parents suddenly want to interfere.
> 
> The naysayers want to stop any discussion of the topic, and thats clearly not healthy.





That's easy = a school is for teaching subjects, not lifestyle grooming... that is the parent's responsibility.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> That's easy = a school is for teaching subjects, not lifestyle grooming... that is the parent's responsibility.




So schools should just stick to math science and English, and forget about educating on such things as healthy eating, sex ed, sports, drug education??? I see no reason why these topics can't be taught, and sexuality is just part of that.




> that is the parent's responsibility.




If parents were doing a good job schools wouldn't need to do it, as it would be a non issue, however it is an issue.

Didn't one of your children develop a drug problem (unless I am confusing you with some one), Don't you think if he had better education on that topic he would have made better decisions??? surely you can see that as a parent you might not be able to have complete and up to date knowledge on all the issues children face, and schools can assist in providing that information.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> If parents were doing a good job schools wouldn't need to do it, as it would be a non issue, however it is an issue.



Talking on behalf of everyone again? Googled some facts on that? I think you have a strong disposition toward disagreeing because you support the fag revolution..


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> it just seems weird to me that parent aren't demanding to attend physics, chemistry, math or any other classes.
> 
> Yet on this one topic which is shrouded in stigma and religious nonsense and which clearly is not being handled well at home, parents suddenly want to interfere.
> 
> The naysayers want to stop any discussion of the topic, and thats clearly not healthy.




You just answered your own question. Parents don't need to know physics but they do need to know about their children's sexuality so that they can understand it.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Talking on behalf of everyone again? Googled some facts on that? I think you have a strong disposition toward disagreeing because you support the fag revolution..




I didn't say every parent does a bad job, But given the high suicide rates and other problems being faced by the LGBT community due to family rejection, harassment, assaults and other social issues, it's clear that parents (on average) are not doing a great job with this topic.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Parents don't need to know physics but they do need to know about their children's sexuality so that they can understand it.




Yes, and they are more likely to find out that sexuality if the child has the confidence to come out of the closet because he has be taught that it's normal and ok.

Also, parents will be more able to accept and understand their children sexuality if they have been taught about it, Part of the reason for teaching the lessons on sexuality is to make sure the next generation of parents have more knowledge on the issues.

As I have said, it is not just about helping LGBT students today, but also helping the parents of tomorrow.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Also, parents will be more able to accept and understand their children sexuality if they have been taught about it, Part of the reason for teaching the lessons on sexuality is to make sure the next generation of parents have more knowledge on the issues.




So why are you so opposed to parents going to the same classes on sexuality as their children ?


----------



## Logique (27 September 2017)

The 'Yes' cause has been infiltrated. Vote 'Yes' at your peril.







> Quadrant Online:  http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/ssms-likely-impact-religious-freedom/   27 Sept 2017 - Augusto Zimmerman
> ...Behind the 'love is love' sloganeering stands the muscular presence of statist enforcers... *where a 'Yes' victory leads is grimly apparent*...
> ...Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge and (in a different way) Nazi Germany were all determined to tightly control religious practice in an effort to stop it from dividing society or eroding the power of the state. The result however, was not more peace and harmony, but* more oppression*...


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So why are you so opposed to parents going to the same classes on sexuality as their children ?




I am not against the idea of parents being allowed to see some of the classes in general, I am against the idea that lessons shouldn't go ahead unless parents are there, or we should leave the topic up to parents to teach.

Also, I feel that reactionary parents might want to interfere, either directly which would impact the education of other children not just their own, or the fact that "Mum and Dad" are at the back might cause the child to not get the most out of the lesson, e.g. avoiding asking questions that might have been asked if the parents weren't there.

look at how crazy some of the sex ed is in the USA where the religious nutters have gotten into power.

The Bible Belt is now also the teenage pregnancy belt due to sex education dumb down by the religious nutters.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Also, I feel that reactionary parents might want to interfere




A reactionary has already interfered. Her name is Roz Ward.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

ABC 7:30 report given over to pro SSM agenda on right now. Let's hope they give nine point five times opportunity to  heterosexual couples experiencing anxiety at "unfair" treatment on the hands of the law ... proportionate response based on demographic weight


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2017)

Tony Abbott posted this today on facebook:

https://www.change.org/p/todd-green...m_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


----------



## tech/a (28 September 2017)

Kids learn about sex from other kids


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2017)

Even when providing a video the intro is pro gay, with shiny bright kiddy colours and nonsense statistics:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...p-macklemores-pro-gay-marriage-song-nrl-final


----------



## basilio (28 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Tony Abbott posted this today on facebook:
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/todd-green...m_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition




What a confected storm in a tea cup. I saw the picture of the "horrified" family. (I suspect they must have seen one of your hot links Tisme..) And they were horrified because of this song ?
Are we in a situation now that entertainers are not allowed to sing at public events ? Do we have the thought police needing to check the  songs and lyrics because  ???


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Are we in a situation now that entertainers are not allowed to sing at public events ? Do we have the thought police needing to check the songs and lyrics because ???




It's propaganda for one side of a political/societal debate on which the public are expected to vote on.

The opposing side has a right to request and be granted equal time..


----------



## overhang (28 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's propaganda for one side of a political/societal debate on which the public are expected to vote on.
> 
> The opposing side has a right to request and be granted equal time..



He is playing 4 songs, the same love song happens to be his 4th biggest song.  Should he not play it to appease a few snowflakes from the no camp?  This is freedom of speech, he has the right so sing the song just as people have the right to boo him.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2017)

overhang said:


> He is playing 4 songs, the same love song happens to be his 4th biggest song.  Should he not play it to appease a few snowflakes from the no camp?  This is freedom of speech, he has the right so sing the song just as people have the right to boo him.




Well it's just strange that the AFL chose him to sing what they must have known would be a contentious song in the circumstances.


----------



## overhang (28 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it's just strange that the AFL chose him to sing what they must have known would be a contentious song in the circumstances.



They didn't, the NRL did.  If it's a popular song what's the issue?


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Kids learn about sex from other kids




Haha, yeah great plan, Thats probably why the most prudish states in the USA have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STD's, Because they leave the SEX ED to Kids.

No doubt kids talk about sex, and probably start googling pr0n, but I doubt they hit the key topics of birth control and STD's etc etc. 

"kids learn from other kids" thats the silliest thing I've heard, should we not talk about drugs either, because "kids learn from other kids"???


----------



## SirRumpole (28 September 2017)

overhang said:


> They didn't, the NRL did.  If it's a popular song what's the issue?




The issue is that it is propaganda for a political debate on which the public are going to vote on.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2017)

*How the Marriage Act has changed *
How traditional should we make out Marriage Act ? For instance should we :

1) Allow children of primary school age to be maried ? (12 years of age) 
2) Forbid marriage between aborigines and white people ?
3) Proclaim that since husbands and wives are married it is legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife?

Can you remember when these regulations were part of the Australian Marriage Act ?
______________________________________________________________

1) In 1955 the Marriage Act allowed 12 year old girls to be wed.
2) In the late 50's it was illegal in the Northern Territory for Aboriginal men to marrry white women. 
3) Up until the 90's men could rape their wives with no legal consequences.  In fact the Church Marriage ceremony embodied this principle in it's main statements.

_“I, (Bride), take thee, (Groom), to be my wedded Husband; to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health; to *love*, cherish, and to *OBEY*, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.”
_
The Church spoke of Maritial Rights and Marital Duties. The State did not want to interfere with the Maritial Rights of men. The argument that the institution of marriage was the overriding consideration was strongly put.  Then, as now, conservative religious organisations did not want to see men being charged with raping their wives.

*Rape in marriage: Why was it so hard to criminalise sexual violence?*
by Managing Editor Posted on December 7, 2016

_Lisa Featherstone reveals the controversies that dogged the campaign to criminalise marital rape in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s in the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence._

From 1976 to 1994, Australian jurisdictions introduced a raft of reforms to sexual assault laws. The new legislations expanded the definitions of rape and other forms of sexual assault, and reconsidered the treatment of victims on the stand. The legislative changes were driven by broader social and sexual shifts of feminism and the sexual revolution, including changing ideas about women’s roles and expanding ideas about sexuality and sexual practice. Most of the reforms were broadly welcomed, and were seen to reflect women’s shifting status within a modern society.

Yet there was one reform that caused substantial controversy: rape in marriage law reform. Though rape in marriage was ultimately criminalised in Australian states and territories, there was significant opposition to the idea that it should be a criminal offence for a husband to sexually assault his wife. Why was this, of all the reforms, so controversial?

http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marital-rape/


http://www.theage.com.au/comment/en...ion-we-need-to-recapture-20170922-gymw5y.html


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it's just strange that the AFL chose him to sing what they must have known would be a contentious song in the circumstances.




The AFL and NRL are both private organisations, they can do what they like.

What is strange is you want a business to be able to deny service to gays if they want, yet you complain about an organisation choosing a certain singer or song.

people also complain about the yes campaign sending 1 single text message, yet the no campaign flooded my TV with at least 15 30 seconds ads last night, sky writting above my house also, pamphlets in my letter box, door knocker from a local christian group conducting their own survey/ preach on the topic.


----------



## overhang (28 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The issue is that it is propaganda for a political debate on which the public are going to vote on.



Meh no different to the no campaign propaganda running ads every night.


----------



## tech/a (28 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> "kids learn from other kids" thats the silliest thing I've heard, should we not talk about drugs either, because "kids learn from other kids"???




You live under a rock.
Your little world doesn't include reality.

My world is full of Teenage kids who aren't eligible to vote.
Most struggling to keep on the right side of the Line.

They take a great deal of notice of those in their inner circle.
If they are lucky enough to have an above average leader in their group
they have half a chance.

So when w as adults show them what can happen with drugs (Your "Silly" example)
They are at a party and SOME will listen to others who say Look 100s take drugs and
nothing happens what's the harm try it EVERYONE ELSE is. So they will take it---Kids learn form kids.

So then one day a kid in their group DIES from drugs.
OOPS ,SOME of the kids learn from the other kids and realize that drugs aren't lots of fun
they can and do kill just as the adults taught them.

YEH KIDS learn from kids.

OPEN your eyes Your BLIND
Open your ears your DEAF.

and if your around Kids recognise the REALITY of THEIR world!

Your Silliest comment is the DUMBEST comment I've seen on this thread.


----------



## dutchie (28 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> YEH KIDS learn from kids.




Kids learn from each other, from a very early age, both visually and verbally, on many subjects that their parents (and other adults) never touch on (including sex education).


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> You live under a rock.
> Your little world doesn't include reality.
> 
> My world is full of Teenage kids who aren't eligible to vote.
> ...




So you think allowing kids to just go at it with trial and error is the best method to prevent teenage pregnacy and std's, rather than have sex ed in schools???

Yeah, and you say I live under a rock.



> Kids learn from each other, from a very early age, both visually and verbally, on many subjects that their parents (and other adults) never touch on (including sex education)



.

Its hardly the best method to teach kids about the pros and cons of birth control, or STD's  is it.

I mean as a kid I certainly watched pr0n passing old VHS video around, had some hustler Mags, talked about all the "crazy" things like golden showers etc, prank called escorts.

But I can't say any of my friends taught me how exactly to put a condom on to be sure it won't break, or how important it was for a girl to not miss a day when on the pill or how antibiotics effect the pill, the details of Aids or genital warts etc, or the best method for examining ones testicles for cancer, signs my girlfriend might have breast cancer,  the list is endless.

These sort of things I heard for the first time in my high school sex ed, and I still remember them, not only did it probably help me, but it made me a better boyfriend and probably a more informed father when I eventually have children.


----------



## tech/a (28 September 2017)

Not saying its the best
Not saying Schools or parents shouldn't play a part.
You have selective editing for use in argument.

I am saying a great deal is learnt from kids interaction
right and wrong.
I'm sure a lot of things will be talked about and very
differently to now by kids living in SSM situations.
A lot which will seem "Normal" to them WONT be normal to
the heterosexual kids.

Unisex showers would be interesting.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> ABC 7:30 report given over to pro SSM agenda on right now. Let's hope they give nine point five times opportunity to  heterosexual couples experiencing anxiety at "unfair" treatment on the hands of the law ... proportionate response based on demographic weight



All will succumb and accept the new normal. On the job company policies, business leaders support, media saturation, television programming, public events featuring and school teaching.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2017)

tech/a said:


> Not saying its the best
> Not saying Schools or parents shouldn't play a part.





Since my point was that schools should play a part in sex education, and that parents probably can't / won't be able to provide children with up to date information across the broad range of sexual and mental health topics (which like it or not will have to include LGBT issues), it makes sense to teach these at school.


> You have selective editing for use in argument.




I think you have selective reading, TISME said that schools should stick to the traditional subjects, and leave sex ed etc to parents, I pointed out that parents can't be expected to provide all that information, to which you said something like "Kids learn from each other", so I pointed out that it was also silly for kids to be expected to learn everything they need to know from other kids, you then agreed with my original point that schools needed to be involved.


----------



## tech/a (28 September 2017)

I'm sure you were my first wife. More twists than a spaghetti on a fork.

Never remotely wrong always able to explain even the obvious into oblivion.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2017)

basilio said:


> What a confected storm in a tea cup. I saw the picture of the "horrified" family. (I suspect they must have seen one of your hot links Tisme..) And they were horrified because of this song ?
> Are we in a situation now that entertainers are not allowed to sing at public events ? Do we have the thought police needing to check the  songs and lyrics because  ???




Wait.... The thought police  are accusing the anti thought police of thought policing. 

What Orwellian Newspeak is this?


----------



## grah33 (28 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Since my point was that schools should play a part in sex education, and that parents probably can't / won't be able to provide children with up to date information across the broad range of sexual and mental health topics (which like it or not will have to include LGBT issues), it makes sense to teach these at school.
> 
> .




Teaching kids gay sex moves encourages promiscuity which isn't something many parents want for their children. They would rather that happen on its own.

U seem to think that all religious people are dummies. That shows you don't understand their views too well. I'm sure there would be many out there that once had views like yourself. As well as scientific legends like michael faraday...

“dumbed down” u said... These very terms are used in the Bible itself, which is somewhat contrarian to your viewpoint. The ancients were dumb enough to believe that golden statues were gods. And this brainlessness was supposedly linked with their abominable practices – bestiality, homosexuality,incest , trans flirting, child sacrifice etc. The biblical view is that our ancient ancestors were rescued from their miserable existence and given proper values (e.g. standard marriage) and taught how to live proper/normal lives in accordance with the dignity and nobility of the human race. It's a bit like finding a homeless child in a gutter, with cuts everywhere , in ripped up clothing. You bandage it, supply it with proper clothing and feed it. Basically you get it out of the mess it's in. Imagine now reversing the process on humanity... probably not a good thing.


----------



## PZ99 (28 September 2017)

Well... all those NO voters complaining about unsolicited text messages are free to air their equal level of disdain in this thread if/when they cop an automated phone poll from Cory Bernardi urging a NO vote 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...robocalls-to-urge-millions-to-vote-no/8998500

I expect this thread to probably blow out another 69 pages in response *( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)*


----------



## satanoperca (28 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Teaching kids gay sex moves encourages promiscuity which isn't something many parents want for their children.




Really, I am all for my children growing up and having lots of sex, straight, gay or bi.

Sex makes you happy, sex is free, sex is great, sex makes the world go round.

Sounds like you just don't get enough.


----------



## grah33 (28 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Really, I am all for my children growing up and having lots of sex, straight, gay or bi.
> 
> Sex makes you happy, sex is free, sex is great, sex makes the world go round.
> 
> Sounds like you just don't get enough.




Yes , I believe so. Parents would much prefer any promiscuity to come from the child of its own accord, rather than its development being encouraged within a school.

Something to think about...Regarding the future sex education, there will be parents out there telling their kids secretly at home that it's all rubbish, that there is also such a thing as 'perversion'... That one can develop resultant sexual problems, such as addictions and a lack of satisfaction.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2017)

grah33 said:


> Teaching kids gay sex moves encourages promiscuity which isn't something many parents want for their children. They would rather that happen on its own.




Yes it will happen on its own, hence the need for sex education so that we don't end up with unwanted teen pregnancy, diseases or mental health issues.




> “dumbed down” u said... These very terms are used in the Bible itself, which is somewhat contrarian to your viewpoint. The ancients were dumb enough to believe that golden statues were gods.




Yes, and some are still dumb enough to believe Jesus was.




> It's a bit like finding a homeless child in a gutter, with cuts everywhere , in ripped up clothing. You bandage it, supply it with proper clothing and feed it.




that takes empathy not religion



> Basically you get it out of the mess it's in. Imagine now reversing the process on humanity... probably not a good thing.




no one is reversing anything, accepting gays and gay marriage is the next step forward in our moral journey, we are more moral now than we were in biblical times.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Really, I am all for my children growing up and having lots of sex, straight, gay or bi.
> 
> Sex makes you happy, sex is free, sex is great, sex makes the world go round.




And it killed a lot of people. Have you ever heard of AIDS ?

You even had gays with AIDS having sex with heterosexuals or giving blood donations to deliberately spread the filth around. 

Disgusting.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> And it killed a lot of people. Have you ever heard of AIDS ?
> 
> You even had gays with AIDS having sex with heterosexuals or giving blood donations to deliberately spread the filth around.
> 
> Disgusting.




Good sex education has been shown to reduce stds and unwanted pregnancy.

The "tell them nothing" or "abstinence only" approach fails on both fronts.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Good sex education has been shown to reduce stds and unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> The "tell them nothing" or "abstinence only" approach fails on both fronts.




I have no argument with "good" sex education. It depends on what the definition of that is. 

Teaching sexual technique only encourages children to experiment, but a good strong warning of the dangers would encourage them to think before they act ( although that's not always going to happen).


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2017)

"Two blokes and a cocker spaniel are not a family"; how far has the ALP moved away from its roots? .. too far 

and increasingly irrelevant as the representative of the working class struggle and more the bin chickens of the popular vote, indiscriminate prostitution and prevarication of it's once core beliefs of social and family cohesion replaced by individual fancy free and encouragement of sexual narcissism IMO.

For a country that once proudly proclaimed we were free from the social diseases of the old world, particularly the European theatre, we have manged to become a dead ringer for of them.


----------



## PZ99 (29 September 2017)

Like I said... the U went out of Labour years ago.

Having said that if there is a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots the "working class struggle" and the "popular" vote won't be as mutually exclusive as they once were...

Which probably explains the shift in the Liberal Party as well.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I have no argument with "good" sex education. It depends on what the definition of that is.




My comments were to Tisme, who said that schools should be only teaching traditional subjects, and leave sex ed and other issues to the parents.

But the reactionary parents are protesting at the mention of LGBTs during health lessons, and that its normal for some of the students to turn out LGBT.

In my view, its a very good thing for an LGBT student who might be raised in a family that quite anti LGBT and being told all sorts of nonsense at home, to be taught the facts at school, and feel like the school community will accept him and he or she isn't a freak like his church or family might preach.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> In my view, its a very good thing for an LGBT student who might be raised in a family that quite anti LGBT and being told all sorts of nonsense at home, to be taught the facts at school, and feel like the school community will accept him and he or she isn't a freak like his church or family might preach.




Well fine, but as only 5% of the population are gay, they should only get 5% of the class time.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

This video is a good example of how 

a, Religion messes with peoples mind so much that they will disown there own children.

b, that there are parents out there that will not teach their children that its ok to be LGBT, and instead possibly give them all sorts of unnecessary emotional issue that lead to high suicide rates etc.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well fine, but as only 5% of the population are gay, they should only get 5% of the class time.




As I have said before it affects much more than 5%.

Sure about 5% will be LBGT, the ones that aren't LGBT still need the education because they have a 10% chance of being parents to an LGBT and 20% chance of being grandparents to an LGBT, not to mention the chances of being a neighbour, work colleague etc.

Also, with proper education on LGBT issues, society in general will be more accepting and the high rates of mental health issues and suicide etc will be reduced, there is a good chance that if the job is done well, within a generation the need to focus on lgbt issues will be gone.

That video I linked above is heart breaking, that Dad might have been a much better Dad if he was not taught to be so homophobic.


----------



## PZ99 (29 September 2017)

The video is heart breaking but also uplifting because it's a win for freedom over religious entrapment practiced by manipulators with dubious backgrounds. People are finally getting it right.


----------



## Logique (29 September 2017)

In the video, I felt genuinely sorry for the poor guy. His parents were completely unrelenting. He had a hard time moving on from it. 

I don't think we should generalize about it though. I reckon the overwhelming majority of parents would just be happy for their kid, and be as supportive as they could.


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2017)

BRAVO SYDNEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA! 

The full Sydney Symphony Orchestra Statement

“The SSO is a highly-respected organisation spanning more than 85 years with members, concert- goers, very generous sponsors and donors, not to mention loyal and committed staff and musicians, all of whom come from wide and diverse backgrounds and opinions.

“It has always been the case that the SSO has engendered organisational initiatives and performances that reflect an abiding commitment to inclusiveness, fairness and acceptance and that the company has at its core a commitment to everyone in our community – regardless of gender, orientation, cultural background or religious beliefs – of performing music to the highest calibre for which the orchestra is celebrated around the world.

“There is no question that the SSO strongly supports the rights of all citizens to place on the record their views, by way of the private and confidential postal plebiscite and as such, the company does not feel it has the right to take a position and commit our stakeholders to one side or the other and has decided it should remain neutral. We urge all Australians to respect the democratic process of the majority decision, one way or the other, in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation towards each other in a peaceful resolution.”


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2017)

And of course the cultural marxists have gone apesh1t.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> “There is no question that the SSO strongly supports the rights of all citizens to place on the record their views, by way of the private and confidential postal plebiscite and as such, the company does not feel it has the right to take a position and commit our stakeholders to one side or the other and has decided it should remain neutral.




Very sensible.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> My comments were to Tisme, who said that schools should be only teaching traditional subjects, and leave sex ed and other issues to the parents.
> 
> But the reactionary parents are protesting at the mention of LGBTs during health lessons, and that its normal for some of the students to turn out LGBT.
> 
> In my view, its a very good thing for an LGBT student who might be raised in a family that quite anti LGBT and being told all sorts of nonsense at home, to be taught the facts at school, and feel like the school community will accept him and he or she isn't a freak like his church or family might preach.




If it's sex education for gays, surely the whole fertilisation, gestation, birth etc is wiped out and the class would consist of one sentence.  e.g. "You have a willy, he has an arse, you figure out happens next"


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

Logique said:


> In the video, I felt genuinely sorry for the poor guy.




I actually felt sorry for the Dad, I watched the whole show, and the dad I feel genuinely loved the son and missed spending time with him, but due to his ideas about gays couldn't bring himself to accept his sons relationships, so they didn't see each other.

After the meeting in the video, the son returned with plane tickets for both the mum and dad to join them in Palm Springs, USA for the wedding, but the parents never went.

That dad is missing what could be a great father son relationship, all because he was raised to be uncomfortable with gays, He probably would have benefited greatly by being taught to accept gays in his youth, and the whole family would benefit.


----------



## satanoperca (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> And it killed a lot of people. Have you ever heard of AIDS ?
> 
> You even had gays with AIDS having sex with heterosexuals or giving blood donations to deliberately spread the filth around.
> 
> Disgusting.




You live in a box don't you.

So based on your silly argument, all heterosexuals should be removed from society as they kill more people with guns than gays do. Another stupid statement.

 "You even had gays with AIDS having sex with heterosexuals" but this one takes the cake. How they be heteros if they had sex with gays by definition, they are at least bisexual which is probably a much larger % of society than you think.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

satanoperca said:


> You live in a box don't you.




At least I'm alive. Unlike a large section of the gay population in the 80's.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> “There is no question that the SSO strongly supports the rights of all citizens to place on the record their views, by way of the private and confidential postal plebiscite and as such, the company does not feel it has the right to take a position and commit our stakeholders to one side or the other and has decided it should remain neutral. *We urge all Australians to respect the democratic process of the majority decision*, one way or the other, in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation towards each other in a peaceful resolution.”



Well that would be relevant if the survey was in fact a compulsory vote on the subject.


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well that would be relevant if the survey was in fact a compulsory vote on the subject.



I'm struggling to see your point, can you explain that a little further


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> I'm struggling to see your point, can you explain that a little further



Yes. This is not a vote for SSM, it is a non compulsory survey. The SSO statement section I bolded refers to "majority decision" when it is not a decisive vote.


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes. This is not a vote for SSM, it is a non compulsory survey. The SSO statement section I bolded refers to "majority decision" when it is not a decisive vote.



Ah see what you're saying, however I don't thing that was the overarching point.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> At least I'm alive. Unlike a large section of the gay population in the 80's.




you aren't very good with numbers are you???

The annual number of AIDS diagnoses in Australia peaked at 953 cases in 1994.

Now they aren't all gay, that number includes many heterosexuals, drug users and accidental infections.

But even if we say only LGBT people could catch aids, that would still mean much less than 1% of LGBT people were effected, and not all died.

----------------------
By 31 December 2015, 36,171 cases of HIV had been diagnosed in Australia since the first diagnoses in 1982.

of that 36,171 people diagnosed, an estimated 25,313 people were living in 2015


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> of that 36,171 people diagnosed, an estimated 25,313 people were living in 2015




So, that's good, treatment improved over the years, but in the early days a lot of people died.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ah see what you're saying, however I don't thing that was the overarching point.



Yes I agree their stance should have been taken by all business leaders and politicians. It isn't common to see business leaders and community groups announce preference for general election voting. Business leaders are openly supportive because they have introduced policy regarding LGBTQI inclusiveness in the workplace. I know when you enter the unique world of business rules and regulations that employee preferences (i.e. not a poofter so rather not work with one) have no support and the door is where you will be pointed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> State marriage isn't predicated on love for love's sake and facebook memes. It's a serious contract




A contract taken so seriously that there's an entire industry based around the 40% (roughly) of such contracts which aren't fulfilled.

There might be something but I can't think of anything else where 40% of formal contracts result in one or both parties actually walking away from the deal.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So, that's good, treatment improved over the years, but in the early days a lot of people died.



You are totally missing my point, your claim was that it affected a "large section of the gay population" when in fact the numbers are small.

As I said, even if 100% of the people diagnosed with HIV were LGBT, (which they weren't) and 100% of the people died from it (which they haven't) then it still wouldn't come close to 1% of the LGBT community.

That was my point, i was pointing out you were overstating the numbers.

Only 36,171 people have been diagnosed in Australia ever, and over 2 thirds of them are still alive, and some of those that did die didn't die of aids


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> *Only* 36,171 people




36,000 people living (or dying) with a deadly disease is not a problem to you ?

It's a problem for the whole community who have to pay for the drugs used to treat this thing that was spread basically by wanton lust and an unhygenic lifestyle, and your Penn and Teller "look over there" techniques can't distract from the seriousness of the problem or its root causes.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 36,000 people living (or dying) with a deadly disease is not a problem to you ?
> 
> It's a problem for the whole community who have to pay for the drugs used to treat this thing that was spread basically by wanton lust and an unhygenic lifestyle, and your Penn and Teller "look over there" techniques can't distract from the seriousness of the problem or its root causes.




I thought people caught AIDS by sleeping with those who has AIDS, not by sleeping with gay people.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> I thought people caught AIDS by sleeping with those who has AIDS, not by sleeping with gay people.




Most of the people who had AIDS in the days before they starting spreading it by blood donations *were* gay people.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 36,000 people living (or dying) with a deadly disease is not a problem to you ?
> 
> It's a problem for the whole community who have to pay for the drugs used to treat this thing that was spread basically by wanton lust and an unhygenic lifestyle, and your Penn and Teller "look over there" techniques can't distract from the seriousness of the problem or its root causes.




I think it's you misdirecting here.

36,000 people over 35 years is small, not the large amount you claimed.

And it's especially small compared to something like heart disease.

1 person dies from heart disease every 12 mins in Australia, thats ship loads, aids doesn't come close.

Sex is a relatively healthy part of life, it is actually good for your heart, if we had more sex and are less crap we would be healthy as a nation.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the people who had AIDS in the days before they starting spreading it by blood donations *were* gay people.




Why do you think that was?

Could it be that because society didn't accept gays, and it was hard for them to maintain relationships, their sexual activity tended to involve more short term commitments such as one night stands, so they tended to have more partners hence spreading the disease.

Being accepted by society and being able to establish long term relationships would have helped slow the spread.

Also by luck, a lot of straight one night stands dodged a bullet by using condoms for birth control, where as prior to aids the use of condoms in gay interactions wasn't really needed.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> *their sexual activity tended to involve more short term commitments such as one night stands, so they tended to have more partners hence spreading the disease.*




Good to see that you have admitted the truth at last.

As for "acceptance", the fact is that most groups hang out with others of  their own group, e.g. older  people hang out with other older people, younger people hang out with other younger people etc, gays hang out with other gays, so maybe it was the gays who voluntarily distanced themselves from the mainstream.

And anyway, what other people thought of gays shouldn't have affected their own relationships, if they "loved" someone else they would have stayed with them and not spread themselves around, so again you are misdirecting and blaming the wrong people for the lustful lifestyles of the few.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Sex is a relatively healthy part of life, it is actually good for your heart, if we had more sex and are less crap we would be healthy as a nation.



I finally found something I agree with you on.  Only problem is getting the women to come to the party.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Good to see that you have admitted the truth at last.
> 
> As for "acceptance", the fact is that most groups hang out with others of  their own group, e.g. older  people hang out with other older people, younger people hang out with other younger people etc, gays hang out with other gays, so maybe it was the gays who voluntarily distanced themselves from the mainstream.




You know it was an offense to be gay right? Not to mention gay bashing was a thing, and you could lose your family and career if you were "out of the closet" that's why they hid their activity and couldn't really have settled relationships.

But none of that is their fault, that's society that caused that.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Sex is a relatively healthy part of life, it is actually good for your heart, if we had more sex and are less crap we would be healthy as a nation.




Well sorry, but with gays the more sex they have the more crap they get.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You know it was an offense to be gay right? Not to mention gay bashing was a thing, and you could lose your family and career if you were "out of the closet" that's why they hid their activity and couldn't really have settled relationships.




It's harder to hide activities with a lot of people than with one other.

*


			
				Value Collector said:
			
		


			But none of that is their fault, that's society that caused that.
		
Click to expand...


*
NONE of it [AIDS] is the gay's fault ? That's the most biased statement I've  heard on this issue and it's total rubbish.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> NONE of it [AIDS] is the gay's fault ? That's the most biased statement I've  heard on this issue and it's total rubbish.






How is a virus that mutated to take advantage of humans gays fault?

It's just random luck that straight women had already been demanding men wear condoms as part of birth control and that just happened to also slow the progression of aids.

Think about it,

If aids didn't exist and pregnancy wasn't a thing, would you have worried about condoms? I can tell you I wouldn't have as a young man.

So straight one night stands and prostitution would have spread aids much quicker if it weren't for condoms already being popular prior to aids showing up.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's harder to hide activities with a lot of people than with one other.




Really, you think it's easier to hide a marriage than it is to duck of and have a series of one night stands every now and then in the city or a truck stop out of town.

I mean I know which of my neighbors are married, but I wouldn't have a clue which ones have one night stands or visit prostitutes regularly.


----------



## Value Collector (29 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I finally found something I agree with you on.  Only problem is getting the women to come to the party.



Exactly, and if 

1, aids didn't exist, (yet)

2, and there was no way you could get them pregnant, 

3, and the girls had a similar sex drive to you,

You can't tell me you wouldn't be having a lot of sex, Lol.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Really, you think it's easier to hide a marriage than it is to duck of and have a series of one night stands every now and then in the city or a truck stop out of town.




We aren't talking marriages, we are talking one night stands, and the more one has of theses the less it means to the participants and the more likely they are to brag about it to their mates, because they don't care about the other party they just want to big note themselves.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> We aren't talking marriages, we are talking one night stands, and the more one has of theses the less it means to the participants and the more likely they are to brag about it to their mates, because they don't care about the other party they just want to big note themselves.



Some one who is hiding the fact they are gay, isn't going to brag about the fact met a dude at a truck stop or a bath house for a quick blow job.

Just like a guy who seems happily married but ducks off to a prostitute every few weeks is not going to tell anyone.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Some one who is hiding the fact they are gay,




They don't need to hide the fact that they are gay from their gay mates.


----------



## luutzu (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the people who had AIDS in the days before they starting spreading it by blood donations *were* gay people.




Need proper facts and figures to back that one up.

'cause I heard from Wil Smith that AIDS was developed by the CIA and spread out in Africa to control its population. Even I wouldn't go that far, I mean, that's what funding warlords and dictators are for.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> 'cause I heard from Wil Smith that AIDS was developed by the CIA and spread out in Africa to control its population





Yeah right. Got any facts and figures to back that up ?


----------



## luutzu (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah right. Got any facts and figures to back that up ?




No. And I did say I didn't believe it.

btw, Wil Smith is an actor you may have seen from such classics as Fresh Prince of Bel Air; Men in Black; The Pursuit of Happyness and some golf movie 

That's not to say the CIA couldn't possibly have done it. They invented the term "conspiracy theory" to throw Mel Gibson off his meds, no not in real life, in that movie with an evil Professor X. 

Back to the point, dude, AIDS is not "a gay disease", nor spread by gays. Like VC said, if society and its norms force homosexuals into that closet... you know, where "real men" aren't fags and whatnot... some real men might be gay and so sneak off, get that urge fix from whoever is available. Further increasing the chance of catching STDs, with AIDS being one of them.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Back to the point, dude, AIDS is not "a gay disease", nor spread by gays.




It most definitely was spread in the main by gays, which is why they suffered from it disproportionately compared to the heterosexual population, and if you were around in the '80's you would remember the "grim reaper" ads which were pitched to gays and IV drug users (a big proportion of which were also gay).

Trying to whitewash history doesn't do much for people's credibility.


----------



## Macquack (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> ...pitched to gays and IV drug users (a big proportion of which were also gay).



C'mon Sir, are you now trying to link being gay with IV drug use. That is like saying a big proportion of people with red hair are smack heads.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

Macquack said:


> C'mon Sir, are you now trying to link being gay with IV drug use. That is like saying a big proportion of people with red hair are smack heads.




*"Drug use Seven times higher among gays"*

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...se-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They don't need to hide the fact that they are gay from their gay mates.



I am talking about hiding it from their parents, neighbors, general public, employers, wife, sports team etc etc

If you think in the 70's and 80's most gays were open about their relationships You are wrong, a large portion hid their sexuality, and limited it to short term flings or one night stands etc.

That's why bath houses etc were popular in Sydney.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> *"Drug use Seven times higher among gays"*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...se-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html




Drug use can be linked to family problems and mental health issues, which we already know affect the LGBT community at higher rates, they are also 7 times more likely to commit suicide, so yeah it's not that they are bad people, it's just life can be rough for them.

All of the issues you are bringing up are problems that can be traced back to society not accepting them and generally giving them a hard time in the past.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2017)

Value Collector said:


> All of the issues you are bringing up are problems that can be traced back to society not accepting them and generally giving them a hard time in the past.




A lot of gay people have been very successful in all walks of life, art, entertainment, law, media you name it.

It depends on the character of the individual how they choose to live their lives, not society.


----------



## Macquack (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> *"Drug use Seven times higher among gays"*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...se-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html



Did you read the article you posted?

"Heroin use was comparable among both populations".

So as far as drugs taken intravenously, drug use by gays is the same as the greater population, not seven times higher.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2017)

The infiltration of the gay mafia into childrens  TV. Have you seen this program  the Rainbow House ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of gay people have been very successful in all walks of life, art, entertainment, law, media you name it.




and in a lot of cases they have had to over come huge obstacles to do it, some even had to hide the fact they were gay until they were successful, look at the backlash Ellen received in the 90's when she came out, she is lucky she was already successful other wise she wouldn't perhaps have her career now, how ever some people get caught up in those obstacles, through no fault of their own.

If you have a supportive family, you feel accepted, and society embraces you, and you aren't hung up with depression or other issues you have a better chance of success.

In the past gays generally struggled with those things, and still do in many cases.

-----------------
Ellen talks about coming out, and having her show axed.


----------



## PZ99 (30 September 2017)

That video says it all. Australia was one of the last countries to embrace colour TV so the hidden message in the colours was confined to the latte sippers. LOL


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> A contract taken so seriously that there's an entire industry based around the 40% (roughly) of such contracts which aren't fulfilled.
> 
> There might be something but I can't think of anything else where 40% of formal contracts result in one or both parties actually walking away from the deal.





So serious that more people stayed married than split. 

How many people are there married in Australia and how many in Australia are divorced?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah right. Got any facts and figures to back that up ?




This help to indicate about it roots and spread? Eyes wide shut for the fans of disease ridden who refuse to accept historical fact.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 September 2017)

basilio said:


> The infiltration of the gay mafia into childrens  TV. Have you seen this program  the Rainbow House ?



That was one adult clip produced over the 20 year production life and not for childrens viewing and not homosexually related. Rainbow House was not homosexual television for kids.


> It was intended to develop language and number skills for pre-school children, and went on to win the Society of Film and Television Arts Award for Best Children's Programme in 1975.





> *In 1979, the cast and crew of Rainbow made a special exclusive sketch for the Thames TV staff Christmas tape, sometimes referred to as the "Twangers" episode.* This sketch featured plenty of deliberate sexual innuendo (beginning with Zippy peeling a banana, saying 'One skin, two skin, three skin, four...' before being interrupted), and was never shown at the time (as it was never intended to be screened to the general public.) It also included Geoffrey convincing the viewers to 'bounce' their balls, but if they did not have any balls, they could ask a friend if they could play with his. Jane also claimed that she was "blowing a lot with Rodger". Soon, Zippy asked them to stop, suggesting whether to play with a blowing tube and maracas, so they could start singing "The Plucking Song".


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2017)

As hard as THEY tried, in a three cornered contest, Football won out in the end.  Let's hope NRL win too.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> That was one adult clip produced over the 20 year production life and not for childrens viewing and not homosexually related. Rainbow House was not homosexual television for kids.




Really ?  Truly ?  You are such a spoilsport Wysiwyg. 
It was droll.


----------



## Logique (1 October 2017)

Senator Abetz covered the 'No' case pretty well earlier this morning, on ABC TV. But doubtless the commissars will be along after 9am to re-educate us.

Give the Parliament a blank cheque over our freedoms of speech, religion and parental rights? Not likely.







> *John Howard Accuses Government Of Washing Its Hands Of Postal Survey Aftermath*. The former PM is a "no" man.
> Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...-hands-of-postal-survey-aftermath_a_23208447/   Updated 14/09/2017 2:36 PM AEST
> ...John Howard is accusing the Government of washing its hands of any responsibility for what happens after a possible "yes" result. He's intervened in current government policy, criticising the government for, "merely stating that it will facilitate a private member's bill."....
> The former Prime Minister, who is firmly in the "no" camp, specifically wants the Government to spell out,* in advance of the vote, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of a "yes" result* in the postal survey.
> Howard has slapped down any description of these issues as "red herrings"....


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2017)

http://tonyabbott.com.au/2017/09/left-will-find-aussies-dont-like-told/



> Originally published in the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun, 28 September 2017
> 
> No one wants to seem harsh towards gay friends and family members which is why most people’s initial inclination was to say “yes” to same sex marriage. But that’s starting to change as more and more of us realise that this issue is being exploited by the left-wing activists who are waging war on our way of life.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (3 October 2017)

Says it all..

l


----------



## PZ99 (3 October 2017)




----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2017)

The sad part about the whole excercise is, only the yes side are getting any airplay, maybe there are a lot of people in high place with homosexual leanings? Who knows.


----------



## Tisme (3 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> The sad part about the whole excercise is, only the yes side are getting any airplay, maybe there are a lot of people in high place with homosexual leanings? Who knows.



http://www.afr.com/brand/boss/business-leaders-proudly-join-lgbti-list-20150921-gjrwjz


----------



## overhang (3 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> The sad part about the whole excercise is, only the yes side are getting any airplay, maybe there are a lot of people in high place with homosexual leanings? Who knows.



Nothing a bit of right wing censorship can't fix


> *Macklemore’s Same Love not aired on 2GB or 3AW’s NRL Grand Final broadcast*



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ma...t/news-story/8924676516955c51df6360f16a4adeb6


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2017)

Fortunately most of the links are subscription only, secondly i personally don't need anyone to set my moral compass. 
What people do is there business, when they start telling me what I've got to do, I really get annoyed.


----------



## overhang (3 October 2017)

Like wise, you must have a hard time with religion then.


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2017)

I do. 
I went through confirmation studies as a young bloke, after I completed the studies I thought, well that's a load of crap.
The only thing religion has done, is set down a few basic social rules as guidelines, not many follow them.
As with most societies and civilizations, eventually decadence sets in with boredom.


----------



## Macquack (3 October 2017)

"It's All About Me" neglected to post this compelling Abbott video.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> I do.
> I went through confirmation studies as a young bloke, after I completed the studies I thought, well that's a load of crap.



I remember praying in my early teens and came to the realisation that hope and reality are very different. Leaned on the bible words a few times in my youth but discovered many better books with helpful words along the way.



Macquack said:


> "It's All About Me" neglected to post this compelling Abbott video.



 She is saying yes for her Aunt. Generally anyone that is a relative or friend is going to vote yes.


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> "It's All About Me" neglected to post this compelling Abbott video.





It may be compelling, to someone who cares what she thinks, to everyone else it is just another persons opinion.
It's a bit like religion, people who need positive re enforcement love it, others just take responsibility for their decisions good or bad.


----------



## Junior (4 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> The sad part about the whole excercise is, only the yes side are getting any airplay, maybe there are a lot of people in high place with homosexual leanings? Who knows.




There's been plenty of airplay from both sides.  The Australian & Herald Sun running plenty of No pieces, and Sky News.  Tony Abbott's face bobbing up every other day on the issue & Andrew Bolt playing the 'conservative' card aggressively as always.

The Yes side is loud for a few reasons IMO:  1. Based on polling thus far, it has more support.  
2. Entertainment and Media are progressive - relatively high proportion of homosexuals/LGBTI and thus many in this industry would be firmly in the Yes camp.


----------



## Tisme (4 October 2017)

Junior said:


> There's been plenty of airplay from both sides.  The Australian & Herald Sun running plenty of No pieces, and Sky News.  Tony Abbott's face bobbing up every other day on the issue & Andrew Bolt playing the 'conservative' card aggressively as always.
> 
> The Yes side is loud for a few reasons IMO:  1. Based on polling thus far, it has more support.
> 2. Entertainment and Media are progressive - relatively high proportion of homosexuals/LGBTI and thus many in this industry would be firmly in the Yes camp.





I suspect and wonder for all the fame it brought him, if Brokeback Mountain didn't send Heath Ledger into a spiral of depression. He was apparently very discomforted by some of the role play. It was like putting the casting couch in front of the camera IMO.


----------



## Tisme (4 October 2017)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/coal...-prime-minister-of-australia/804835516365389/

It is common ground in the same sex marriage debate that if the postal survey produces a Yes majority, then the peoples’ verdict should be respected, and Parliament support an amendment to the Marriage Act. There is less generosity of spirit if the outcome is a No vote. Bill Shorten has said that his party will not accept such a result. Nor will the Greens.

This contrast highlights just how important it is for the Government to spell out, before the postal survey is completed, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of same sex marriage becoming law. The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries, such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws.

This issue must be addressed before the survey is completed; leaving it as something to be taken up only in the event of a Yes vote prevailing is the equivalent of saying that it does not matter very much. If a Yes vote is recorded there will be overwhelming pressure to “move on”, legislate as quickly as possible, and then put the issue behind Parliament. There will be scant opportunity for serious consideration of protections in the areas I have cited. Very likely, those raising such matters will be met with a chorus of put-downs, and accused of attempting to frustrate the verdict of the people.
Thus far, the Government has said that religious rights will be protected, but not how - merely stating that it will facilitate a private members’ bill. On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protection in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

Same sex marriage will not be the end of this debate. As the safe schools debacle showed, there are education activists ready to introduce classroom material regarding gender issues unacceptable to the mainstream of Australian parents. These activists will use a change in the definition of marriage to renew their push. Parents are entitled to know what steps would be taken to ensure that this does not occur.

Despite the powerful evidence for reform represented by the Andrew Bolt case; the QUT computer room dispute and the disgraceful hounding of the late Bill Leak, the obnoxious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act remains unscathed. This does not bode well for the capacity of the current national Parliament to enact any effective protections of the kind that will be required if our marriage laws change.

Those campaigning for a Yes vote call any reference to these issues “red herrings” or distractions. On the contrary, they are legitimate concerns. It is completely disingenuous to assert that a change of this magnitude to a fundamental social institution does not have consequences. It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the Government will do on protections before the survey is completed. Otherwise people will not have been fully informed when they cast their votes.






John Howard OM AC


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2017)

Yes Tisme, it is easy to see why Howard was the most popular Prime Minister, he says it as it is.

As the old saying goes, we shall reap what we sow, I believe there will be a lot of social consequences from the current left wing push.


----------



## PZ99 (4 October 2017)

I hope that big red cross on the bottom of the speech isn't an euphemism for a kiss but rather a mark of a factual error when he said: _"parliament should reflect the will of the people"_.

It was his failure as PM to observe this that cost him his Govt and his seat


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2017)

Another example of Same sex censorship.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...loses-venue-after-wrest-point-cancels/9015626


----------



## PZ99 (5 October 2017)

They should've planned that event a lot earlier - like - at the beginning of the campaign? lol


----------



## crackajack2 (5 October 2017)

Over the BS advertising on TV. Jerks telling me what to do. Good reason to vote no, because there is a hidden agenda.


----------



## PZ99 (5 October 2017)

crackajack2 said:


> Over the BS advertising on TV. Jerks telling me what to do. Good reason to vote no, because there is a hidden agenda.



Let me guess, you voted twice right? LOL



	

		
			
		

		
	
 < _( I must give this guy credit for sneaking down the chimmy for some nefarious editing hahaha )_


----------



## Tisme (5 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Another example of Same sex censorship.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...loses-venue-after-wrest-point-cancels/9015626





Wait until legislation is passed to give them ownership of marriage. 

There used to be a joke about making homosexuality compulsory ....... we are getting close and closer.


----------



## dutchie (5 October 2017)

The Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, has warned of a “direct challenge to freedom of speech” after the No campaign was denied bookings by both the University of Tasmania and Wrest Point Casino for an event on Friday evening.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s/news-story/d16eed216f92c2a13e6de586ee2260be

But just try and refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.


----------



## PZ99 (5 October 2017)

It's all academic anyway in my view. Enough people have already voted to set the result regardless of any further campaigning. Essential sampled around 1800 voters yesterday.







I like the funny bit on the top right - it says 5% of YES voters really mean NO.
They must have been bullied or hypnotised or drunk or indifferent...


----------



## Tink (5 October 2017)

The Greens have attacked Porteous before.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...t/news-story/d8d9079bf932526b27e5f094e57dbe84

Just like the Yarra Council in Melbourne

They despise Western Culture.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I like the funny bit on the top right - it says 5% of YES voters really mean NO.
> They must have been bullied or hypnotised or drunk or indifferent...




I think a number of people who said they voted YES actually voted NO for fear of being bullied or branded.


----------



## tech/a (5 October 2017)

I was at the Grand final BBQ with about 20 others.

At a friends who is the director of one of Adelaide's prestige
schools---the sort of school ducks don't frequent.

Many there were friends who had kids attend the school
most business owners. A few were ex students adult kids
of people at the BBQ.

Discussion went to SSM and I noticed the chatter was very non committal.
General plus and minus.

Being a duck who doesn't mind voicing my stance I did with argument
seen above. From there I sat back and the discussion turned abruptly as
if all of a sudden it was ok for the teaching fraternity to voice their serious
concerns with the consequences to not only the kids in school but those
teaching them. The egg shell situations caused by the fear of offending
someone or some sector, along with the goody goody brigade which have
given power to students that if abused can ruin a teachers life. Saw me
listening to a strong majority NO vote.

There are many people this will directly effect.
Those that think it wont effect don't consider beyond the equal rights argument.
Those it does effect realise that their equal rights are well and truly under attack.

There are lessons to be learnt from those who have adopted SSM.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2017)

tech/a said:


> The egg shell situations caused by the fear of offending
> someone or some sector,




That statement, of yours, sums up the whole problem Duck.

It allows the bullies and those who don't care what others think, to take the aggressive position.


----------



## Tisme (5 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I think a number of people who said they voted YES actually voted NO for fear of being bullied or branded.




That barcode scared a lot of people, which says a lot about trust or betrayal of it in this country.


----------



## basilio (5 October 2017)

We know our society is changing when a new County Court judge takes the opportunity to express his love for his male partner and looks forward to being married. 

I suggest this reality and hundreds of thousands like this are the reason the majority of people will accept SSM.

* Our love is equal, new Victorian judge tells his 'husband-in-waiting' *


*Tony Wright*
"I say to you, dearest Shane, I have no doubt our love is equal. Not better. Not worse. But equal.

"And I am proud to call you my husband-in-waiting."

Current Time 0:54
/
Duration Time 1:33

 



*New judge's moving tribute to same-sex ...*
*New judge's moving tribute to same-sex partner*
Newly appointed County Court judge Paul Higham gave a heart-felt tribute to his partner, revealing his hopes the postal vote will allow them to become mister and mister. Video: County Court of Victoria.

Speaking from the bench was His Honour Paul Higham, newly-appointed judge of the Victorian County Court.

Judge Higham, in an address unlike any previously delivered by a Victorian judge, made clear to the gathering of leading judicial figures and guests that he hoped the "yes" vote in the current plebiscite on same-sex marriage would carry the day.





Judge Paul Higham (left) and partner Shane McGowan. Photo: Facebook
"So if a certain vote goes a certain way," he said, holding a finger to his lips and uttering a mock "shh" to the guests, as if afraid he might jinx the vote, "We'll be Mister and Mister very soon."

Judge Higham, speaking at his swearing-in ceremony and formal welcome to the County Court in late August, devoted the final minutes of his 40-minute address to his long-time partner, Shane McGowan, who the court's Chief Judge, Peter Kidd, publicly welcomed to the ceremony. Mr McGowan is an internationally recognised illustrator and writer of children's books, who is published under the name Shane McG.

The new judge was at pains to present the pair's long relationship as no different to any other, short of he and Mr McGowan being granted the right to marry in Australia.

"We met 29 years ago," Judge Higham said of Mr McGowan.

"There have been ups and downs, of course, but we are still together.

"Over that time, he has quite simply put up with me. The endless, endless conversations about my cases. The me, me, me-ism of the needful corporate barrister. The last-minute enforced holiday cancellation when a case overruns.

"We have been around the world, we have had fun, we have also stayed at home, and – there's a confession here – watching _Midsomer Murders_. It doesn't get more normal than that, ladies and gentlemen."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...lls-his-husbandinwaiting-20171003-gyt6ld.html


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2017)

basilio said:


> We know our society is changing when a new County Court judge takes the opportunity to express his love for his male partner and looks forward to being married.
> 
> I suggest this reality and hundreds of thousands like this are the reason the majority of people will accept SSM.
> 
> ...



All fine.

So long as the the resultant impingements on freedom of religion, thought, and speech aren't realised as they have been in other jurisdictions. 

Two chances of that my brownshirt friend,  mine and Buckley's.


----------



## basilio (5 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> All fine.
> 
> Two chances of that my* brownshirt* friend,  mine and Buckley's.



Any respect  left Wayne or have they been flushed with this debate ?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Our love is equal, new Victorian judge tells his 'husband-in-waiting'




Well it isn't really is it ?

How are they going to produce children ?


----------



## basilio (5 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it isn't really is it ?
> 
> How are they going to produce children ?




They had a child. Evie. She died in 2010.  Read the full story.


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Any respect  left Wayne or have they been flushed with this debate ?



Let me tell you something Komrade.

I made my position known via my FaceAche page,  of which most of my clients recieve my feed. 

I thought I would lose a portion of my clientele,  those who serve as useful idiots to the cultural Marxist masters.. and pawns such as yourself. But, viewing their opinions, I felt it important to have my say.... and I've got too many clients anyway. 

But, not one has left me and it had prompted many thoughtful discussions and different points of view. Even though many remain at opposite ends of the debate, our respect for each other remains, with an understanding of each other's position.  Others agree... all commend me for my cajones in braving the bullying twats.

So my unvirtuous, virtue signalling, propagandist friend,  your ad hominem barb had no edge,  and once again reveals the cold foetid intellectual cancer at the core of your poisonous attitude and ideology. One that probably believes the country music fans in Las Vegas deserved what they got. 

My self respect is at maximum bro.


----------



## basilio (5 October 2017)

So Wayne you believe your way to engage people in a discussion is tar them with any and every derogotary term you can muster and see what sticks best .

You use a lexicon of abuse that I would have thought was not a part of this Forums acceptable behaviour. (But that concept has fled ages ago..)
_
"So my unvirtuous, virtue signalling, propagandist friend, your ad hominem barb had no edge, and once again reveals the cold foetid intellectual cancer at the core of your poisonous attitude and ideology. * One that probably believes the country music fans in Las Vegas deserved what they got."
*_
I thought the_ Brownshirt _jibe was a nasty little comment that was worth pulling you up on. Clearly however that was just a taste of what was to come if I did buck up wasn't it.

Trying to pin that idea on me is about as insane and offensive as the coterie of Alt Rights saying it was all a hoax. When I think of the sorrow around the hundreds of people and families in Las Vegas at the moment I wonder how you can run that line.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2017)

basilio said:


> They had a child. Evie. She died in 2010.  Read the full story.




Homosexuals don't produce children. They may acquire them indifferent ways, but it's not the same thing is it ?


----------



## Tisme (5 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Homosexuals don't produce children. They may acquire them indifferent ways, but it's not the same thing is it ?





Like a poodle or dachshund


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Like a poodle or dachshund




Great Danes are popular too I believe.


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2017)

basilio said:


> So Wayne you believe your way to engage people in a discussion is tar them with any and every derogotary term you can muster and see what sticks best .
> 
> You use a lexicon of abuse that I would have thought was not a part of this Forums acceptable behaviour. (But that concept has fled ages ago..)
> _
> ...



LMAO - Straight for the "I'm so offended" strategy. 

Do I really need to dig out the litany of abusive terms that you have directed towards me? does "brain dead" ring any bells? (a term that is surely offensive to those genuinely suffering severe brain injury and has touched my immediate family) 

Are you such a bleeding hypocrite that you can't take as good as you give? 

C'mon bas, man up, just a tad.


----------



## Macquack (5 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Others agree... all commend me for my cajones in *braving the bullying twats.*



Is this the same WayneL? The He man, mans man, ute driving, tool grinding, molten steel dodging, wild brumby taming tough guy is getting bullied by a bunch of girls riding ponies. You need to harden the f*ck up.


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> Is this the same WayneL? The He man, mans man, ute driving, tool grinding, molten steel dodging, wild brumby taming tough guy is getting bullied by a bunch of girls riding ponies. You need to harden the f*ck up.



Rich middle aged dressage queens riding 17:2hh warmbloods actually mate. 

They're a whole nuther level of scary mate


----------



## POMMIE-POSSUM (6 October 2017)

G'day. A newbie here, and a Pom to boot.
I married one of your lot a few years back, albeit in UK.
I'm delighted that ssm will be legislated for by crimbo.


----------



## PZ99 (6 October 2017)

Funny


----------



## Tisme (6 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Funny





Not his best and he probably shouldn't have shifted into promotion of agendas rather than lampooning them


----------



## PZ99 (6 October 2017)

That's the beauty of free speech - there's always another way to skin a cat.

Anyone can do it - some just do it better than others


----------



## code12 (6 October 2017)

tech/a said:


> Well you should consider it because the kids of tomorrow can't speak for themselves in a plebiscite but you and I can.



A lot of comment and speculation here about SSM. Most of it uneducated and with no experience in life as a gay person. I grew up in a 'normal' household with a Mother and Father and 2 sisters. I was not sexually abused or deprived of motherly or fatherly love or had any other environmental factors that might turn me gay or queer. Nope I was born this way and in the 60s and 70s it was hell to know you were different and somehow you were supposed to fit in. I came out in Sydney in the early 80's .Yup gay Mardi Gras, lots of parties, clubs and being out and proud.Hey it was the 80's! I loved Australia and still do my Mother was born in this beautiful country. Eventually it was time for me to go home and settle down. So I did and I fell in love with an amazing person who had 2 kids under 4. This person was already divorced. We loved each other like crazy and it was a big commitment for me to take on co-parenting those 2 cute kids. But I did. The other biological parent of the kids was not always very present in the kids life because of their own 'stuff'. Both of our families Mothers and Fathers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces and friends embraced us and our relationship and the kids fully. Lots of love, lots of fun and often I was the the parent that had all the nephews and nieces over for the holidays as well as the neighbourhood kids while my partner worked and studied. Over a decade went by and we separated. The kids were teenagers and it was tough for them. We talked to them about it all saying it wasn't their fault etc. All the usual balanced communication and quota of tears that has to go with separation.
They got over it and we still stay in touch - my partner moved on with another person, so did I. Me and my lovely partner got married in 2016 here in my home country of NZ. I see the 2 kids I helped co parent when I can and there is great love between us. One is married and the other has a long term partner. They are both in heterosexual relationships. Not that it matters. As long as they are happy. I'm the only one in my family that  I know of that is gay. It is a complete non issue in my family. My partner has 1 gay sibling and at least 2 gay cousins. One is married in the UK. My lovely partner and I are not going to have our own kids adopted or otherwise. We talked about it a lot and made a decision based on our life and what we wanted to do work wise etc. If we did want kids, nothing would stop us. Whether we were in a country that said yes or no to SSM. I know that those kids would be loved so much and parented to the best of our ability given our life experience and boy have we had plenty! What's the point of this comment I make you might ask. If you have to ask you then you have missed the point. Stand up Australia and let go of the fear.


----------



## tech/a (6 October 2017)

Code12
Are you female.


----------



## Tisme (6 October 2017)

code12 said:


> A lot of comment and speculation here about SSM. Most of it uneducated and with no experience in life as a gay person. I grew up in a 'normal' household with a Mother and Father and 2 sisters. I was not sexually abused or deprived of motherly or fatherly love or had any other environmental factors that might turn me gay or queer. Nope I was born this way and in the 60s and 70s it was hell to know you were different and somehow you were supposed to fit in. I came out in Sydney in the early 80's .Yup gay Mardi Gras, lots of parties, clubs and being out and proud.Hey it was the 80's! I loved Australia and still do my Mother was born in this beautiful country. Eventually it was time for me to go home and settle down. So I did and I fell in love with an amazing person who had 2 kids under 4. This person was already divorced. We loved each other like crazy and it was a big commitment for me to take on co-parenting those 2 cute kids. But I did. The other biological parent of the kids was not always very present in the kids life because of their own 'stuff'. Both of our families Mothers and Fathers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces and friends embraced us and our relationship and the kids fully. Lots of love, lots of fun and often I was the the parent that had all the nephews and nieces over for the holidays as well as the neighbourhood kids while my partner worked and studied. Over a decade went by and we separated. The kids were teenagers and it was tough for them. We talked to them about it all saying it wasn't their fault etc. All the usual balanced communication and quota of tears that has to go with separation.
> They got over it and we still stay in touch - my partner moved on with another person, so did I. Me and my lovely partner got married in 2016 here in my home country of NZ. I see the 2 kids I helped co parent when I can and there is great love between us. One is married and the other has a long term partner. They are both in heterosexual relationships. Not that it matters. As long as they are happy. I'm the only one in my family that  I know of that is gay. It is a complete non issue in my family. My partner has 1 gay sibling and at least 2 gay cousins. One is married in the UK. My lovely partner and I are not going to have our own kids adopted or otherwise. We talked about it a lot and made a decision based on our life and what we wanted to do work wise etc. If we did want kids, nothing would stop us. Whether we were in a country that said yes or no to SSM. I know that those kids would be loved so much and parented to the best of our ability given our life experience and boy have we had plenty! What's the point of this comment I make you might ask. If you have to ask you then you have missed the point. Stand up Australia and let go of the fear.




NUP 

the fear is real, just you wait and see ...........


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 October 2017)

code12 said:


> A lot of comment and speculation here about SSM. *Most of it uneducated and with no experience in life as a gay person.*



95 - 98 % of people aren't homosexual which obvously explains that. Good on you for sharing your experience though. I think you will find most people have come around to accept homosexuality and let them be. Larger business policy is inclusion of all types of humans in the workplace so the majority have to accept it in that world anyway. What issue is being taken is the hijacking of traditional marriage and the mother/father family standards. The governement has ensured via this non compulsory survey there will be a change to the Marriage Act. The majority vote when the majority don't vote.


----------



## Tink (7 October 2017)

Christ College (University of Tasmania)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tasmania

has now done a backflip to allow the true meaning of Marriage to be aired on its own campus.

Marriage is one man and one woman.

----------------------------

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/the-ill-liberal-equality-campaign/


----------



## Logique (7 October 2017)

code12 said:


> A lot of comment and speculation here about SSM. Most of it uneducated and with no experience in life as a gay person. I grew up in a 'normal' household with a Mother and Father and 2 sisters. I was not sexually abused or deprived of motherly or fatherly love or had any other environmental factors that might turn me gay or queer. Nope I was born this way and in the 60s and 70s it was hell to know you were different and somehow you were supposed to fit in. I came out in Sydney in the early 80's .Yup gay Mardi Gras, lots of parties, clubs and being out and proud.Hey it was the 80's! I loved Australia and still do my Mother was born in this beautiful country. Eventually it was time for me to go home and settle down. So I did and I fell in love with an amazing person who had 2 kids under 4. This person was already divorced. We loved each other like crazy and it was a big commitment for me to take on co-parenting those 2 cute kids. But I did. The other biological parent of the kids was not always very present in the kids life because of their own 'stuff'. Both of our families Mothers and Fathers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces and friends embraced us and our relationship and the kids fully. Lots of love, lots of fun and often I was the the parent that had all the nephews and nieces over for the holidays as well as the neighbourhood kids while my partner worked and studied. Over a decade went by and we separated. The kids were teenagers and it was tough for them. We talked to them about it all saying it wasn't their fault etc. All the usual balanced communication and quota of tears that has to go with separation.
> They got over it and we still stay in touch - my partner moved on with another person, so did I. Me and my lovely partner got married in 2016 here in my home country of NZ. I see the 2 kids I helped co parent when I can and there is great love between us. One is married and the other has a long term partner. They are both in heterosexual relationships. Not that it matters. As long as they are happy. I'm the only one in my family that  I know of that is gay. It is a complete non issue in my family. My partner has 1 gay sibling and at least 2 gay cousins. One is married in the UK. My lovely partner and I are not going to have our own kids adopted or otherwise. We talked about it a lot and made a decision based on our life and what we wanted to do work wise etc. If we did want kids, nothing would stop us. Whether we were in a country that said yes or no to SSM. I know that those kids would be loved so much and parented to the best of our ability given our life experience and boy have we had plenty! What's the point of this comment I make you might ask. If you have to ask you then you have missed the point. Stand up Australia and let go of the fear.



Nobody is judging your life experience Code12.

But a 'Yes' vote would be the precursor to loss of some important personal and parental freedoms, which I see you don't bother to deny. As has happened everywhere else that allowed SSM, including Ireland and Canada.

I will not anytime soon be letting go of the fear of the gay leftist Thought Police, which your gentle wheedling seeks to empower. You are the one who seems uneducated.


----------



## Macquack (8 October 2017)

Logique said:


> But a 'Yes' vote would be the precursor to loss of some important personal and parental freedoms, which I see you don't bother to deny.



Do want to spell out the loss of freedoms which code 12 did not bother to deny?  I did not read any reference to that at all.


----------



## Logique (8 October 2017)

Don't be disingenuous Macquack.

I think #1346 and #1438 provide a core understanding, outcomes repeated in every SSM jurisdiction to date.


----------



## Macquack (8 October 2017)

Logique said:


> Don't be disingenuous Macquack.
> 
> I think #1346 and #1438 provide a core understanding, outcomes repeated in every SSM jurisdiction to date.



You put words in Code 12's mouth, end of story.


----------



## Tisme (8 October 2017)

http://marriageequals.org.au/wp-con..._gay_parents_and_we-_dont_believe_in_SSM1.pdf


----------



## pixel (9 October 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is one man and one woman.



in the opinion of some.
others diametrically disagree.
I've always held the opinion, *Marriage is what you and your spouse make of it.*
... and it's nobody else's business, nor is my marriage in any way affected by the way other people conduct theirs.


----------



## Tink (9 October 2017)

You are entitled to that view.
It is called freedom of speech, freedom of thought.

Marriage in Australia is -

one man and one woman.
Not blood related.
And not a child.

A mother and a father to raise their children, and take responsibility for their children.

The state has no business in same sex/transgender marriage

A mother and a father raising their children is not equal to two men/women
----------------------------------

Margaret Court stated her view on Marriage, which is the law of this land.

The stalinists/terrorists in Melbourne (including the activists from the USA, that come back and forth destroying our state with no accountability), tried to remove her name from the tennis court which she achieved playing tennis.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...y/news-story/d44141e86f396b85388d6216f9eba0c5

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/vic/2017/06/22/gay-marriage-advocates-protest-court.html


----------



## Junior (9 October 2017)

Tink said:


> You are entitled to that view.
> It is called freedom of speech, freedom of thought.
> 
> Marriage in Australia is -
> ...




Margaret Court is coming from a religious standpoint.  Not relevant in politics and not relevant to the other HALF of the population of this country who do not identify with Christianity.

The law of the land is constantly evolving and changing.  Some will live in the past whilst others will look to the future and embrace positive change.


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

code12 said:


> A lot of comment and speculation here about SSM. Most of it uneducated and with no experience in life as a gay person. I grew up in a 'normal' household with a Mother and Father and 2 sisters. I was not sexually abused or deprived of motherly or fatherly love or had any other environmental factors that might turn me gay or queer. Nope I was born this way and in the 60s and 70s it was hell to know you were different and somehow you were supposed to fit in. I came out in Sydney in the early 80's .Yup gay Mardi Gras, lots of parties, clubs and being out and proud.Hey it was the 80's! I loved Australia and still do my Mother was born in this beautiful country. Eventually it was time for me to go home and settle down. So I did and I fell in love with an amazing person who had 2 kids under 4. This person was already divorced. We loved each other like crazy and it was a big commitment for me to take on co-parenting those 2 cute kids. But I did. The other biological parent of the kids was not always very present in the kids life because of their own 'stuff'. Both of our families Mothers and Fathers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces and friends embraced us and our relationship and the kids fully. Lots of love, lots of fun and often I was the the parent that had all the nephews and nieces over for the holidays as well as the neighbourhood kids while my partner worked and studied. Over a decade went by and we separated. The kids were teenagers and it was tough for them. We talked to them about it all saying it wasn't their fault etc. All the usual balanced communication and quota of tears that has to go with separation.
> They got over it and we still stay in touch - my partner moved on with another person, so did I. Me and my lovely partner got married in 2016 here in my home country of NZ. I see the 2 kids I helped co parent when I can and there is great love between us. One is married and the other has a long term partner. They are both in heterosexual relationships. Not that it matters. As long as they are happy. I'm the only one in my family that  I know of that is gay. It is a complete non issue in my family. My partner has 1 gay sibling and at least 2 gay cousins. One is married in the UK. My lovely partner and I are not going to have our own kids adopted or otherwise. We talked about it a lot and made a decision based on our life and what we wanted to do work wise etc. If we did want kids, nothing would stop us. Whether we were in a country that said yes or no to SSM. I know that those kids would be loved so much and parented to the best of our ability given our life experience and boy have we had plenty! What's the point of this comment I make you might ask. If you have to ask you then you have missed the point. Stand up Australia and let go of the fear.



I have no problem with that. My point is the yes movement just wants to get benefits from the government. Never seen a gay man give birth to a child. Likewise never seen a lesbian women give birth to a child without some sort of external intervention.  The whole gay marriage thing is a waste of time and just for more attention seekers. And no I have nothing against gay people. Just stating the truth.


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Margaret Court is coming from a religious standpoint.  Not relevant in politics and not relevant to the other HALF of the population of this country who do not identify with Christianity.
> 
> The law of the land is constantly evolving and changing.  Some will live in the past whilst others will look to the future and embrace positive change.



Positive change?  To what? Hey why not introduce a vote for man animal sex. Heck my neighbour loves a donkey maybe they can have children lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Vote one same animal marriage lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

actauly i love my trees vote one man animal marriage lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Because I really love attention and those crappy yes adds. lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Just vote yes to anything


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Breaking news man marries a rock and has children lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Breaking new woman marries her house and spontaneously has children lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

It's the new age of thinking. Human meets alien and marries.
Lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Margaret Court is coming from a religious standpoint.  Not relevant in politics and not relevant to the other HALF of the population of this country who do not identify with Christianity.
> 
> The law of the land is constantly evolving and changing.  Some will live in the past whilst others will look to the future and embrace positive change.



Go back to school junior  you obviously failed sex ed 101 lol


----------



## Logique (9 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> You put words in Code 12's mouth, end of story.



Perhaps, but I doubt it. Seems to me it was Code 12 doing the verballing


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2017)

pixel said:


> in the opinion of some.
> others diametrically disagree...............
> .




Yes just like this car


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2017)

crackajack2 said:


> Breaking news man marries a rock and has children lol



They would be pebbles then?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2017)

dutchie said:


> They would be pebbles then?




and Bam Bam.


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2017)

crackajack2 said:


> Breaking new woman marries her house and spontaneously has children lol



No that's just the Family Court. Wife always gets house and children.


----------



## Macquack (9 October 2017)

crackajack2 said:


> It's the new age of thinking. Human meets alien and marries.
> Lol



Haven't you watched Mork and Mindy?
As long as the alien was a good looking female, you would be in like Flynn.


----------



## grah33 (10 October 2017)

code12 said:


> A lot of comment and speculation...




Hi Code

I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.

But have you considered the suffering of conscientious objectors in the future, that is likely to occur if the yes camp prevails. We have to assume it will be as in other countries. Take for example some wedding photographer who happens to be a religious person , and feels they just can't take photos of a gay wedding. They have to make a choice as to whether they want to keep their job or their faith. They would be worrying about the future, and what's going to happen to them. Not a pretty picture.

And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people. So naturally when we see religion getting controlled by the government -happening already in SSM countries – it makes us (including people who support gay relationships) freak out. It's a major concern...

It would be different of course if everyone was free to do what they wanted.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Hi Code
> 
> I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.
> 
> ...




We're all free to do what we want. Just not free to discriminate against other people. Sounds like a fair approach to things.

Weren't too long ago that people "don't feel comfortable" working with, living near, catering or providing a service for a fee to the coloured folks; or the greasy folks; or the redheads etc. etc.

Better get used to it. 

Having pre-marital sex is an insult to practically all religion, parenthood also being one of them. Did that stopped anyone lucky enough to get lucky? Did their having sex an assault on people's religious freedom? No.

So if a photographer's "religion" prevented them from taking photos of the gay couple, better get a doctor's note.

Money is the only religion that's permitted any business from serving anyone. Soo... if a gay couple turn up, you check your calendar; you jack up the price; you call in sick.


----------



## pixel (10 October 2017)

Tink said:


> one man and one woman.



Tink,
I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2017)

pixel said:


> Tink,
> I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.



Begd the question, why was there no SSM previously?


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Weren't too long ago that people "don't feel comfortable" working with, living near, catering or providing a service for a fee to the coloured folks; or the greasy folks; or the redheads etc. etc.





Where is this land of Zog that you and others bang on about?  Seems to me that the arguments are nearly always predicated on some backwater pre industrial state in the USA, or USA in general and the pox riddled old world countries .......  the ones that are now imposing their social diseases, stigmatism and poison on our country and with it their own brand of antidote in the form of social obedience and tunnel vision.

The shame is the all too willing 60% population who are happy give away all our rights and our children's rights to freedom of disassociation to accommodate the demands of a persistent peculiar few who are actually being granted the right to special class status that none of the natural people will enjoy.


----------



## Tink (10 October 2017)

Pixel,

As I have said, our country has a Christian heritage, which reflects on our public holidays.
Whether you are black, white, we are all men and women, and it takes a man and a woman to have a child.
Children do best with their parents.

We grew up respecting all people, no matter who they were, and that comes from our heritage.

Marriage is what it is for a reason, and that is for raising a family.
Mother and Father and their children.

Men and women are different, and children need both, imv.

As we have seen, it is natural for children/people to want to know their heritage, and will go looking for their family, so I don't agree with changing the meaning of marriage.

This is my view.


----------



## PZ99 (10 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Begs the question, why was there no SSM previously?



My view is because homosexuality was illegal for a long time but since becoming legal larger sections of the community have increasingly accepted it to the point of entertaining SSM despite bipartisan resistance from the parliament a decade ago.


----------



## PZ99 (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people.



That's debatable. 

I would argue that it's religion itself that assumes full control of the people. It's called faith 

To not be able to do, say or even think about anything that offends a religion is about as communist as you can get.

I prefer freedom myself. It's better to learn than to be led.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

Tink said:


> Pixel,
> 
> As I have said, our country has a Christian heritage, which reflects on our public holidays.
> Whether you are black, white, we are all men and women, and it takes a man and a woman to have a child.
> ...




SSM gives sodomy the same status as procreative sex and conjugal love, a remarkable feat of illusion that has no valid basis to exist.


----------



## Tink (10 October 2017)

As I have said -

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage


----------



## pixel (10 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> My view is because homosexuality was illegal for a long time but since becoming legal larger sections of the community have increasingly accepted it to the point of entertaining SSM despite bipartisan resistance from the parliament a decade ago.



Bingo!
We had the misfortune to find that a slender majority had elected a reactionary.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Where is this land of Zog that you and others bang on about?  Seems to me that the arguments are nearly always predicated on some backwater pre industrial state in the USA, or USA in general and the pox riddled old world countries .......  the ones that are now imposing their social diseases, stigmatism and poison on our country and with it their own brand of antidote in the form of social obedience and tunnel vision.
> 
> The shame is the all too willing 60% population who are happy give away all our rights and our children's rights to freedom of disassociation to accommodate the demands of a persistent peculiar few who are actually being granted the right to special class status that none of the natural people will enjoy.




We didn't do the same Down Under? Up to the 1970s?

I saw Hidden Figures, "separate but equal", colored toilet... at NASA? Racism didn't stop at them southern borders or the backwaters of imperial rome.

Yes, it's always the minority. Always wanting to join in with the cool kids.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

Tink said:


> As I have said -
> 
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.
> 
> ...




Kids need good parent/s. They don't care whether the parent is a man or a woman. 

By your arguments, maybe we should take kids away from single parents. Maybe we should take Aborigines kids from their parents too... oh wait, we did that. See how happy those stolen kids were when they were taken from their no-good parents and raised in a proper Christian mission then on to a White family with proper Christian values?

If we're so concerned about the children, about marriages... fighting against gay marriage isn't the right battle. 

Go fight for job security so the parents can have work and buy stuff for their kids; have properly funded public schools; fight for greater social programmes to help struggling families; fight for welfare to give kids in public schools a proper computer room, maybe access to a laptop and those fancy stuff. etc. etc.

But yea, it's the gays and their rights to marriage that ruin and disrespect the institution of marriage and destroy children's future.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

I am still having grave doubts about casting a vote that has a barcode on the form. 

When combined with meta data and facial recognition plus a public service now infested with gender, race and sexual appointments rather than on old fashioned merit and nepotism, I worry that I might be targetted for special attention because i have my own working revulsion compass


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Kids need good parent/s. They don't care whether the parent is a man or a woman.




Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

_"If we're so concerned about the children, about marriages... fighting against gay marriage isn't the right battle. 

Go fight for job security so the parents can have work and buy stuff for their kids; have properly funded public schools; fight for greater social programmes to help struggling families; fight for welfare to give kids in public schools a proper computer room, maybe access to a laptop and those fancy stuff. etc. etc.

But yea, it's the gays and their rights to marriage that ruin and disrespect the institution of marriage and destroy children's future.  Luutzu"

*Worth repeating with emphasis.*_


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2017)

pixel said:


> Bingo!
> We had the misfortune to find that a slender majority had elected a reactionary.



A reactionary? 

WTF Pixel ?

Excuse me while I go slash my wrists


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.




And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.
And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons. But it would be pretty dumb to use those types of stories to abuse married people ?


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Children of gay parents now grown up are coming out against gay parenting. Links to them have been posted before if you care to read them.




There are no messed-up children from straight parents? No broken homes or abusive parenting by straight and God-fearing men's man/mousy women?


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> We didn't do the same Down Under? Up to the 1970s?
> 
> I saw Hidden Figures, "separate but equal", colored toilet... at NASA? Racism didn't stop at them southern borders or the backwaters of imperial rome.
> 
> Yes, it's always the minority. Always wanting to join in with the cool kids.




Look it's true of many things that gender and ethnicity are drivers for social structures, And yes in places like Kalgoorlie Hotels they had men's bars. women's lounges and black fella bars. 

And for sure if the aborigines  made a nuisance of themselves they were spurned and given a hiding or a gobfull; (bear in mind most of those troublesome "aboriginals" were shamrock aborigines who had the misfortune of carrying celtic genes), but so were the euro gene pool.... and those "white people" had there names published in the paper for even petty theft.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2017)

basilio said:


> And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.




Who are most likely gay themselves.



basilio said:


> And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons.




Yeah because they are drunk or abusive which is a characteristic of the human race not sexuality.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Who are most likely gay themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because they are drunk or abusive which is a characteristic of the human race not sexuality.




A person's sexuality/sexual preferences is their natural human make-up. 

To force them against that "sin", get with the programme as dictated in the Holy books (or some homophobic, sexually repressed bigots) idea of what is natural and god-given... That's anything but natural. Maybe it's a human trait to repressed your urges and pay your taxes or something.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Look it's true of many things that gender and ethnicity are drivers for social structures, And yes in places like Kalgoorlie Hotels they had men's bars. women's lounges and black fella bars.
> 
> And for sure if the aborigines  made a nuisance of themselves they were spurned and given a hiding or a gobfull; (bear in mind most of those troublesome "aboriginals" were shamrock aborigines who had the misfortune of carrying celtic genes), but so were the euro gene pool.... and those "white people" had there names published in the paper for even petty theft.




Yes, "if" they "make a nuisance of themselves".


----------



## Logique (10 October 2017)

pixel said:


> Tink,
> I repeat: That *"rule" has been snuck in* by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.



The rule wasn't 'snuck in', it didn't need to be. It simply reflected the centuries-old  beliefs and values of human society. I don't recall any outcry at the time.

Don't pretend it even needed to be coded. But with hindsight, thank goodness it was.


----------



## grah33 (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> We're all free to do what we want. Just not free to discriminate against other people. Sounds like a fair approach to things.
> .




I don't know whether you are aware or just not acknowledging it , but a large number of people don't see it as discrimination. They see homosexuality as not being normal (just like pedophilia attractions,incest). So the holy book telling them it is forbidden makes sense to them. Plus history for many centuries, and recent history. You're expecting them to suddenly change their deeply held views. U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems.  Surely it would make better sense for there to be no laws controlling them.  I think many gay people would want that too.


----------



## grah33 (10 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> That's debatable.
> 
> I would argue that it's religion itself that assumes full control of the people. It's called faith
> 
> ...




Maybe you don't believe in religious freedom, and maybe many other here don't either. If so then people here don't believe in democracy but think another system would be better for everybody which allows religion to be controlled. Don't be ashamed to confess your views everyone, and we can't change the results anyway.

You know one of the amendments in the democratic US is about religious freedom – ie don't make any laws that interfere with a person's ability to practice their religion. But they're ignoring that (not trump, but Obama didn't believe in it).  They too are drifting away from democracy.


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> I don't know whether you are aware or just not acknowledging it , but a large number of people don't see it as discrimination. They see homosexuality as not being normal (just like pedophilia attractions,incest). So the holy book telling them it is forbidden makes sense to them. Plus history for many centuries, and recent history. You're expecting them to suddenly change their deeply held views. U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems.  Surely it would make better sense for there to be no laws controlling them.  I think many gay people would want that too.




No one is asking people to change their personal vews on homosexuality. It is simply that they don't have the god given right to demand that the rest of the community agree with them.  So if two men or two women wish to marry that is their business not someone elses.


----------



## Value Collector (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Maybe you don't believe in religious freedom, and maybe many other here don't either. If so then people here don't believe in democracy but think another system would be better for everybody which allows religion to be controlled. Don't be ashamed to confess your views everyone, and we can't change the results anyway.
> 
> You know one of the amendments in the democratic US is about religious freedom – ie don't make any laws that interfere with a person's ability to practice their religion. But they're ignoring that (not trump, but Obama didn't believe in it).  They too are drifting away from democracy.



What about the religions that are ok with gay marriage, they should be allowed to marry gays shouldn't they??? or do you only want to apply religious freedom to the things that your religion agrees with?

Religious freedom also means you can't force your religion on others, So you can't prevent me eating bacon just because you are muslim, and you can't prevent gay marriage just because you are christian.

No one is going to force Christians to have a gay marriage.


----------



## PZ99 (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Maybe you don't believe in religious freedom, and maybe many other here don't either. If so then people here don't believe in democracy but think another system would be better for everybody which allows religion to be controlled. Don't be ashamed to confess your views everyone.
> 
> You know one of the amendments in the democratic US is about religious freedom – ie don't make any laws that interfere with a person's ability to practice their religion. But they're ignoring that (not trump, but Obama didn't believe in it).  They too are drifting away from democracy.



How is the US drifting away from democracy? Last year they used the democratic process to change their Government. Their worldwide propagation of democracy has made them a nuclear target for an irreligious communist state which demonstrates your erroneous connection between democracy and religion. They are two different unrelated things.

If SSM does happen will you accept it because it was voted for democratically?

I did ask that question to another religious member in this thread. No response so far 

I don't have a problem with religious freedom, but religious domination is evil in my book.


----------



## Value Collector (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> U don't seem to have any empathy for religious people who would be faced with terrible problems..




Can you give me an example of a problem that religious people would have?

How would a lesbian couple on the other side of town obtaining a marriage licence affect any religious person?


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

*How did people now in their 60's/70's/80's grow up as homosexuals in the Australia of the 50's/60's ?* There was a  seniors LGTI ball in Melbourne recently as part of Senior Citizens week and an article outlines the many stories of life as an outsider.

And the piccies are to die for...!

*I've seen it all': LGBTI elders come back out at the ball *
In the midst of Australia’s same-sex marriage survey, a glorious night in Melbourne celebrates those who came of age when being ‘in the closet’ was all but compulsory

by Gay Alcorn

They arrived in sequins and feathers, six-inch heels and pancake makeup. They arrived, too, in T-shirts and hiking boots, frocking up for no one. There were walking sticks and wheelchairs, a blind man with a guide dog, a woman with a shirt saying “This is what an old lesbian looks like”. This was their night, and they’d come as they please.

In the midst of a survey on same-sex marriage that feels to many like a judgment on the equality of gays and lesbians, here was a night to celebrate those who had come of age when “in the closet” was all but compulsory.

Here were people who remembered when homosexuality was illegal, when transgender people were shunned, who had come out when it was an act of courage, who had nursed the dying through the scourge of Aids.

They arrived in sequins and feathers, six-inch heels and pancake makeup. They arrived, too, in T-shirts and hiking boots, frocking up for no one. There were walking sticks and wheelchairs, a blind man with a guide dog, a woman with a shirt saying “This is what an old lesbian looks like”. This was their night, and they’d come as they please.

In the midst of a survey on same-sex marriage that feels to many like a judgment on the equality of gays and lesbians, here was a night to celebrate those who had come of age when “in the closet” was all but compulsory.

In the midst of a survey on same-sex marriage that feels to many like a judgment on the equality of gays and lesbians, here was a night to celebrate those who had come of age when “in the closet” was all but compulsory.

Here were people who remembered when homosexuality was illegal, when transgender people were shunned, who had come out when it was an act of courage, who had nursed the dying through the scourge of Aids.

Humour and outrageousness have always accompanied resistance. Comedian Gerry Connolly, resplendent as Queen Elizabeth, opened proceedings with “my fellow Queens, lesbians, faghags and enlightened hets”.

She noted that in November, she and Prince Philip will have been married for 70 years and if “Lizzie can marry, lezzies can marry”. Indeed, LGBTI truly stood for “Let God Bless the Queen, Intermittently”.

Cowboys in pink hats and tight shorts strutted their stuff. Carlotto, a “74-year-old boiler”, said she had fought for equality since opening the cabaret show Les Girls in 1963. “I’ve seen it all,” she sang, “and I’m still here.”

There was poignancy throughout, a tender acknowledgment that amid the diversity, all of them had had publicly “come out” at some point, painfully or otherwise. The shadow of the same-sex marriage survey was the thread, the latest skirmish in a long struggle for equality.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/10/ive-seen-it-all-lgbti-elders-come-back-out-at-the-ball


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

basilio said:


> And you'll find many, many stories of people growing up with gay parents who loved them and their upbringing.
> And if you want to really get into it, there are a million, million people who have despised their straight parents for any number of reasons. But it would be pretty dumb to use those types of stories to abuse married people ?




how can you have SS gay parents? There's no such thing, at best only one can be a true parent.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Yes, "if" they "make a nuisance of themselves".



 That if was more a when back in the day.

seeing as you like to mix USA with Oz, did you know blacks in USA are ~12.5% but they commit over 80% of detected crime? That's a lot of licence based on "oh woe is me".


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

basilio said:


> . It is simply that *they don't have the god given right* to demand that the rest of the community agree with them.  .




but you do?


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Can you give me an example of a problem that religious people would have?
> 
> How would a lesbian couple on the other side of town obtaining a marriage licence affect any religious person?




You know that revulsion feeling when your stomach goes all involuntarily bilious...well that's how real heterosexuals feel when they are ambushed by confronting images of, especially males sucking face. It is to do with the meagre proportion of the population who carry the survival of the species gene I'm fairly sure.... perhaps the 80/20 rule?


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> but you do?



I just love the unintentionally ironies presented by our bas.


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> That if was more a when back in the day.
> 
> seeing as you like to mix USA with Oz, did you know blacks in USA are ~12.5% but they commit over 80% of detected crime? That's a lot of licence based on "oh woe is me".




Your a real campaigner arn't you Tisme ?  If there is something created by some xuckwit to beat up blacks, gays, browns, Muslims  or anyone who isn't a fossilised old white xart you into it like flies on xshit.

I have no idea where you found that quote on blacks committing 80% of detected crime in US.  I could spend a ridiculous amout of time showing the convictions for  "walking while black", or "driving while black", or being killed while black. 

But for the sake of reality lets stick to facts that prove how righteously ignorant you are.

*Do Blacks Really Commit the Most Crimes?*





“What demographic commits the most crime?” asked my professor.

_White people,_ I thought. I knew the answer, but I was hesitant to speak. I usually am in my political theory classes, choosing instead to absorb the discussion. I also assumed it was such a simple question that I wouldn’t need to answer it aloud because someone else would.

And soon after, a hand to my right rose.

“Blacks,” he said. And he sounded so sure.

I was almost sad for the kid, but you probably wouldn’t know it from how hard I was laughing at him. I didn’t mean to; it was how sure he was that tickled me.

_Poor kid_, I remember thinking because I understood that his answer was not from left field. It was a truth that he’d been taught, whether from the media, his upbringing, or any number of sources where minorities are painted as violent people.

He would be shocked to know that white people commit the most crimes. And to be perfectly honest it’s a trick question that I wouldn’t ask anyone. There are so many small factors that play a role in the correct answer.

But here’s the rundown:

White people commit the most crimes when you look at sheer numbers.
https://talkback4teens.com/2013/08/29/do-blacks-really-commit-the-most-crimes/


----------



## Value Collector (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> You know that revulsion feeling when your stomach goes all involuntarily bilious...well that's how real heterosexuals feel when they are ambushed by confronting images of, especially males sucking face. It is to do with the meagre proportion of the population who carry the survival of the species gene I'm fairly sure.... perhaps the 80/20 rule?




How would allowing ssm marriage affect that, you know gays are going to kiss regardless.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> That if was more a when back in the day.
> 
> seeing as you like to mix USA with Oz, did you know blacks in USA are ~12.5% but they commit over 80% of detected crime? That's a lot of licence based on "oh woe is me".




They can't make laws penalising "crimes" blacks (and other undesirables) "are known for"?

They don't focus their policing on certain ghettos but avoid proper communities? 

Despite what you might have been taught, Justice ain't blind.

One guy went to prison for all the frauds, theft and general White-collar crimes from the GFC. 

Hmmm... I wonder why. Hmmm... Wall St guys are not known for unethical conducts, and they never sniff any drugs and powder either. This is shown in the crime stats, in black and white.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> There are no messed-up children from straight parents? No broken homes or abusive parenting by straight and God-fearing men's man/mousy women?



You don't believe a child having a father and mother natural upbringing?


----------



## grah33 (10 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> How is the US drifting away from democracy? Last year they used the democratic process to change their Government. Their worldwide propagation of democracy has made them a nuclear target for an irreligious communist state which demonstrates your erroneous connection between democracy and religion. They are two different unrelated things.
> 
> If SSM does happen will you accept it because it was voted for democratically?
> 
> ...




Religious freedom is the hallmark of a true democracy... Recently trump overturned some laws from obama , his reason that he still believes in the first amendment – religious freedom (the amendments are like the 10 commandments for democracy). Obama doesn't anymore and shocked many people when he made some changes a while ago forcing things from religious people etc.. It's okay PZ if you also don't believe in true democracy (if you think the cake baker should be compelled to bake that cake than you don't agree with the first amendment), so long as you know that. That is why i'm saying many people here are unknowingly looking for another kind of political system. People have changed , they want something different that they believe will be better for them. 

If ssm goes through of course i'd accept it – we'd have to. But there will be many pious people who just won't take pics of e.g. gay weddings. They're likely quit their jobs. And so they should, because everyone should do the right thing, which is a function of what that person believes, even if they believe something that is made up such as a munchkin god. This is the dark side to the gay marriage thing – the side that will cause suffering to other peoples lives. I think many gay people wouldn't want that if they knew. The whole point of the first amendment is to have no laws that cause such problems. You don't have to subscribe to that (to believe in the first amendment or religious freedom), I don't think VC does either. But you guys gotta know that you don't believe in true democracy but something else. True democracy has religious freedom.  Dictators control the practice of religion.

VC: regards the bacon example. I agree. But we also have laws that exempt jews/muslim from doing that which makes them feel guilty. e.g. a muslim isn't required to cook/serve bacon if it makes them feel guilty. So to they shouldn't be forced to bake a cake with pork on it, or gay figurines on top of the cake.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> If ssm goes through of course i'd accept it – we'd have to. But there will be many pious people who just won't take pics of e.g. gay weddings. They're likely quit their jobs.




They could just say "sorry, I already have a booking on that day, try Jim down the road...".


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Your a real campaigner arn't you Tisme ?  If there is something created by some xuckwit to beat up blacks, gays, browns, Muslims  or anyone who isn't a fossilised old white xart you into it like flies on xshit.
> 
> I have no idea where you found that quote on blacks committing 80% of detected crime in US.  I could spend a ridiculous amout of time showing the convictions for  "walking while black", or "driving while black", or being killed while black.
> 
> ...




I just state facts as the basis of my arguments Bas.  You know that, so it's pointless using anecdotal and subjective opinions to counter them


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> How would allowing ssm marriage affect that, you know gays are going to kiss regardless.




Because we are going to have a barrage of ABC sponsored marriages complete with the sickening sight of grown men performing unnatural, revolting perversion of heterosexual mating practices. That you find joy in it speaks of your level of acceptance being extraordinarily less than mine, but it doesn't make you right.

I'm sure there's something in that corrupted morality kernal of yours that makes you squeal like stuck pig, so you know the feeling.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They could just say "sorry, I already have a booking on that day, try Jim down the road...".




Yes "I just contracted a case of noro virus" should work the trick. No homo wants a case on his wedding night


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> They can't make laws penalising "crimes" blacks (and other undesirables) "are known for"?
> 
> They don't focus their policing on certain ghettos but avoid proper communities?
> 
> ...





Hang on. I use the same fractured logic you guys use and you turn around and question its validity. Let's be consistent, people. If we are going to use fables wrapped up as fact let's use them ubiquitously.


----------



## Value Collector (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Because we are going to have a barrage of ABC sponsored marriages complete with the sickening sight of grown men performing unnatural, revolting perversion of heterosexual mating practices. That you find joy in it speaks of your level of acceptance being extraordinarily less than mine, but it doesn't make you right.
> 
> I'm sure there's something in that corrupted morality kernal of yours that makes you squeal like stuck pig, so you know the feeling.



Don't watch then, simple.


----------



## grah33 (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They could just say "sorry, I already have a booking on that day, try Jim down the road...".




That would be risky. And eventually people who lie get caught out.

It is interesting how history is unfolding. With the coming of Christianity mainstream homosexuality disappeared. They resisted the craziness of Nero and the Romans. They believed in God and that giving up their life for a good cause (note : this isn't killing oneself or other people) would conquer extreme intolerance. A revolution in sexual relationships and family values came about, and free health-care.

And now 2000 years later, the opposite seems to be occurring all over the world (some have used the word sodomizing). You would think it's impossible for this country to remain unaffected. And you would expect another showdown between religion and the state powers to occur. Just a thought.  See what happens.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> That would be risky. And eventually people who lie get caught out.
> 
> It is interesting how history is unfolding. With the coming of Christianity mainstream homosexuality disappeared. They resisted the craziness of Nero and the Romans. They believed in God and that giving up their life for a good cause (note : this isn't killing oneself or other people) would conquer extreme intolerance. A revolution in sexual relationships and family values came about, and free health-care.
> 
> And now 2000 years later, the opposite seems to be occurring all over the world (some have used the word sodomizing). You would think it's impossible for this country to remain unaffected. And you would expect another showdown between religion and the state powers to occur. Just a thought.  See what happens.




Christianity kinda got its hands on that lever of power with the new Rome though. They didn't really resists the crazinesses of Rome, just merely replacing the old Rome's multi-deities religion with their own version and their own martyr hanging at the centre in the new capital.

Once Christianity came out of the crypts and lion's dents, you know, becoming the new state religion under Constantine... they immediately start to suppress and otherwise liberate other cults. So no, not fight against intolerance as we'd like to believe.

Free healthcare is a Marxist/Leftist idea. Well... free healthcare of the Christian kind mean you just pray or something... so I guess that's partly true. Not as effective though.

Religion as a political/economic entity... they work with the state. So they wouldn't be fighting each other. They might appear like they're fighting, but you know... we're here discussing how gross out gay sex can be... as Woody Allen once say, sex done right isn't pretty  ... 

Oh yes, we're debating gays and how they're hurting Australian families and children... and not enough time to focus on jobs, money, education, clean air, industry and innovation... might miss the debate on their funding cuts and skewed priorities served to us by our corporate media and other people's politicians.


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Don't watch then, simple.





yeah right ... they don't show a precursor "R" rating, warn you of unnatural themes, let alone high impact pictures about to induce gag reflex are coming up.

And they lie bigtime by making false statements like  "this program may contain mature content" when we all know that choosing a debauched promiscuous lifestyle and trying degrade a millenial heterosexual tradition on the back of it is far from mature.... it's obviously adolescent pooh willy bum confusion combined with arrested development


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> That would be risky. And eventually people who lie get caught out.
> 
> It is interesting how history is unfolding. With the coming of Christianity mainstream homosexuality disappeared. They resisted the craziness of Nero and the Romans. They believed in God and that giving up their life for a good cause (note : this isn't killing oneself or other people) would conquer extreme intolerance. A revolution in sexual relationships and family values came about, and free health-care.
> 
> And now 2000 years later, the opposite seems to be occurring all over the world (some have used the word sodomizing). You would think it's impossible for this country to remain unaffected. And you would expect another showdown between religion and the state powers to occur. Just a thought.  See what happens.





We got the pill, which kinda empowered those who believe Freudian ideas:

http://psychistofwomen.umwblogs.org/sexuality/pre-kinsey/freud/


----------



## grah33 (11 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> We got the pill, which kinda empowered those who believe Freudian ideas:
> 
> http://psychistofwomen.umwblogs.org/sexuality/pre-kinsey/freud/




many say the pill lead to promiscuity and an increase in divorce....


----------



## grah33 (11 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Free healthcare is a Marxist/Leftist idea. Well... free healthcare of the Christian kind mean you just pray or something... so I guess that's partly true. Not as effective though.





I hope you're not trying to trick us on that. That's a big claim you know. I read it on Wikipedia. With the coming of Christianity healthcare came into the world. And I always thought so, since it's hardwired in the Christian faith to help poor/sick people (Jesus's words). Even now there are still a lot of charities around. I guess when the Church doesn't perform well enough, it gets smashed. And a new way of life comes in.

Yeah the church made many mistakes in the last 2000 years. People do whatever they want , even if you got a religion telling them otherwise. “love your enemies” though is harmless to me.


----------



## PZ99 (11 October 2017)

Surely freedom can't be the enemy of the church can it grah33 ?


----------



## grah33 (11 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Surely freedom can't be the enemy of the church can it grah33 ?



If there is no longer religious freedom PZ, I'm sorry but it's not freedom. All explained in my previous posts.


----------



## notting (11 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> This video is a good example of how
> 
> a, Religion messes with peoples mind so much that they will disown there own children.
> 
> b, that there are parents out there that will not teach their children that its ok to be LGBT, and instead possibly give them all sorts of unnecessary emotional issue that lead to high suicide rates etc.





Religion?
Marriage is a religious thing.
Most of em are demanding the religions recognize and marry them!
What? The religions are supposed to change their tenets in order to accommodate LGBTs.  That's ridiculous.
Let em start their own religion and get married under that if they want.  Worked for Henry.
A civil contract? Well ok if you insist.  But you can draw up a contract on bloody anything if you really want to ie What happens with your stuff if you end up sward fighting with swards  instead of.....
Who the frick in their right mind wants marriage any way.
The whole thing is so dumb.


----------



## Macquack (11 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yes just like this car



Thought that would be your type of car,  you can just bulldoze everyone out of the way.

This is the car of the future. Not my cup of tea but perfect for reverse parking.


----------



## luutzu (11 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> I hope you're not trying to trick us on that. That's a big claim you know. I read it on Wikipedia. With the coming of Christianity healthcare came into the world. And I always thought so, since it's hardwired in the Christian faith to help poor/sick people (Jesus's words). Even now there are still a lot of charities around. I guess when the Church doesn't perform well enough, it gets smashed. And a new way of life comes in.
> 
> Yeah the church made many mistakes in the last 2000 years. People do whatever they want , even if you got a religion telling them otherwise. “love your enemies” though is harmless to me.




If Christians all follow the moral teachings of Jesus, the world would be doing alright. Just that in addition to those moral philosophies, there's a bunch of magic and voodoo too that's pretty neat to listen and follow... that and it's not easy being good or moral, hence the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for anybody else."

That and, for some people, it's not enough that they have the good things in life. They must have that _and _the other guys must have nothing as well! "Greed is good" and what not.

It's not a Western or Christian thing, whatever that thing is you cared to name. We're all humans... some good, some bad, all self-interest.

The Church will get smashed if it doesn't perform well, as you said. Issue is, who does it perform well for. Who get to smash it.

Not the plebs.

Plebs, peasants, gays, women, children, savages, barbarians... all they can do is go suck a lemon if the Church didn't serve them right. As long as the Church serves the interests of the State [and those that control and benefit the State, it can carry on. Otherwise, they'll go all Communist and godless on it.

I wouldn't take any healthcare advise from a priest man. So I don't know where (good) healthcare and Christianity crosses path. 

If by healthcare you mean good morality, caring for the sick etc... I mean there are good and kind Christians and all that. Just it's hard to say whether they're good because of the Bible or good because they were raised right.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> The Church will get smashed if it doesn't perform well, as you said. Issue is, who does it perform well for. Who get to smash it.
> 
> Not the plebs.




If the plebs stop going to church, that's the end of the Church isn't it ?


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> If there is no longer religious freedom PZ, I'm sorry but it's not freedom. All explained in my previous posts.



Attempting to redefine freedom to suit a religious viewpoint is dabbling with communism grah33.


----------



## Tink (12 October 2017)

Which religious viewpoint, PZ.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4

------------------------------------------------

We are all entitled to our view.

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought,  is a part of this country, and a part of the West.

I have already explained about Christianity, and its creation of the West.
Monasteries were the foundations of education and hospitals.
The scientific method comes from Christianity.

As they say, Rome wasn't built in one day.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
The eternal city - A lot of History, Christianity, beautiful architecture and moving artwork.

One thing I like about Europe is its lack of political correctness.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

----------------------------------

There are many 'belief' systems, and Australia was created on its Christian heritage.
Our public holidays are a reflection of this country.

The state has no reason for same sex/transgender marriage, and to be teaching children about homosexuality and 70 different genders etc imv.
Homosexuality does not create life.
Heterosexual couples do - one man and one woman.

Marriage is about FAMILY.
A mother and a father raising their children, and taking responsibility for their children.
Children are the most vulnerable.

Mother and Father
Ladies and Gentleman.

Luutzu, as I have stated already, there is no discrimination as they have civil unions in this country.

Our public schools need to be privatised, as they are going against what this country was built on, Western Culture.
http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/
-------------------------------
I am all for public and private.

People taking responsibility for their actions.

This is my view.


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

Tink said:


> Which religious viewpoint, PZ.



The one that restricts people's rights to their freedoms... Such as SSM 

Religion opposing same-sex couples the freedom to marry is akin to communism.

Your claim about civil unions where "there is no discrimination" is strange...

Did you know that in the UK heterosexuals are fighting for their right to have the same civil partnerships as same-sex couples? It's not the same thing as marriage.


----------



## Tink (12 October 2017)

As I put up in the Greens thread -

As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up

Monuments to the victims of fascism exist everywhere, but communism’s victims are hardly remembered at all

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/as-the-left-surges-back-marxisms-bloody-legacy-is-covered-up/


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

There you go. You exemplify why freedom is better than communism.

So let's give same-sex couples the freedom to marry and let's stop being lefty commies!


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> So let's give same-sex couples the freedom to marry and let's stop being lefty commies!




As long as they do it under their own legislation and don't try to hijack that which 98% of people value. (At least for a while).


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as they do it under their own legislation and don't try to hijack that which 98% of people value. (At least for a while).



Duplicating an existing law for the sake of a different label sounds like more *red* tape to me


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> There you go. You exemplify why freedom is better than communism.
> 
> So let's give same-sex couples the freedom to marry and let's stop being lefty commies!



Okay, but let's make sure does not impinge on the liberties of everybody else,  like they have in other anglo countries.


----------



## Value Collector (12 October 2017)

notting said:


> Religion?
> Marriage is a religious thing.




Marriages existed before any of the religions we have today. and what is being decide here is whether marriages between same sex couples should be recognised by the government, not any religion.


> Most of em are demanding the religions recognize and marry them!




Nope, its about the government recognising them.



> What? The religions are supposed to change their tenets in order to accommodate LGBTs.  That's ridiculous.




No one is asking any religion to change its tenants, religions are asking us to use their tenants to decide laws, thats ridiculous.



> Let em start their own religion and get married under that if they want.




Again this is about the government recognising marriages, no one cares whats recognised by the 10,000 different religions out there, they all have their own versions and definitions of marriage, but what matter is that the government recognises them all.

Ask any young bride whether she wants to just have the religious ceremony by itself or does she also want to make it legal with the government and you will find that they want it legal, regardless of what they do at their church, in fact most people wouldn't consider a church wedding real until the papers are filed with the government.


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Okay, but let's make sure does not impinge on the liberties of everybody else,  like they have in other anglo countries.



It won't be impinging on my liberty you can bet your life on it.

I don't worry about what other people do with their love life.


----------



## notting (12 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Marriages existed before any of the religions we have today. and what is being decide here is whether marriages between same sex couples should be recognised by the government, not any religion.
> 
> 
> Nope, its about the government recognising them.
> ...




Beautifully put!!

Only qualm is what about young grooms?
Why can't they just draw up a contract, couldn't be worse than a marriage contract!


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> It won't be impinging on my liberty you can bet your life on it.
> 
> I don't worry about what other people do with their love life.



Hah, so they said of 18d in reference to concerns over 18c.

Yet 18c is still used off label to achieve censorship.

Watch what happens Komrade.


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

Who cares about 18c/18d? Not me. So what if it upsets the Korporatocratic Right?

I've never been censored by it so it has no effect on my freedoms


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 October 2017)

Opens the door to him and her leadership positions.


> 11th October 2017, 12:43 PM
> Michelle Suarez has become the first transgender senator in Uruguay.
> 
> The 34-year-old politician took her seat in the upper chamber of congress yesterday.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Duplicating an existing law for the sake of a different label sounds like more *red* tape to me




Like Pepsi and Coke ? 

They both seem to do pretty well, not to mention all the oil companies selling the same product.


----------



## Value Collector (12 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Like Pepsi and Coke ?




Both are registered as companies under the law,

Imagine if we had to enact different corporations acts for all the different types of businesses. 

e.g. "Company status is only for coke, why doesn't Pepsi just gets its own law and register as some other enterprise"


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Like Pepsi and Coke ?
> 
> They both seem to do pretty well, not to mention all the oil companies selling the same product.



Precisely. Thankyou for articulating the difference... or the lack thereof. 

Which drink is more offensive to the church? LOL

The only person I know of that got offended by Pepsi was Barbra Streisand. 30 years ago she was offered a $5m dollar contract to advertise their products (b4 Jacko)... she turned it down. She said with a nose like hers she'd be more suited to advertising the coke


----------



## Value Collector (12 October 2017)

notting said:


> Beautifully put!!
> 
> Only qualm is what about young grooms?
> Why can't they just draw up a contract, couldn't be worse than a marriage contract!




At the end of the day, each marriage does have its own internal contracts, e.g. some class a trip to the strippers as perfectly fine as long as Hubby or wifey doesn't touch, other marriages that would be grounds for divorce, But what ever the internal rules, the government should recognise them all equally.

Same sex marriages already exist, a marriage is more than a piece of paper, its a commitment between two people, you don't need any government or religion or even a wedding to have a marriage, this isn't about allowing same sex marriages to exist, they already do, this is about getting the government to recognise them.


This video is a christian guy talking to his atheist brother, his take on marriage is perfect, so even some christians understand it


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Imagine if we had to enact different corporations acts for all the different types of businesses.




Having parallel legislation that keeps everyone happy is worth the so called "red tape" in this instance I believe.


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Who cares about 18c/18d? Not me. So what if it upsets the Korporatocratic Right?
> 
> I've never been censored by it so it has no effect on my freedoms



I guess North Koreans still have certain freedoms. Just don't bag out Kim, Komrade.


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> I guess North Koreans still have certain freedoms. Just don't bag out Kim, Komrade.



Where's the relevance your reverence? They have SSM there do they? 
Is that responsible for their lack of freedoms or something?


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Where's the relevance your reverence? They have SSM there do they?
> Is that responsible for their lack of freedoms or something?



SSM is the sideshow, liberty is the main game,  as we have been discussing. 

Kim is merely the analogy,  but dyor on my point (hint: research means venturing outside ones own echo chamber)


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

Already done mate... years ago. But thanx anyway


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Already done mate... years ago. But thanx anyway



Well, research years ago might not cut it in today's mutant ideological landscape. 

Even the very definition of words is changing and transmogrifying from the original understanding (tautology intentional for emphasis). 

I would advise a revisit a study of liberty and how it relates to the current frankenculture


----------



## PZ99 (12 October 2017)

Here's a clue: When the Rudd govt attempted to remove our freedoms on the internet by way of a compulsory Conroy filter I spoke out against it citing deprivation of liberty... just as I did with data retention laws citing invasion of privacy. Our freedom in the virtual world was under threat because of all the hysteria from the churches about moral corruption and sexual violence which didn't eventuate.  

I see the church/religious right attempting to block SSM in the real world as equally restrictive.

It's another scare campaign from the religious minority attempting to control our lifestyles to suit their ulterior motives. By any description it's a deprivation of liberty that started in 2004 and should be removed so that gay people can get on with their lives without further communist style regulations.

It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of gay bashing and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.




People CAN do whatever they like in their private life, but marriage is a public event that involves legalities and public recognition and it's up to society in general as to whether we want to recognise a lifestyle that about 2% of the population engage in as equal to the 98%. 

I don't believe it is equal, for the reason that heterosexual relations enable the human race to continue through childbirth and therefore traditional marriage is the foundation of society. If gays want to marry I think it should be under separate legislation that accepts difference but also acknowledges and doesn't undermine the traditional family structure.


----------



## wayneL (12 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Here's a clue: When the Rudd govt attempted to remove our freedoms on the internet by way of a compulsory Conroy filter I spoke out against it citing deprivation of liberty... just as I did with data retention laws citing invasion of privacy. Our freedom in the virtual world was under threat because of all the hysteria from the churches about moral corruption and sexual violence which didn't eventuate.
> 
> I see the church/religious right attempting to block SSM in the real world as equally restrictive.
> 
> ...



Hmmm, I think we are coming from the same place,  but a different angle. I get where you're coming from,  but my point exists post vote. 

Watch the totalitarian 5h1tfight that ensues, whichever way it goes.


----------



## Logique (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> ..... It's time to get away from the fugly 1970's era of *gay bashing *and pie facing and dictating what people can and can't do with their private life.



Nobody is bashing gays, and they can already get married, through civil unions.  Afterwards they say 'we're married'.

The SSM lobby is trying to change the definition of marriage at law, and that's sinister.


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

Logique said:


> Nobody is bashing gays, and they can already get married, through civil unions.  Afterwards they say 'we're married'.
> 
> The SSM lobby is trying to change the definition of marriage at law, and that's sinister.



Gays ARE getting bashed, so it's already sinister.


----------



## basilio (13 October 2017)

This story certainly bends our concept of "vanilla" as far as relationships go. It is already happening so SSM marriage questions are, in a sense, irrelevant. 

Opinion
* My big gay family changed my mind on same-sex marriage *
Patrick Lukins
I’ve always struggled with my sexuality, but my family now sets an example to my son to be proud of who he is




Patrick Lukins and his son Miles. “I want to set an example: not to hide, not to be afraid.” Photograph: Supplied

*Shares*
1005
 
* Comments*
 63 
Thursday 12 October 2017 18.00 BST

My name is Patrick, I am 32 years old and a trainee paramedic who lives a lucky but otherwise unremarkable existence. When I first heard about the idea of gay marriage a few years back, I was against the idea. Not because of religious reasons or prejudice, but because I felt like gays had enough rights and shouldn’t be asking too much. Close enough is good enough, I thought. Before you wish upon me the headbutt of a bearded anarchist, consider two things: firstly, I am gay. Secondly, my views have drastically changed since then. I wanted to tell you why.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-family-changed-my-mind-on-same-sex-marriage


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2017)

basilio said:


> This story certainly bends our concept of "vanilla" as far as relationships go. It is already happening so SSM marriage questions are, in a sense, irrelevant.
> 
> Opinion
> * My big gay family changed my mind on same-sex marriage *
> Patrick Lukins




A gay person coming out in favour of gay marriage. How unusual.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 October 2017)

Gay couple abused after coming out against same sex marriage.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...e/news-story/adda8dc79124def7a400b46101ddf448


----------



## Logique (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Gays ARE getting bashed, so it's already sinister.



Changing the definition in the Marriage Act won't change a thing. Plenty of non-gays getting beaten up too.


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

Logique said:


> Changing the definition in the Marriage Act won't change a thing. *Plenty of non-gays getting beaten up too.*



Why are non-gays getting beaten up? For being gay? The bastards.

My point was gay bashing in the 70's was very prevalent and people turned a blind eye to it. That was the way of thinking at the time. It's not as bad now but it's still happening because they are still being marginalised by haters. 

If you believe SSM won't be a further step away from way of thinking that's your prerogative, but it goes against recent mainstream attitudes towards the gay community.


----------



## Value Collector (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Why are non-gays getting beaten up? For being gay? The bastards.
> 
> My point was gay bashing in the 70's was very prevalent and people turned a blind eye to it. That was the way of thinking at the time. It's not as bad now but it's still happening because they are still being marginalised by haters.
> 
> If you believe SSM won't be a further step away from way of thinking that's your prerogative, but it goes against recent mainstream attitudes towards the gay community.



Not just bashed, but even shot.

this is in Sydney.


----------



## Tisme (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Why are non-gays getting beaten up? For being gay? The bastards.
> 
> My point was gay bashing in the 70's was very prevalent and people turned a blind eye to it. That was the way of thinking at the time. It's not as bad now but it's still happening because they are still being marginalised by haters.
> 
> If you believe SSM won't be a further step away from way of thinking that's your prerogative, but it goes against recent mainstream attitudes towards the gay community.





How prevalent was it? Do you have any published stats? I never saw a gay being bashed an I spent most of my life out and about in the 70's


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> How prevalent was it? Do you have any published stats? I never saw a gay being bashed an I spent most of my life out and about in the 70's



I saw plenty of it. But I was in Western Sydney and spent some time in Melbourne where it happened there as well. Don't have the time for stats at the moment but here's a good place to start looking... https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ab..8.2.599...35i39k1j0i22i30k1.0.jIhRYtSBYkc


----------



## basilio (13 October 2017)

*When Gangs Killed Gay Men for Sport: Australia Reviews 88 Deaths*

SYDNEY, Australia — On a December day in 1988, a teenager on a spearfishing expedition found a body at the bottom of one of the wild, honey-colored sandstone cliffs that line Sydney Harbor.

Naked, torn and battered by the rocks, the dead man was a promising American mathematician, Scott Johnson. His clothes were found at the top of the cliff in a neat pile with his digital watch, student ID and a $10 bill, folded in a small plastic sheath. There was no wallet, and no note.

The police concluded that Mr. Johnson, 27, had committed suicide, and a coroner agreed. Fatal leaps from the cliffs around Sydney into the fierce sea below were not uncommon, then or now.

But 28 years later, a new inquest into Mr. Johnson’s death has begun. His brother, a wealthy Boston tech entrepreneur, has pressed the Australian authorities for years to revisit the case, arguing that Mr. Johnson was murdered because he was gay and that the police failed to see it.

If so, it appears Mr. Johnson may not have been the only one.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Australian authorities now say, gangs of teenagers in Sydney hunted gay men for sport, sometimes forcing them off the cliffs to their deaths. But the police, many of whom had a reputation for hostility toward gay men, often carried out perfunctory investigations that overlooked the possibility of homicide, former officials and police officers say.

Now the police in New South Wales, the state that includes Sydney, are reviewing the deaths of 88 men between 1976 and 2000 to determine whether they should be classified as anti-gay hate crimes.

About 30 of the cases remain unsolved, and the police have not said how many of the killings were tied to gangs. About a dozen victims were found dead at the bottom of cliffs or in the sea, the police say.

The review and the inquest into Mr. Johnson’s death are casting light on a shocking chapter of Sydney’s history, one that some say has yet to be fully revealed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/australia/australia-gay-men-killed-suicides-sydney.html


----------



## Tisme (13 October 2017)

basilio said:


> This story certainly bends our concept of "vanilla" as far as relationships go. It is already happening so SSM marriage questions are, in a sense, irrelevant.
> 
> Opinion
> * My big gay family changed my mind on same-sex marriage *
> ...





Caesar judging Caesar ....like patting yourself on the back for your own decisions.


----------



## Tisme (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I saw plenty of it. But I was in Western Sydney and spent some time in Melbourne where it happened there as well. Don't have the time for stats at the moment but here's a good place to start looking... https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ab..8.2.599...35i39k1j0i22i30k1.0.jIhRYtSBYkc





Yeah but no, but yeah, but no ....computer says .......no.


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but no, but yeah, but no ....computer says .......no.



Yeah that reminds me... computers used to get bashed back then too


----------



## cynic (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah that reminds me... computers used to get bashed back then too



Doubtless for being homophobic?!


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

cynic said:


> Doubtless for being homophobic?!



Absolutely. Inserting a 5¼ inch floppy was an art form for the select few back then.


----------



## cynic (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Absolutely. Inserting a 5¼ inch floppy was an art form for the select few back then.



I knew someone who mastered the art of inserting two at once!
And then she complained to me that neither of the two disks I had sent were working!


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2017)

hey I used to get bashed for being a Yank, then I got bashed for being smart or for wearing glasses

 stop looking for victimhood to support a political agenda


----------



## PZ99 (13 October 2017)

Don't tell me... you were a smart yank with glasses getting bashed for using a computer right?


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Don't tell me... you were a smart yank with glasses getting bashed for using a computer right?



Before PCs my friend.


----------



## Logique (14 October 2017)

I'll tell you what we don't do - we don't throw gays off tall buildings. As happens in some parts of the world. 

Still waiting for Mr & Mrs Aly to tell us their stance on SSM.


----------



## DB008 (14 October 2017)

From my limited observations at work :
The younger generation is voting - yes
The older generation is voting - no


----------



## grah33 (14 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> If Christians all follow the moral teachings of Jesus, the world would be doing alright. Just that in addition to those moral philosophies, there's a bunch of magic and voodoo too that's pretty neat to listen and follow... that and it's not easy being good or moral, hence the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for anybody else."
> 
> .



Free health care e.g. tonnes of religious hospitals.

The smashing thing I said is just a bit of an intuitive thought in some minds. A bit of like “ we reap what we sow”. Or the Church is supposed to be salt of the earth and if it loses its taste it gets trodden on. Something like that. They say when living conditions go down the number of Christians goes up fast. If there is a God, then deviating from perfect values would result in all kinds of problems in society. Interestingly enough number of Australians that believe in God is much higher than what I thought.

Regards what you were saying, yeah some are just good by nature I would think. But then there is a minority that literally follows JC's way of life to the letter. I've noticed a lot of these found the Christian faith as a result of experiencing some kind of suffering or problems. They also think it's an easier life to live than before. One of the Christian tenants is to never worry about anything.

Thinking of ancient Rome I don't believe they were crazy. Perhaps they genuinely did feel discriminated against by the Christians (as is happening now), and so put them into prisons/ the lions etc. You can imagine this sexually monogamous group making everyone else feel really guilty by their new way of life.

Spoke to a guy the other day who goes to the marriage coalition meetings. Apparently this former gay guy who used to go to the LGBTI meetings 25 years ago showed up and pretty much went on to say that their goal is the same as we stated here. To break down the whole system through the marriage law. To force this new way of life on everyone, and to even have a bit of a special status would u believe. They also want to lower age of consent, 13 or something. I guess it's about providing what they believe are essential skills to people. Imv it will lead to sexual problems.

Some of us here are probably already considering what we might be posting in the future...


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2017)

DB008 said:


> From my limited observations at work :
> The younger generation is voting - yes
> The older generation is voting - no



Saw a news item today based on a survey of survey voting intentions

Stronger support for the "yes" case from women than from men.

By state the strongest support for the "yes" case is in Vic followed equally by WA and Tas. Next comes Qld and SA (equal) with the least support in NSW.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2017)

It's a strange situation where, in some states at least, heterosexual couples find themselves involuntarily as good as married in the eyes of the law when they have consciously chosen to not formally marry and hardly a word is said. Meanwhile homosexual couples who would choose to marry are the subject of one of the most polarising and publicly engaging debates Australia has seen in many years.

Personally I think there are more important issues to worry about even if we confine it to the subject of personal relationships.

To pick one issue that I see as a huge problem, how many Australians are currently suffering physical, psychological or financial abuse on an ongoing basis due to the actions of a partner, family or anyone else able to exert dominance?

I don't know the answer to that question but I expect it would be a shockingly high figure. 

That's not a subject directly related to gay marriage but it's related to human relationships of all forms. There's an awful lot of bullies out there and reality is they'll always seek a victim to dominate so at any given time there's likely to be someone suffering.

Gay marriage is an issue but it's taking up too much time meanwhile there's so many other things needing to be addressed.


----------



## luutzu (15 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Free health care e.g. tonnes of religious hospitals.
> 
> The smashing thing I said is just a bit of an intuitive thought in some minds. A bit of like “ we reap what we sow”. Or the Church is supposed to be salt of the earth and if it loses its taste it gets trodden on. Something like that. They say when living conditions go down the number of Christians goes up fast. If there is a God, then deviating from perfect values would result in all kinds of problems in society. Interestingly enough number of Australians that believe in God is much higher than what I thought.
> 
> ...




Charities, religious schools and hospitals... They're not  uniquely Christian things. Heck, even the Muslims does charity     Have you seen what Trump did with his charity? His daughter and wife also have charities "for women" to be proud and entrepreneurial. I guess the first rule of Trump's charity is knowing the tax code.

I know, it's not fair... I don't mean to belittle or poke fund at Christian or any religious charity. They do seem to want to do good work. Still, not a "Christian thing", not a thing that came about because of Jesus.

Christianity as a state religion though, like all religion that became a state orthodoxy... they're put there because they served the state and its ruling elite. That kind of organisational structure is very different to the normal Christian citizen who aren't ruling anything. Just going to Church, pray for good health and world peace.


In the olden days, the Pope and Cardinals rule the Christian empire. Nowadays they're just hanging around like old relics that now and then prove itself useful to the state. On such occasions as a State Funeral and a good background to declare war against evil to protect our civilisation and stuff. That and a religious politician is assumed to be a pious and a good person... so why not.


Ancient Rome... From the little I know of it, the Romans feed the Christians to the lions for kicks, then kicks them around when the lions from North Africa were all extinct.

That happened all the way up until Constantine find Jesus useful, used his name and so united the two halves of old Rome. Then once Constantine made Christianity a state religion - with himself as Jesus' best buddy, a lost Disciple if you will... Christians starts to do what anyone with God, Emperor and plenty of arms on their side: free the savages from their idiotic sects and barbarism 

-------

Yea, I think it's also true that when living conditions goes down, people get more religious (more Christian in the West, more Muslims in the Arab world)... 

But I don't think it's because they left God and his teachings so their life is a bit messed up. Possibly they ran out of money, have too much money, or their dictator didn't take proper order and goes rouge. 

When you're between a rock and a hard place but have no dollars to buy a crowbar, who else do you turn to to get some sanity back? God's free... then if you accept God while in trouble and troubles passes, you repay Him through his subsidiaries; if God didn't help in time... well it's meant to be.

I don't know about the gay agenda man. Even Penny Wong wouldn't want to be legally married. 

I guess people are free to speak, just when they say things that's one of those wtf things... others are also free to go wtf? Then a debate either happen, after which no one learn anything but being more convinced of their beliefs.


----------



## notting (15 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Even Penny Wong wouldn't want to be legally married.



LOL
Not even Julia Gillard. Now there's a smart chick.  Maybe in the closet but.


----------



## qldfrog (16 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> Looks to me that some people can't accept YES as a possible answer.



Did you mean NO, cause I think some people (well represented in our propaganda media) can't accept NO as a possible answer either.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> Did you mean NO, cause I think some people (well represented in our propaganda media) can't accept NO as a possible answer either.




There have been 18 parliamentary votes of NO, and they haven't been accepted.


----------



## basilio (16 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> There have been 18 parliamentary votes of NO, and they haven't been accepted.




How long/how many parliamentary votes did it take to get
Male Voting rights ?
Women Voting rights?
Home Rule for Ireland ?
Repeal of criminal laws against (male) homesexuals ?
Abortion law reform ?

It takes time, conversation and persuasive debate to make progress.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 October 2017)

basilio said:


> How long/how many parliamentary votes did it take to get
> Male Voting rights ?
> Women Voting rights?
> Home Rule for Ireland ?
> ...




In other words, you won't accept anything apart from your own preconceived ideas, so given that, the No case has every right to vote how they want in Parliament regardless of how the population vote ?


----------



## Tisme (16 October 2017)

There was an article over the last few days about a gay man killing his man friend. Does that stat go into the hate gay murders file or is there a separate one just for LGBtxyz?


----------



## Tisme (16 October 2017)

Interesting read:

http://marriage.greekorthodox.org.au/2017/08/same-sex-marriage-ten-years-on-lessons-from-canada/



> The Public Discourse: The Witherspoon Institute
> 
> Would recognising same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?
> 
> ...............http://marriage.greekorthodox.org.au/2017/08/same-sex-marriage-ten-years-on-lessons-from-canada/


----------



## Tisme (16 October 2017)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-...fter-refusing-gay-marriage-cake-order/6482280



> Gay rights activist Gareth Lee took Ashers Baking Company in Belfast to court in a civil action after it cancelled his order for a cake with the slogan "support gay marriage" on it.
> 
> The firm initially accepted the order but later contacted Mr Lee to cancel it and refund his money.
> 
> Mr Lee told a court hearing over three days in March that the bakery's refusal made him feel "unworthy" and "a lesser person".


----------



## basilio (16 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> In other words, you won't accept anything apart from your own preconceived ideas, so given that, the No case has every right to vote how they want in Parliament regardless of how the population vote ?




A few points

1) I don't have preconcieved ideas. I can watch the changes in my views over decades as personal experience and exposure to different points of view causes me to reassess my views.
2) I used the examples of a number of different social and political  movements to show the obvious -entrenched positions do not move quickly given that the people with that power rarely walk away from an advantageous situation.
3) If Parliament did have a free conscience vote of same sex marriage it would now be a done deal. There are now sufficent politicans and community leaders on all sides of politics who are either gay, have gay children or friends or employ many gay people to accept the concept of  marriage equality.

Of course there are still people who quietly or stridently think same sex marriage is the Road to Peridition. That is their view.


----------



## qldfrog (16 October 2017)

DB008 said:


> From my limited observations at work :
> The younger generation is voting - yes
> The older generation is voting - no



From my own point of view the gullible  vote yes, 'cause they have been told  to, in the same way that immigration is good, the Russians elected Trump and Clinton is a Saint; 
And Facebook told them to anyway
The other third(at most), is divided, some gay haters maybe, but a lot of religious, or anarchists;
it actually takes some courage to say No just to put a stop to PC and the descend into an Orwellian world


----------



## PZ99 (16 October 2017)

Can't see how YES voters can be gullible when the majority of the conspiracy theories are coming from the NO supporters


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Can't see how YES voters can be gullible when the majority of the conspiracy theories are coming from the NO supporters



What conspiracy theories? Oh, you mean the ones that observe the impingements on liberty that have resulted in other countries,  the overall leftist agenda of cultural marxism, extreme pc, trigger warnings university echo chambers and Goddam safe placed etc... and think that may just be repeated here?

Damn, where did I leave my ton foil hat?


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> What conspiracy theories? Oh, you mean the ones that observe the impingements on liberty that have resulted in other countries,  the overall leftist agenda of cultural marxism, extreme pc, trigger warnings university echo chambers and Goddam safe placed etc... and think that may just be repeated here?



Yep, those conspiracy theories and thankyou for expressing them so eloquently for all to see.

If you can't find your tin foil hat I'll PM you another one that you can feel free to hand around along with more dire predictions that can squeeze donations from a gullible public.


----------



## Tisme (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Can't see how YES voters can be gullible when the majority of the conspiracy theories are coming from the NO supporters




I'm not sure how concern equates to conspiracy. 

Just because ~60% of voting population mark their ballots for Liberal or Labor, clearly doesn't mean they are gifting the rest of us with good govt, but they still persist with the same ill informed and naive practice.

A NO vote was one of the ways  we could have sent a message to politicians that we value our heritage and want to remain a virtuous, decent society. Obviously 60% of the population don't care for any of that and that's probably in no small part due to the type of people we have allowed to migrate here and who have brought their uncultivated farm animal habits with them.


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

Care to elaborate what these particular groups are? Can't be Muslims because homosexuality is a cardinal sin.

People voting NO because they are concerned or if it's against their core beliefs is fine with me. What's not fine is the elitist attitude that comes with it. Someone votes YES, therefore they are inferior and are easy targets for mediscare style scare campaigns.

Good Govt comes from keeping the bastards honest.

The population that don't care are the people who don't vote at all.


----------



## qldfrog (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Care to elaborate what these particular groups are? Can't be Muslims because homosexuality is a cardinal sin..



pz99, you really need to wake up to the practises in Afghanistan or Pakistan where female being evil, young boys are dressed up, added lipstick and f*cked to oblivion by the very same pure islam followers talibans(and this has been going on for hundred of years, this is the fate of orphans there.Even liberal media used to report it.just google it
Or could it be donkey? the latest in Morroco:

http://nypost.com/2017/08/16/teens-treated-for-rabies-after-alleged-sexual-contact-with-donkey/
(I purposely did use the nypost so I can not be accused of conspiracy right wing nuts, you can find the same info in Morrocan news, with a bit of explanations as to why it is common practise
So next survey: can I marry my donkey?or dog
Anyway, I do not believe the SSM debate was brought in by the Muslim community, just another way to distract attention potentially away from that same community, while the whole population get screwed by our elites, and I do not believe we have been asked to sign a conscent(sp?) form before.
But the usual left/right makes sure we bend down, and people are surprised by Trump and Clinton a year on can still not believe she lost.How dare people do that!!Just another conspiracy obviously, all is good in the west front


----------



## qldfrog (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> People voting NO because they are concerned or if it's against their core beliefs is fine with me. What's not fine is the elitist attitude that comes with it. Someone votes YES, therefore they are inferior and are easy targets for mediscare style scare campaigns.



just replace yes by no  and you got my position; I am yet to find a single media scare campaign favoring the NO?ABC, SBS, News ltd, Murdoch? Even Quantas and the life savers club want me to vote yes


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> pz99, you really need to wake up to the practises in Afghanistan or Pakistan where female being evil, young boys are dressed up, added lipstick and f*cked to oblivion by the very same pure islam followers talibans(and this has been going on for hundred of years, this is the fate of orphans there.Even liberal media used to report it.just google it
> Or could it be donkey? the latest in Morroco:
> 
> http://nypost.com/2017/08/16/teens-treated-for-rabies-after-alleged-sexual-contact-with-donkey/
> ...



Your erroneous assumption that a religion is redefined by violators is akin to saying Christianity supports pedophilia because of a handful of Catho kiddie fiddlers. That's illogical.

Thanks for using Trump and Clinton to intensify your argument... I didn't vote for either.

No, you can't marry your donkey


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> just replace yes by no  and you got my position; I am yet to find a single media scare campaign favoring the NO?ABC, SBS, News ltd, Murdoch? Even Quantas and the life savers club want me to vote yes



So you didn't watch the NO ads that everyone's been talking about for weeks?

Clearly their campaign strategy isn't working then - hence the result. I stopped listening to them when they started pushing around their stoopid anti lefty wheel barrow which has nothing to do with SSM.


----------



## qldfrog (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> No, you can't marry your donkey



Not yet....


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> Not yet....



If such a survey eventuated I'd vote informally. It would be a donkey vote


----------



## qldfrog (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> So you didn't watch the NO ads that everyone's been talking about for weeks?



Actually no, I do not watch much TV and no, I have not even seen a single one that I can remember; I was away O/S during some of that time, but apart for the neverending propaganda on ABC, SBS and Brisbane Times, not much of a NO presence.
But all Australia's problems will be solved once the law is voted, what will be the next campaign? I am really worried for the mental state of that donkey discussed above.Should talk to the Green


----------



## qldfrog (17 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> Actually no, I do not watch much TV and no, I have not even seen a single one that I can remember; I was away O/S during some of that time, but apart for the neverending propaganda on ABC, SBS and Brisbane Times, not much of a NO presence.
> But all Australia's problems will be solved once the law is voted, what will be the next campaign? I am really worried for the mental state of that donkey discussed above.Should talk to the Green



actually sadly they shot the donkey if I remember well... but this is definitively off topic


----------



## SirRumpole (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> If such a survey eventuated I'd vote informally. It would be a donkey vote




Most votes are these days unfortunately.


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Most votes are these days unfortunately.



Now we know how Tony Abbott won the 2013 election - donkey by default


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

qldfrog said:


> Actually no, I do not watch much TV and no, I have not even seen a single one that I can remember; I was away O/S during some of that time, but apart for the neverending propaganda on ABC, SBS and Brisbane Times, not much of a NO presence.
> But all Australia's problems will be solved once the law is voted, what will be the next campaign? I am really worried for the mental state of that donkey discussed above.Should talk to the Green



Well... hopefully the next campaign will be the next federal election that *doesn't* focus on SSM... which is what will happen if a NO vote wins. There are far more important issues.

Could you imagine the uproar if Bill Shorten won an election simply because Labor supports SSM ?


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Yep, those conspiracy theories and thankyou for expressing them so eloquently for all to see.
> 
> If you can't find your tin foil hat I'll PM you another one that you can feel free to hand around along with more dire predictions that can squeeze donations from a gullible public.



We will see, and I reserve the right to say "told ya so"


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> We will see, and I reserve the right to say "told ya so"



I agree and fully respect that position


----------



## Tisme (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Care to elaborate what these particular groups are? Can't be Muslims because homosexuality is a cardinal sin.
> 
> People voting NO because they are concerned or if it's against their core beliefs is fine with me. What's not fine is the elitist attitude that comes with it. Someone votes YES, therefore they are inferior and are easy targets for mediscare style scare campaigns.
> 
> ...





No they just don't care about our nation building culture of the past, they are more interested in getting on bandwagons that satiate grief stricken outcast friends rather than moving outside their comfort zone and focusing on cohesive community rather than a fragmented one that will eventually result in a mini USA of disaffected and disenfranchised haters of the parasites and elite.

Insofar as what particular groups: have a look at the various ABC pics and you will readily see which ones they are, especially the little one of the pair who invariably hangs off a daddy sized human.


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

These are the only pics I'm seeing on the ABC...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/ssm-same-sex-marriage-respectful-debate-ugly-side/8996500


----------



## SirRumpole (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> These are the only pics I'm seeing on the ABC...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/ssm-same-sex-marriage-respectful-debate-ugly-side/8996500




You lead a sheltered life. 

Every time ABC TV has a piece about SSM, it's accompanied by endless video snips of blokes kissing, women holding hands, lesbians with oh so happy looking children smiling for the camera etc

It's pathetic really.


----------



## PZ99 (17 October 2017)

I don't watch the ABC or much TV at all - probably Bathurst was my last viewing.

I can do without the attempts by the media to spoonfeed me with sensationalist BS.

However I'm curious about these people who migrated here with the power to devalue our outlook on decent society. That's a new one for me.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 October 2017)

Support for Yes seems to have declined on this poll. It was running at 63%.


----------



## Kerway (17 October 2017)

Dictionaries have, for many years, defined marriage as the formalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman. This is how most religious people in the world would like it to remain, and I feel that their views should be respected. Gay people should create their own description of a union between people of the same sex. I do understand their desire to be seen in the same light as every one else, but their unions are inherently different.


----------



## Tisme (17 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I don't watch the ABC or much TV at all - probably Bathurst was my last viewing.
> 
> I can do without the attempts by the media to spoonfeed me with sensationalist BS.
> 
> However I'm curious about these people who migrated here with the power to devalue our outlook on decent society. That's a new one for me.





Sounds like you are ill informed to judge the ABC  and absence of the NO vote propaganda on the the visual media.


----------



## PZ99 (18 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Sounds like you are ill informed to judge the ABC  and absence of the NO vote propaganda on the the visual media.



I'm not making any attempt to judge the level of balance on the visual media on this subject so that assertion is pointless to me.


----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I'm not making any attempt to judge the level of balance on the visual media on this subject so that assertion is pointless to me.




 Then you have been using weasel sentencing to imply you have? e.g. "These are the only pics I'm seeing on the ABC..."


----------



## Tink (18 October 2017)

Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for harmony between men and women.
It is the intimate bond organized around sustaining a household and raising children.
We affirm that our most fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and mothers.
Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human flourishing.
Children require sacrifice from those who bring them into the world.
This sacrifice is noble and must be honoured.
We endorse prudent social policies to encourage and strengthen marriage, childbearing, and childrearing.
A society that fails to welcome children has no future.

-----------------------------

A statement made in Europe.

https://thetrueeurope.eu/a-europe-we-can-believe-in/


----------



## PZ99 (18 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Then you have been using weasel sentencing to imply you have? e.g. "These are the only pics I'm seeing on the ABC..."



I'm didn't imply anything. You put a challenge to "have a look at the various ABC pics" which I met by posting said pics from their website. Nothing misleading about that.


----------



## PZ99 (18 October 2017)

Tink said:


> Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for harmony between men and women.
> It is the intimate bond organized around sustaining a household and raising children.
> We affirm that our most fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and mothers.
> Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human flourishing.
> ...



Sounds like a perfect tactic to reduce overpopulation then


----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I'm didn't imply anything. You put a challenge to "have a look at the various ABC pics" which I met by posting said pics from their website. Nothing misleading about that.





Yeah you did and you know it

It does make me wonder how many people are voting with their emotions rather than informed head.


----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Sounds like a perfect tactic to reduce overpopulation then





The Asians, where homosexuality is like a Mexican prison game, are coming to grips with that concept


----------



## PZ99 (18 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Yeah you did and you know it
> 
> It does make me wonder how many people are voting with their emotions rather than informed head.



You would be better off wondering about the accuracy of the information.

So No dice Bro 

You can accuse me of spelling and grammatical errors if you like - it would be more accurate 

Emotions? A reminder that I actually voted "NO" in exchange for an accidental YES vote by another poster. It was a deliberate ploy to extend the SSM debate all the way to the next erection election.
_ (ahh sheet, another spelling error)_


----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> However I'm curious about these people who migrated here with the power to devalue our outlook on decent society. That's a new one for me.




You shouldn't be curious, you should be erudite. If causation of homosexuality and thus SSM was genetically determined, it would manifest itself as the same percentages in all cultures. This just ain't so.

It is not in nature to perform homosexual acts, but proclivity. There is no biological basis for homosexuality and it tends to have a cultural significance, thus why the SSM brigade have attacked the Anglo culture to remove it's norms from the argument. This points to lifestyle choices based on urges.

There is no scientific consensus for the reasons for hetero, homo, bi, etc sexuality. That's an absolute give, so the focus has to move to social stimuli. We also know that evolution isn't generally in the direction of non reproduction, so heterosexuality is the natural activity, the others unnatural. 

The western culture finds itself in a dilemma, because historically homosexaulity was an act, but now it's a lifestyle. Even the upper class Greeks/Romans that SSM people like to bang on about were drawn to homosexuality as an extramarital loveless, albeit gratuitous act. The Romans accepted it as something that needed to be regulated to protect minors with the Lex Scantinia law. In Africa vast numbers of men still carry on with extramarital liaisons and bring AIDS back to their spouses.... the SSM brigade even hijacked this self evident truth and tried to blame the women instead.

The other nations away from the Anglocentric west are less inclined to pariah status. In relation to your assertion muslims are somehow pious abstainers, well you obviously haven't spent reasonable value time in the Arab countries, but that is not the focus on my observations. The further you move away from the soon to be defunct traditional Anglo cultures the closer there seems to be a cultural acceptance of homosexuality, regardless of residual colonial legal acts still in place. It's in part to the various base behaviours of the natives that gave rise to Colonial Empires stamping themselves as conquering by the grace of God and civilising barbarians.

In cultures with large family structures, it has been shown that separation anxiety has a strong, almost predictable correlation to androphilia/third gender persuasions. Pacific islander nations accept the fraternal order of more older brothers the more inclined the youngest is to androphilia. In islander culture the high carbs diet generally results in men dropping off their perch in their early fifties and those sons between 6 and 12 are prone to the separation anxiety from parental loss and consequent androphilia. 

Similarly in cultures where females are devalued (even killed) and boys are in demand to work the farm, family business etc, you can see same family structures of diminishing heterosexuality as the faternity increases. Of course there is always going to be people who get on the bandwagon just for thrills too.

So I'm not going to provide the list, but you can see for yourself by studying Ford and Beach plus Broude and Greene . You will see who we are talking about and how culture aligns to the behaviours. Soon to be defunct in Oz, Christianity certainly imposed itself on many cultures and reduced, even eradicated it it in several generations. But some cultures have zip homosexuality regardless of religion, some have demonstrably more.

Have another look at those many pics and see if you can identify the Captain Obvious or two or three.


----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)




----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)




----------



## Tisme (18 October 2017)

Cory actually talks English!!


----------



## Logique (18 October 2017)

For Melbournites, read Carlton.
They're tolerant and accepting. So long as you fall into line with Leftist ideological dogma! Otherwise they might spit on you 


> Tuesday, October 17, 2017
> http://www.matthaydenblog.com/2017/10/newtown-hipsters-lay-down-law-its-not.html
> *Newtown hipsters lay down the law*: It's *not okay to vote No*!
> ...He ['*No*' *protestor*] *was spat on*, *harangued*, *told he had no right to have his opinion*...


----------



## Junior (18 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> You shouldn't be curious, you should be erudite. If causation of homosexuality and thus SSM was genetically determined, it would manifest itself as the same percentages in all cultures. This just ain't so.
> 
> It is not in nature to perform homosexual acts, but proclivity. There is no biological basis for homosexuality and it tends to have a cultural significance, thus why the SSM brigade have attacked the Anglo culture to remove it's norms from the argument. This points to lifestyle choices based on urges.
> 
> ...




A minority of people are naturally attracted to those of the same sex, not the opposite sex.  Many of those meet someone they wish to maintain a commitment and long term relationship with.  They should be treated with respect like everyone else in our society.  They should have the same rights as everyone else.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 October 2017)

Junior said:


> A minority of people are naturally attracted to those of the same sex, not the opposite sex.  Many of those meet someone they wish to maintain a commitment and long term relationship with.  They should be treated with respect like everyone else in our society.  They should have the same rights as everyone else.



They (of the us and them) do have the same rights as everyone!


----------



## Junior (19 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> They (of the us and them) do have the same rights as everyone!




That is the big question isn't it?  Is marriage a 'right', or a privilege reserved for those in a heterosexual relationship.....

Bad luck if you are gay, you can be content with your civil union whilst the rest of us have as many marriages as we like.  Just as it was in the past with the right to vote, or simply walking into a bar - bad luck if you are a woman or an aboriginal, you aren't entitled to that privilege.

Increasingly, many people view marriage as a right available to all, including two men or two women.


----------



## qldfrog (19 October 2017)

Junior said:


> That is the big question isn't it?  Is marriage a 'right', or a privilege reserved for those in a heterosexual relationship.....



Or is marriage a *name *with a meaning  attached to an heterosexual couple;
So lesbiage or gayage, etc could be newly created names, I do not believe anyone has any issue with that ? 
But i have one when social engineering changes meaning of names (lately negritude has become a bad word whereas for people with a bit of education and background, this is a powerful positive and respectful word on the struggle and the achievement of black culture), and we rewrite history (see with the US civil war reinterpretation), etc.
We all know SSM is not a matter of rights in Australia, or in most of the west anymore.
Rights are already there, irrespective of the marital status or your sex preferences be it for super, tax regime , law or inheritance/divorce rules.


----------



## Tisme (19 October 2017)

Junior said:


> A minority of people are naturally attracted to those of the same sex, not the opposite sex.  Many of those meet someone they wish to maintain a commitment and long term relationship with.  They should be treated with respect like everyone else in our society.  They should have the same rights as everyone else.





Why should they have the same rights to an action that was specific to a digital set? It's illogical to apply a binary condition to analogue variables.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Cory actually talks English!!



That 2015 debate shows nothing has changed belief wise. I thought Bernadi spoke the good debate. Didn't stutter or trip over when questioned and was clear in presentation. Penny was also clear but still displayed her trademark smart ass replies in search of crowd approval with the associated applause and to belittle the opposition. She displays that blokey, f u Jack this thing is going through whether you like it or not.


----------



## grah33 (19 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Cory actually talks English!!







I agree with you. Some people here are asking for re-explanations (or ignoring good explanations), or just stating their views as facts contrary to Wikipedia. That tells you something.

It's human nature to uncover our eyes when we don't like to know the truth. There seems to be a dark side to the gay marriage thing. The true colors of something eventually show up.

Penny Wong is discriminating. Why wouldn't they ask for polygamous marriages e.g. Islamic. For many it makes much more sense than a man marrying a man.

And when they start forcing cake bakers, Jews /Christian religious schools etc to bow down to this new way of life... That's called communism.

I guess the good times can't last forever. But I think they're going to encounter so much resistance. It will be never ending.


----------



## PZ99 (19 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> You shouldn't be curious, you should be erudite. If causation of homosexuality and thus SSM was genetically determined, it would manifest itself as the same percentages in all cultures. This just ain't so.
> 
> It is not in nature to perform homosexual acts, but proclivity. There is no biological basis for homosexuality and it tends to have a cultural significance, thus why the SSM brigade have attacked the Anglo culture to remove it's norms from the argument. This points to lifestyle choices based on urges.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that reply. Some good points there. I won't venture into the debate as to whether homosexuality is an inheritance or a lifestyle choice. As I'm not gay I don't know and I don't think anyone does at this point on time. It hasn't been proven either way yet. It certainly does appear to be promoted as a lifestyle choice to the young with the mardi-gras etc but it could be interpreted as "It's OK to be gay" or "It's OK to become gay". That's a debate for someone else to have 

No I haven't been to any Arab countries nor have any intention to, but my original point was homosexuality is equally unacceptable to Islam as it is to Christianity. Groups that violate the faith can break the rules but they can't change them. It's a pity when you think about it... if these two faiths had actually dropped their prejudices against each other they could have formed a very strong NO campaign of their own simply by demonstrating their mutual opposition to SSM.

Instead we are subject to this Mediscare style campaign about becoming a communist state and obfuscation with left/right politics.. which, apart from being irrelevant isn't very prudent given right wing politics is a bit on the nose at the moment. Still, watch out for those "Reds under IN the bed" 

And then there's the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Indecent acts such as adultery are perfectly legal in this country, causing the breakup of marriage - leading to divorce followed by hardship for the parent(s) that miss out on seeing their kids - the kids themselves - not to mention the financial penalties involved. Yet we are complaining about changing a civil union to a marriage despite the physical difference being zip (_I use that word advisedly_  ).

None of this changes my own viewpoint about SSM. I do have a lot of respect for the basic argument that marriage is used to maintain integrity of the human race by legitimating offspring. If that's your GOLD standard... vote NO.

But I believe in freedom - a Christian establishment Conservative Govt regulating your love life in a country with secular values isn't freedom. Especially when it's not taken to the people to decide.

Anyway that's my view. Political sycophants can jump all over it as usual


----------



## SirRumpole (19 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Anyway that's my view. Political sycophants can jump all over it as usual




That's one of the most balanced posts I've read on this topic , well done.

I did vote for the gold standard, but I also have respect for the argument that it is not the States business  who marries whom, however I want the gold standard maintained and not sullied by something  I regard as lesser, so same sex couples should have their own Same Sex Marriage Act and leave the other 98% of us to ours.


----------



## Macquack (19 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> ...same sex couples should have their own Same Sex Marriage Act and *leave the other 98% of us to ours.*



SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head in regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.

I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?

So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!


----------



## SirRumpole (19 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head in regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.
> 
> I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?
> 
> So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!




Yeah maybe that's true. Increasing financial pressures and desires for a career probably have a lot to do with that. If a couple can't even afford a house, why should they spend money on a wedding and kids ?


----------



## Tisme (20 October 2017)

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sames...-for-vulnerable-children-20170915-gyi17x.html


----------



## Tisme (20 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head Ain regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.
> 
> I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?
> 
> So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!




I was one of those way back in the days when "living in sin" was still an issue.  When we finally did the deed nothing changed insofar as my love and I certainly didn't get into it to parade or announce that love to the world ...it was self evident and my own private business. 

My reason was very very simple = we opened up to the idea of procreation and felt it was best for our kids to know they belong to a larger family heritage and that there existence will be stable, safe and balanced.

Statistically about 70% of children live with their biological parents, but come the teens that drops below 50%. Single parent kids are 60% of the poor children count.

Staying with the stats:

a child is 14 to 15 times more likely to be abused than one with married biological parents. If a single mum takes in a non related man, that rises to around 34 times more likely to serious abuse.

oddly enough married couples tend to be overwhelmingly unhappy (~83%) when surveyed, but given time those same marriages swing into a very happily married condition, which kinda begs the question about how long to wait before divorcing.

adolescents with married biological parents are about half likely to be sexually than the mob.

offspring from married biological parents are more likely to succeed in careers and higher learning, less likely to divorce, less inclined to crime and delinquency, less inclined to drug abuse, less likely to be abused as a child/teenager, more inclined to emotional maturity.

Of course there is the whole social and civic role modelling that comes with having a solid parent trap, especially a balanced nurture (mum) and discipline (dad). It would be difficult for a child to process both activities when confused by the apparent contradiction of do as I say not as I do. Children and teenagers do assess their own worth in a family by the way the biological parents commit to the family structure.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> oddly enough married couples tend to be overwhelmingly unhappy (~83%) when surveyed, but given time those same marriages swing into a very happily married condition, which kinda begs the question about how long to wait before divorcing.




Marriage is like a deck of cards, you start out with two hearts and a diamond, but you end up wishing you had a club and a spade.


----------



## sptrawler (21 October 2017)

So the next issue is, the age of consent.lol


----------



## sptrawler (21 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> There you go. You exemplify why freedom is better than communism.
> 
> So let's give same-sex couples the freedom to marry and let's stop being lefty commies!




O.k Let's give same sex couples equal rights, let's move on to the next headland, what is the age of consent?
The greens want the voting age moved down to 16 years of age.
Then where do we move on from there?
Yipee, here we go, here we go.
We really do need a war, people are becoming too bored, lazy and without focus.IMO


----------



## Tisme (21 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> So the next issue is, the age of consent.lol





I would be thinking equal rights for the majority. e.g. A hetero white man being able to access human rights, vilification, prejudice, etc recourse through the various myriad of billion dollar depts setup to skew merit into a knot.


----------



## Tisme (21 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> O.k Let's give same sex couples equal rights, let's move on to the next headland, what is the age of consent?
> The greens want the voting age moved down to 16 years of age.
> Then where do we move on from there?
> Yipee, here we go, here we go.
> We really do need a war, people are becoming too bored, lazy and without focus.IMO




Banning the herb they obvious smoke too often. If they lower the consent age to 16, you bet that will be for girls and 13 or 14 will be set for the boys so that the inner Melbourne greens can get their hands on them without being labelled pedophiles.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2017)

So  the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia. 

Pretty sinister hey?

Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ


----------



## SirRumpole (21 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> So  the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia.
> 
> Pretty sinister hey?
> 
> Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ




WTF, you are right, and yet the "Vote YES" page is still open.

This is outrageous, people should vote NO simply because of this censorship.

I wonder who authorised this.


----------



## PZ99 (21 October 2017)

Can I have the link for this NO page please?


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> WTF, you are right, and yet the "Vote YES" page is still open.
> 
> This is outrageous, people should vote NO simply because of this censorship.
> 
> I wonder who authorised this.



It seems you need further therapy. You must embrace homosexuality in society and support the (soon to be) changed Marriage Act. Counciling services will be held every Friday here at ASF for those traumatised by the event.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> It seems you need further therapy. You must embrace homosexuality in society and support the (soon to be) changed Marriage Act. Counciling services will be held every Friday here at ASF for those traumatised by the event.





Them bastards aint getting me pal.

I've got my tin hat and lead pants on.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2017)

We may not agree to this destruction of traditional marriage but the next generations will grow up and be taught it is normal. There will be other society changes as all types of humans claim equality, recognition, financial support and compensation. What's yours is mine so to speak.


----------



## Tisme (22 October 2017)

Anything SSM advocates do is OK:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...d/news-story/340d639e745b13fea12d54c44788b701


----------



## Tisme (22 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> So  the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia.
> 
> Pretty sinister hey?
> 
> Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ




Is it Farcebook pushing their political agenda or too scared of the legal ramifications?

Not without precedence:

http://www.skynews.com.au/tech/tech...ook-bans-traditional-marriage-campaigner.html


----------



## Tisme (22 October 2017)




----------



## Tisme (22 October 2017)

http://www.ippf.org/

IPPF is funded through a mix of institutional and individual donations. Institutions include governments, non-governmental organizations, multilateral agencies, corporations, trusts and foundations. The Federation also benefits enormously from funds donated by individuals via bequests, trusts, annuities and regular giving.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

*Children raised by same-sex parents do as well as their peers, study shows *
Comprehensive review in Medical Journal of Australia concludes main threat to same-sex parented children is discrimination

*Shares*
1252

Anne Davies

@annefdavies

Sunday 22 October 2017 18.01 BST

As the marriage equality vote draws toward its close, a comprehensive study published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows children raised in same-sex-parented families do as well as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.

*The review of three decades of peer-reviewed research by Melbourne Children’s found children raised in same-sex-parented families did as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers.*

The study’s findings will undercut one of the arguments that have been used by the No campaign: that children need both a mother and a father to flourish.

The study’s authors said their work aimed to put an end to the misinformation about children of same-sex couples and pointed out that the results had been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally.

Titled The Kids are OK: it is Discrimination Not Same-Sex Parents that Harms Children_, _ the report comes as the postal survey voting period enters its final days. Votes must be received by the Australian Bureau of Statistics by November 7 and outcome will be announced on November 15. So far polling has indicated that the Yes campaign is headed for a convincing win.
*

Among the studies reviewed were the 2017 public policy research portal at Columbia Law School, which reviewed 79 studies investigating the wellbeing of children raised by gay or lesbian parents; a 2014 American Sociological Association review of more than 40 studies, which concluded that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as other children across a number of wellbeing measures; and the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ 2013 review of the Australian and international research, which showed there was no evidence of harm.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> As the marriage equality vote draws toward its close, a comprehensive study published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows children raised in same-sex-parented families do as well as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.




Funny how a lot of those children are coming out against same sex parenting now that they have grown up and are realising what they missed out on.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Funny how a lot of those children are coming out against same sex parenting now that they have grown up and are realising what they missed out on.




So your preferance is to accept x number of children who say they are now unhappy with their same sex parents versus 130 odd studies across many thousands of childen and families around the world?

Sounds like you know what answer you want and examples that support that view are the only ones you are interested in recognising.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> So your preferance is to accept x number of children who say they are now unhappy with their same sex parents versus 130 odd studies across many thousands of childen and families around the world?
> 
> Sounds like you know what answer you want and examples that support that view are the only ones you are interested in recognising.




I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.

Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?

What was the sample size ?

Were the subjects volunteers only ? (this would lead to a biased sample as only those who thought they could pass would volunteer).

Did the researchers have an interest in the results ?

I have seen some studies which were blatantly biased, conducted by gays and with leading questions intended to get the desired results.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.
> 
> Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?
> 
> ...



Exactly,  typical soft science, grant and agenda driven BS.

The parameters are so socially malleable you can design studies to give any desired conclusion.


----------



## grah33 (23 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> No I haven't been to any Arab countries nor have any intention to, but my original point was homosexuality is equally unacceptable to Islam as it is to Christianity. Groups that violate the faith can break the rules but they can't change them. It's a pity when you think about it...





Pious followers don't see it like that. To them that wouldn't make sense. It would be like trying to convince Jesus C that his morals need changing. And even the people who break them (both lay people and clergy) often do so thinking they're still good morals worth following.

Also, It's more the other way around, at least in other countries. They're smashing up the smaller churches, forcing them to marry gays. Eventually they'll go for the bigger one – catholic - as well. It will not be easy, as it's hardwired in the christian faith to consciously object no matter what, and to even go prison if need be. For example a doctor who has faith wouldn't perform an abortion, even if the State required him to. Or a faith person in a religious school wouldn't teach homosexual sex education. And a good number would also yield to the pressure (as happens in communism). The ones who resist become heroes later on in history...

I think money will have a big play in this too, which is unfortunate, but becoming the norm.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.
> 
> Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?
> 
> ...




It's certainly critically important to be careful about accepting the validity of medical studies for all the reasons you have indicated Rumpy.

So on that basis there should be great confidence in the overall result given that:

1) The reviews encompassed 129 plus  peer reviewed studies all of which found children in same sex families fared as well as other children across a number of well being measures

2) The reviews were conducted by three separate organisations. A 2017 public policy research portal at Columbia Law Schoo of 79 studies , a 2014 American Sociological Association review of more than 40 studies and the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ 2013 review of the Australian and international research.

Now there were examples of  studies which were  questioned by the researchers because of poor methodology.

_*"The researchers said that studies reporting poor outcomes had been widely criticised for their methodological limitations. For example the widely quoted Regnerus study compared adults raised by a gay or lesbian parent in any family configuration with adults who were raised in stable, heterosexual, two-parent family environments, which may have distorted the outcomes."
*
So yes, if one decides to create unequal criteria for the two family groups  then there will be differences in outcome.  Trouble is of course such studies have no acceptable scientific basis. _


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> For example the widely quoted Regnerus study compared adults raised by a gay or lesbian parent in any family configuration with adults who were raised in stable, heterosexual, two-parent family environments, which may have distorted the outcomes."




So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Pious followers don't see it like that. To them that wouldn't make sense. It would be like trying to convince Jesus C that his morals need changing. And even the people who break them (both lay people and clergy) often do so thinking they're still good morals worth following.
> 
> .





Given that there is over 10,000 denominations Christianity and an equal number of islam, and they all believe different things and have different moral teachings.
I think you will find religions have a long history of changing the rules to suit themselves as they go along.


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?




If you are comparing a range of different SS family models, against only one type of heterosexual family the results won't be valid, its a form of cherry picking.

For example if you are excluding the Heterosexual families that are divorced, widowed, estranged or have fly in fly out parents etc etc, and only include those that are "stable" while you are including the SS divorced, widowed, estranged or fly in fly out etc, the results will be flawed.

Any negative correlation seen against the SS families, might not be due to the SS side of things but because of the divorces, deaths, estranged family, etc etc. Which would have also showed up if those factors were not excluded from the Heterosexual side.


----------



## Logique (23 October 2017)

ABC _Q&A _covering it tonight 23 October


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?




Really ?  How about considering the reverse proposition.

A study of 100 long term stable SS relationships with children  versus 100 other relationships with children. But these other relationships encompass single parents, divorced parents, unhappy parents, happy families - the whole spectrum of life as we well know it..

Would you be happy with that study ? Or would it seem unfairly biased in favour of the 100 long term stable SS relationships? 

The point of a valid study is keeping the study and control groups as equal as possible with the exception of a single variable. The other 129 studies appeared to do that  and came up with equal  social, emotional and educational outcomes for childrens. The outlier studies chose to use groups with significant differences in composition.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> The point of a valid study is keeping the study and control groups as equal as possible with the exception of a single variable. The other 129 studies appeared to do that and came up with equal social, emotional and educational outcomes for childrens. The outlier studies chose to use groups with significant differences in composition.




Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household. 

If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual, biological families which are the largest societal group.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household.
> 
> If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual, biological families which are the largest societal group.





Agreed. Just by people calling it "Gold Standard" in itself tell us we should aspire to the best, not the makedo fallback which brings with it a massive increase in the likelihood of mental and physical abuse, regardless of the gender .

At the moment homosexuals are on their best behaviour to present the best possible case, but even then two women I know really well have had to jettison their make believe husbands with vaginas to protect their biological child from the hysteria, thrown objects and jealousies that seem to invariably erupt on a routine basis. I don't hold out much hope for the third woman who is a family friend also shy of men.

Of course the usual crowd will deny and make excuses for black people in 1930 deep south USA as reason to persevere with the social experiment.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

Logique said:


> ABC _Q&A _covering it tonight 23 October





Of course it is. Basic marketing dictates post purchase reinforcement of the purchase decision is vital for continued repeat and word of mouth sales. In this instance a large % of the late majority have been sold a "bill of goods", just as they are likely (pareto percentage) to do when the early adopter phase has passed..

ABC has just got to be an incubator and hatchery for homosexuality given it's in the acting business and a public service. It's in their DNA,


----------



## Value Collector (23 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household.
> 
> If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual , biological families which are the largest societal group.




If you want to prove a link between better upbringings and stable biological families, then you have to isolate as many variables as possible.

you would have to compare "Stable biological families" with "Stable non biological families" only then could you prove that the "Biological relation" element is an important factor.

then if you want to test the SS part.

You would have to compare "stable heterosexual families" with "stable SS families"

if you mix in other family models to one side alone, it gives flawed results, because you don't know where the differences in outcomes are coming from, e.g. is it because of the SSM or just because of the divorces etc.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

vs


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

By the way folks you do realise the  question survey is about *allowing same sex marriages ?  *

Same sex families are now a given. Same sex couples can and do adopt, foster, and have children. In fact because of that situation there are now hundeds of studies across tens of thousands of gay families that show children raised in this environment are as healthy and balanced as children raised in other family situations.  *Rejecting the evidence doesn't invalidate the conclusions.*

So as far as I can see all this dribble about Same Sex families not being as good for children as the "Gold Standard" is just just a wrong headed attack on these families. 

I suppose the logical conclusion of the argument is that children should *only* be brought up with a "Gold Standard" family.  That takes us into all sorts of interesting places doesn't it ? Abolishing the single parents pension ?  Taking children away from homes with only one parent perhaps ? Or maybe just having Social Security keep a watchful eye on children in such situations?

And what do we do with the dreaded "de factos "? Are they another "Non Gold Standard" relationship that the State and Church should take an interest in ?

Really there is 50 years of legislations you would have to unwind to get back to the Iconic "Gold Standard/plated"   era.  And you know what ? It is still a myth .


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> I suppose the logical conclusion of the argument is that children should *only* be brought up with a "Gold Standard" family. That takes us into all sorts of interesting places doesn't it ? Abolishing the single parents pension ? Taking children away from homes with only one parent perhaps ? Or maybe just having Social Security keep a watchful eye on children in such situations?




Whatever you say about less than Gold Standard, the normal family has children with both their biological parents in the family.

Genetic connection is the strongest biological ties that children have with their parents and vice versa. 

Children of others can be loved, but it's not the same. If you can't see that then there is no point trying to explain it, but deep down I think that you and the vast majority of people know that blood is thicker than water.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> And what do we do with the dreaded "de factos "? Are they another "Non Gold Standard" relationship that the State and Church should take an interest in ?
> 
> .




We don't legislate for them to be labelled "married" that's what. We continue to call it what it is "de facto", which, by the way, has an amazing capacity not to use pinky bits pleasure as its core legal reason for being..... just like marriage currently is, but won't be for long as it gets redefined as a coming together of genitals, vaginas and poop chutes.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

Is polygamy next? (look away Tink)


..
.
.
.
.


----------



## Junior (23 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> We don't legislate for them to be labelled "married" that's what. We continue to call it what it is "de facto", which, by the way, has an amazing capacity not to use pinky bits pleasure as its core legal reason for being..... just like marriage currently is, but won't be for long as it gets redefined as a coming together of genitals, vaginas and poop chutes.




If the Yes vote comes through, and the law changes, just realise that IT WILL NOT AFFECT YOU, and life will go on as normal.  You won't be forced to attend a same sex marriage, and it will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage.  It will make a lot of people happy however, ie. the people who are actually impacted, and their friends, and their families.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

Nice one Tisme.  Right down their with your standards. 

I reckon you should change you moniker and get rid of the "A" .  Seems so much more appropriate.

You know we could find any amount of salacious hetro sexual piccies on the net. Should we post some of these to poison the case for "Gold Standard" marriages ? Or is that particular exercise only a one way street? (Yes we already know the answer.)

Grow up Tizzie. Your embarassing yourself badly


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

Junior said:


> If the Yes vote comes through, and the law changes, just realise that *IT WILL NOT AFFECT YOU*, and life will go on as normal.




Are you prepared to put your house on that? Because I'm prepared to take it to prove how wrong you are proven to be.

Seriously, do you really believe that SSM won't create all sorts of anxiety, contempt, social dislocation, mass media exploitive saturation, anger, criminal responses, etc? 

Or do you gauge people's requirement to look away from crass, insulting behaviour as some kind democracy in action, rather than a loss (albeit for those who disagree with you)? We shouldn't have to *modify our behaviour* to accord an unnatural, indecent life style.

You house?


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Nice one Tisme.  Right down their with your standards.
> 
> I reckon you should change you moniker and get rid of the "A" .  Seems so much more appropriate.
> 
> ...




Well now I think you are displaying a childish arrogance derived from empowerment of the imbecile class bas. I have my doubts you have the capacity to understand what this issue is and sadly I don't think you ever will. Schoolyard taunts are an immediate loss of argument in any grown up conversation. 

But I have no doubt you will one day have that nagging feeling that you did a major disservice to our civilisation by taking a step too far. Your pride and ego will forgive you, but your kernal never will.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

Tisme you put up an all male pornagraphic pic to "somehow" make a point about SSM and poison the conversation. The most obvious response was "would a similar Male/Female pr0n picture somehow degrade Gold Standard marriages ? " 

That wasn't a "grown up argument". That was poisionous rubbish. In any "grown up space" you would be ditched as a drop kick and really, your judgement would be seriously questioned.

It was pathetic. Honestly,  I think you should take a break from ASF and consider what type of arguments represent anything appropriate to the discussion. Your taking this discussion into the cellars. I believe it is unacceptable.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Tisme you put up an all male pornagraphic pic to "somehow" make a point about SSM and poison the conversation. The most obvious response was "would a similar Male/Female pr0n picture somehow degrade Gold Standard marriages ? "
> 
> That wasn't a "grown up argument". That was poisionous rubbish. In any "grown up space" you would be ditched as a drop kick and really, your judgement would be seriously questioned.
> 
> It was pathetic. Honestly,  I think you should take a break from ASF and consider what type of arguments represent anything appropriate to the discussion. Your taking this discussion into the cellars. I believe it is unacceptable.





I only ever put up mass media pics. They are in the mainstream, not hidden away in redtube.

You just can't come to grips with the truth even when I put it in full view. You seem to have some sanitised version of homosexuality in your head.... a look away paradise.

The picture IS what these people do and you are happy to have the same vision, in real life paraded in front of children. Coz  that is what the gay community do...they run on libido and promiscuity, true that is what drives them, an insatiable desire for sex.

You have NFI what you have been promoting and you should before taking a contrary stance to civilised behavours. 

You need to go away and confront your own skewed puritanical view of heterosexuality as some kind of demonic spawn. You hate Anglo/Nordic/Saxon culture, that is self evident.


----------



## grah33 (23 October 2017)

But aren't such pictures representative of the homosexual agenda?

Correct me if i'm wrong but all those pride events have this sort of stuff (filth) being displayed. They don't seem to value any sort of sexual restraint – a western /christian value.  Those pride events don't express a loving affection to the same sex, but sexual games and going crazy. Not to offend, but I think those pride events indicate what it's about, even if there are members of the gay community who are 'born gay'.

Those pics/events resemble ancient Babylon. The city of harlots...

After 2 years in the US, look what happened (feel sorry for the kid):



(You can change the speed to 2X or 1.5X but it's short)


----------



## basilio (23 October 2017)

I have no "sanitised" version of homosexuality. I am totally aware of what some gay people do in saunas, bath houses, beats etc. 

On the  other side of the coin I am equally aware of what many hetrosexual people do.  And guess what ?  Yeah they can be just as promiscuous and tacky.

*Your poisonous point is saying that this behaviour is paraded in front of the children of gay parents.*
Really ? Just goes to show if your vile and twisted and shameless enough you can say anything on the net and get away with it. Clearly you believe you can.

Might that happen ? Of course it can. And just as likely is similar unacceptable behaviour in straight relationships, and incest and the whole catastrophe. You want to have a conversation about the collapse of morals in the 21st Century ? Fine.  But lets get back to what this topic is about.

*It is asking if two people in love who want to publicly commit to each other in marriage can be allowed to do so.
*
The rest of your scare mongering is just that.
___________________________________________________

That picture was just gross. I don't care where you say you sourced it.
It was the proverbial stinking cat thrown on the table to take the debate to a new low.
Again,  if we just changed the sexes of half the participants would that have trashed hetrosexual marriage?


----------



## PZ99 (23 October 2017)

sptrawler said:


> O.k Let's give same sex couples equal rights, let's move on to the next headland, what is the age of consent?
> The greens want the voting age moved down to 16 years of age.
> Then where do we move on from there?
> Yipee, here we go, here we go.
> We really do need a war, people are becoming too bored, lazy and without focus.IMO



We already had a war. Didn't do much for us did it? We are now a terrorist & nuclear target and many of our freedoms have been confiscated by Govt paranoia. And lil' Johnny gets a presidential freedom badge for it. Nice one Howard!

Voting age to 16? Yeah, bring it on. Most of them aren't rich enough to vote for conservative Govts so the low to average income earners might have half a chance in life without idiots like Abbott attacking their wages for the sake of nothing. Great suggestion.

Age of consent? Let's make it 67 - the retirement age. Last time I checked, we aren't an endangered species.

Next headland? Youth-and-Asia... see above


----------



## PZ99 (23 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Is polygamy next? (look away Tink)



That already happens here in Western Sydney. It's not what you think it is. Someone drops a coin and half the population drop to their knees looking for it. Drop your wallet here and you have to kick it all the way to the nearest neighborhood-watch zone before picking it up.

According to grah33 there's a lot of money riding on this.

Heads or tails?


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> You have NFI what you have been promoting and you should before taking a contrary stance to civilised behavours.
> 
> You need to go away and confront your own skewed puritanical view of heterosexuality as some kind of demonic spawn. You hate Anglo/Nordic/Saxon culture, that is self evident.



There is a common default YES vote (except Tony A.) for friends, relatives, acquaintences, know someone etc. and for no other reason. It is also incredible the weight gay pollies, gay celebrities and gay (sympathetic) business leaders have placed on this debate considering less than 5% of the population are homo.

p.s. that picture is unnecessary.
p.p.s the can of two fruit is equal to the platter of food.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Really ?  How about considering the reverse proposition.
> 
> A study of 100 long term stable SS relationships with children  versus 100 other relationships with children. But these other relationships encompass single parents, divorced parents, unhappy parents, happy families - the whole spectrum of life as we well know it..
> 
> ...



This merely illustrates the potential for designer research


----------



## Junior (24 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Seriously, do you really believe that SSM won't create all sorts of anxiety, contempt, social dislocation, mass media exploitive saturation, anger, criminal responses, etc?




Yes, I really believe that.  

We are talking about a WEDDING, attended by two individuals getting married, their relatives and close friends.  Those who are enraged or believe this will cause them anxiety or to become violent....need not attend said wedding!



Tisme said:


> Or do you gauge people's requirement to look away from crass, insulting behaviour as some kind democracy in action, rather than a loss (albeit for those who disagree with you)? We shouldn't have to *modify our behaviour* to accord an unnatural, indecent life style.




No one has to modify their behaviour.  You won't be invited to these weddings, you won't be forced to spend time with same-sex couples, you can live your life just as you are now.

We are simply allowing two people of the same sex to be able to get married.  Following the lead of many other nations with whom we are affiliated:  NZ, the UK, the USA, Canada.  Everyone is those countries seems to be coping just fine.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Yes, I really believe that.
> 
> We are talking about a WEDDING, attended by two individuals getting married, their relatives and close friends.  Those who are enraged or believe this will cause them anxiety or to become violent....need not attend said wedding!
> 
> ...



You haven't researched this have you.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Yes, I really believe that.
> 
> We are talking about a WEDDING, attended by two individuals getting married, their relatives and close friends.  Those who are enraged or believe this will cause them anxiety or to become violent....need not attend said wedding!
> 
> ...





No we are talking about "marriage".

If I was talking about weddings, I'd be shaming those churches who wed Japaneses couples who fly in to have photo ops in a white gown and a protestant church too.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

basilio said:


> I have no "sanitised" version of homosexuality. I am totally aware of what some gay people do in saunas, bath houses, beats etc.




but not what they do in broad daylight, in a street with a crowd looking on obviously. Where have you been, behind a keyboard and screen and never getting out?

that pic is mainstream stuff. Put on your lippy and high heels and go clubbing for a couple of nights and see what really happens in the real world, the one that is brain deadening the youth of OZ.

I'm not going to apologise to any of you who promote SSM and are offended by the godaweful truth of public displays, and that is what that pic is, of a lifestyle you are endorsing. You suggest I grow up, how about you grow up and see what is enveloping you instead of look away, what I don't know can't hurt me (or you) attitudes.

*You definitely need to be exposed to the counter culture you have embraced and sentenced the rest of us  to witness.*


----------



## basilio (24 October 2017)

It's quite clear what your saying Tisme. As far you are concerned homosxuality is breaking down our society and destrying our children. It is infecting our culture and unless fought and destroyed we back the end of  Western civilisation as we know it.

Wouldn't it be more honest to just start a thread up on that theme rather than pretending you are just against SSM ? 
_____________________________________________

Interestingly one religious view of the SSM marriage  push is the thought that many gays are looking to settle down in single relationships because... well they are not that happy with  miles of meaningless sex.
Practically a conservative view!!


----------



## Junior (24 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> You haven't researched this have you.






> As of 1 October 2017, same-sex marriage is legally recognized (nationwide or in some parts) in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico,[nb 1] the Netherlands,[nb 2] New Zealand,[nb 3] Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[nb 4] the United States[nb 5] and Uruguay.




Wikipedia


----------



## Junior (24 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> but not what they do in broad daylight, in a street with a crowd looking on obviously. Where have you been, behind a keyboard and screen and never getting out?
> 
> that pic is mainstream stuff. Put on your lippy and high heels and go clubbing for a couple of nights and see what really happens in the real world, the one that is brain deadening the youth of OZ.
> 
> ...




I find it hard to believe you have actual first-hand experience regarding these godawful public displays.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2017)

Junior said:


> A minority of people are naturally attracted to those of the same sex, not the opposite sex.  Many of those meet someone they wish to maintain a commitment and long term relationship with.  They should be treated with respect like everyone else in our society.  They should have the same rights as everyone else.



What I perceive to be the strongest couple I know just happens to be same sex (female).

On the surface they have nothing in common. From careers to music preferences they're about as far apart as possible in every way. 

But they've made the relationship work in a way that a lot of heterosexual couples could learn from. That they have absolute respect for and an understanding of each other is my interpretation of the reason. 

So far as the marriage thing is concerned they're married in all but the legal technicality of it. Had a ceremony, ring on finger, one changed their surname to match the other and so on. I'm told that with one exception (the local council by the way) nobody who matters has challenged them referring to themselves as Ms & Mrs C.

Obviously there will be dud same sex couples just as many heterosexual relationships fail but for some it seems to work well from what I've seen.

They have two children (same mother of both) and whilst I see the point about having both a mother and father around on balance I see no major problem with it. A stable couple and the kids see their father on a very regular basis (no it's not me by the way). Their father is married to another woman.

For what it's worth I say that as someone who has never met his own father so I do know quite a bit about the issues of growing up in such an environment - it creates some difficulties certainly but I'm more worried about economic and social disadvantage and the effect that has on children to be blunt. 

If I could do one thing to improve the circumstances of Australian children it would have nothing to do with same sex marriage. What I'd do is abolish neoliberal economics in one fell swoop - the misery of un or underemployment and the "everyone for themselves" society is doing far more harm to children whose parents don't succeed financially in my view.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I'd do is abolish neoliberal economics in one fell swoop - the misery of un or underemployment and the "everyone for themselves" society is doing far more harm to children whose parents don't succeed financially in my view.




+1 to that.


----------



## basilio (24 October 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> If I could do one thing to improve the circumstances of Australian children it would have nothing to do with same sex marriage. What I'd do is abolish neoliberal economics in one fell swoop - the misery of un or underemployment and the "everyone for themselves" society is doing far more harm to children whose parents don't succeed financially in my view.




Nice perspective Smurf.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Wikipedia



Ah yes, Wikipedia,  the suppository of all knowledge (malapropism apt and intended).

Pullleeeze


----------



## PZ99 (24 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Ah yes, Wikipedia, the suppository of all knowledge (malapropism apt and intended).
> 
> Pullleeeze



Feel free to blow us all over with the errors you've found in that document mate


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Feel free to blow us all over with the errors you've found in that document mate



I don't discount the benefits to a very small minority of folks. Incidentally which I am not against on principles.

It is all the stuff you have dismissed as conspiracy theory,  some of which is already coming to pass (vis a vis I told you so) and will continue to dismiss in the face of all evidence, no doubt.... mate.


----------



## PZ99 (24 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> I don't discount the benefits to a very small minority of folks. Incidentally which I am not against on principles.
> 
> It is all the stuff you have dismissed as conspiracy theory, some of which is already coming to pass (vis a vis I told you so) and will continue to dismiss in the face of all evidence, no doubt.... mate.



Ahhh sorry mate but... anything that belongs to the "I told you so" cop-out doesn't apply until after SSM becomes legal, which is weeks away. Until then, these events merely add to my claim.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

Junior said:


> I find it hard to believe you have actual first-hand experience regarding these godawful public displays.




Well settle your hard to believes and broaden your scope. Not everyone leads a beige life. You could start at say New Farm park Brisbane when the LGBTxyz have their annual party ... I own a property right on the fronting street and its a bit hard to not notice these things.

Otherwise just be happy you are comfortable calling people liars.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

basilio said:


> It's quite clear what your saying Tisme. As far you are concerned homosxuality is breaking down our society and destrying our children. It is infecting our culture and unless fought and destroyed we back the end of  Western civilisation as we know it.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more honest to just start a thread up on that theme rather than pretending you are just against SSM ?
> _____________________________________________
> ...





I don't need to start thread. This thread is about people like you blindly following a herd mentality with absolutely no appreciation of how the subjects behave.

You are believing holus-bolus the whole nonsense about how it is supposed to be a benign change. And when anyone presents a true picture, a true narrative you just shut your eyes and complain that the messenger is offending your sense of decency, when it's you that is foisting indecency on the community and children by way of your crusade to be deliberately contrary to established, hard learned norms.

When you don't get your own way you go all sooky and name calling like a blathering child. When someone like me (with a spine) stands up to your bullyboy behaviour you get all bent out of shape and ask me to leave because, presumably, your conscience goes into overload from the assault on your primal, unerasable programming for survival of the species.

This SSM movement is a gross insult on the few who underpin civilised society. And it is designed to do that very thing plus destabilise the Christian foundations of Anglo Western culture, its disciplines, self restraints and modesty.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Ahhh sorry mate but... anything that belongs to the "I told you so" cop-out doesn't apply until after SSM becomes legal, which is weeks away. Until then, these events merely add to my claim.



Well, I rest my case.


----------



## PZ99 (24 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Well, I rest my case.



Ok so that Wikipedia article is more accurate than it was last time yeah ?


----------



## basilio (24 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't need to start thread. This thread is about people like you blindly following a herd mentality with absolutely no appreciation of how the subjects behave.
> 
> You are believing holus-bolus the whole nonsense about how it is supposed to be a benign change. And when anyone presents a true picture, a true narrative you just shut your eyes and complain that the messenger is offending your sense of decency, when it's you that is foisting indecency on the community and children by way of your crusade to be deliberately contrary to established, hard learned norms.
> 
> ...




Tisme your on a crusade to return the world to the times when homesexuals hid in the closet or were bashed in toilets, sacked at work or thrown off cliffs. It's about as dark and nasty a perspective as I have seen for a long time.

I reckon there is a discussion about the direction of our society in many different areas. I thought Smurfs contribution regarding reassessing the neo liberal political/economic agenda was astute. I also think the breakdown of relationships is a concern that's worth exploring. 

Homosexuals or hetrosexuals banging anything and everything in sight is also, in my view "not a good thing". Perhaps the role of the internet in creating/encouraging  unrestrained sexuality is a big contribution to problems we are facing. 

My issue with you is this fixation on demonising homosexuality and by definition all gay people as some sort of evil that needs to be destroyed. If your trying to construct a mechanism to destroy our Western Civilisation then relentlessly inciting a hate pogram against gays (or Jews, or Muslims, or whoever else doesn't take your fancy ) is an excellent way to go about it.

Again, as I said earlier your endless diatribes against homosexuality deserve their own thread. Perhaps then they could be seen for what they are.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Again, as I said earlier your endless diatribes against homosexuality deserve their own thread. Perhaps then they could be seen for what they are.




Maybe the gay community's endless accusations of bigotry and homophobla against anyone who stands up for traditional marriage and their constant attempts at silencing those who have a different opinion to them should be called out as well.


----------



## basilio (24 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe the gay community's endless accusations of bigotry and homophobla against anyone who stands up for traditional marriage and their constant attempts at silencing those who have a different opinion to them should be called out as well.




Tisme, in particular, has taken this thread  into a sustained hate session against homosexuality and homosexuals.  

The SSM marriage question is not about denying other people the right to their views and life choices. It simply asks that all people have an equal right to such views and choices as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples lives.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

Not worth the effort Rumpole .... bas' mind is a closed shop where even facts are treated as fiction.

Bias and intimidation:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4295137.htm


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2017)

SSM doesn't hurt anyone:

and you want to put children in this mix?



> Kuehnle and Sullivan (2003: 92) found that 63.1 per cent of domestic violence incidents reported by gay men to a domestic violence program involved physical assaults. Merrill and Wolfe (2000: 11-15) report that amongst their sample of gay and bisexual men recruited through gay domestic violence programs, 87 per cent reported physical abuse (severe or recurrent), up to 94 per cent had experienced some form of emotional abuse, nearly 70 per cent some kind of financial abuse (financial abuse is often categorised as emotional abuse) and 73 per cent had been sexually abused


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 October 2017)

Marriage is the foundation for a family life. I cannot see any other reason to take vows and make such a binding commitment if not to raise offspring. It is what male and female humans do naturally. Moral licencing homosexuals to practice unnatural parenting roles is a step toward an unstable society. Seeing a couple of married blokes pushing their adopted child down the street and stopping to kiss each other is somehow strange. Morality is blurring.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 October 2017)

The way I see it, this issue only exists because homosexuals are a minority in society.

If they were 25% of the population then humans would still exist so long as the average heterosexual couple has enough children and nobody would be too fussed about the whole thing.

I see no need to make life difficult for minorities unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so which in this case I don't think there is.

It's not about children since there's nothing stopping any woman having sex with a man and getting pregnant unless there's a medical problem (and that applies regardless of sexuality). There's plenty of single heterosexual parents too and society accepted that many years ago.

Personally I'm heterosexual and never even thought of going to the other side but it doesn't bother me. There's bigger problems in society in my view - economic insecurity at the individual level, environmental issues and the threat of war all come to mind as bigger threats to both adults and children.


----------



## Tink (25 October 2017)

Marriage is about the TRUTH.
A man and a woman, becoming a mother and a father, and raising their children.
This needs to be passed on to the future generations, as has been for past generations.
They are all connected, our children, us, our parents, our grandparents.

FAMILY.

Marriage is not a right, there is a reason that Marriage is what it is, and that is for raising the next generation.

Mothers and Fathers
Ladies and Gentlemen
Boys and Girls.

This needs to be taught in schools - the TRUTH.
--------------------

Civil Unions are recognised by the government for homosexual/transgender couples.

We are not genderless - Biology is the TRUTH.


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

Metaphor video for No voter victims:


----------



## wayneL (25 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Tisme, in particular, has taken this thread  into a sustained hate session against homosexuality and homosexuals.
> 
> TheI SSM marriage question is not about denying other people the right to their views and life choices. It simply asks that all people have an equal right to such views and choices as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples lives.



Iinteresting position, considering sustained haye sessions are your stock in trade.


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Iinteresting position, considering sustained haye sessions are your stock in trade.





And the thing is I don't have any hate for homosexuals at all. I don't pity them, I don't endorse them, I don't treat them any differently in social gatherings and more importantly I actually know a few and socialise with them, unlike teflon bas for sure. Nothing sticks to bas

I have my own opinions on their behaviours, their habits and their demolition of traditional values to brute force their way out of the basement caste. That right of bias will disappear soon so why not exercise it while we can I say


----------



## SirRumpole (25 October 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> For what it's worth I say that as someone who has never met his own father so I do know quite a bit about the issues of growing up in such an environment - it creates some difficulties certainly but I'm more worried about economic and social disadvantage and the effect that has on children to be blunt.




Congratulations on your achievements, despite adverse circumstances. A lot of people do succeed in less than ideal circumstances and it's all credit to them.

Anthony Albanese's story exemplifies the mental strain that many people go through not knowing a biological parent. He was conceived on a cruise ship and his father a crewman who return to Italy never knowing he had a son. Albanese is a successful man in his field, but still felt a burning desire to contact his father and say "here I am I'm your son", even though the man had played no part in his life. How much mental turmoil he went through in his life only he knows, but I can't say that deliberately inflicting that sort of thing on someone is a good idea (not that Albanese's mother did that), but a lot of people do through surrogacy and IVF. So knowing your roots is important to all of us.

In the case you mentioned where the children know their father and have contact with him might be on the lower rungs of undesirability, similar to mixed hetero families, but just because things happen doesn't mean we have to endorse or approve of them.


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Congratulations on your achievements, despite adverse circumstances. A lot of people do succeed in less than ideal circumstances and it's all credit to them.
> 
> Anthony Albanese's story exemplifies the mental strain that many people go through not knowing a biological parent. He was conceived on a cruise ship and his father a crewman who return to Italy never knowing he had a son. Albanese is a successful man in his field, but still felt a burning desire to contact his father and say "here I am I'm your son", even though the man had played no part in his life. How much mental turmoil he went through in his life only he knows, but I can't say that deliberately inflicting that sort of thing on someone is a good idea (not that Albanese's mother did that), but a lot of people do through surrogacy and IVF. So knowing your roots is important to all of us.
> 
> In the case you mentioned where the children know their father and have contact with him might be on the lower rungs of undesirability, similar to mixed hetero families, but just because things happen doesn't mean we have to endorse or approve of them.


----------



## Junior (25 October 2017)

The 'Gold Standard' view is such a load of BS.

Do you know how easy it is to become a celebrant?  A short course and then pay a registration fee to the government.

Do you know what qualifies you to get married?
- Are you currently married?  No
- Is one of you an Australian citizen?  Yes

That's it.

You can get married 10 times if you want.  You can marry someone you met one hour ago.  You can beat the **** out of your partner, get divorced, and then marry someone else a week later.  There is no requirement whatsoever to have kids or involve children in your marriage in any way.  You can be a convicted criminal, violent, drug-addicted individual with kids from previous marriages and relationships, and still no one will question your RIGHT to get married again.

This is not about children, it's about extending the right to get married to a minority in our society, like everyone else can.  Religious or not religious, black or white....and now straight or gay.  It's not about children, or about religion.


----------



## basilio (25 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Iinteresting position, considering sustained haye sessions are your stock in trade.




Ah reeeaally Didums ?  i thought i just sang Kumbya around the camp fire with my  little gay friends. I'm sure that when Tizze and yourself decide to stop and reconsider the 8th Crusade against a world wide gay takeover we can all be nice to other again..


----------



## wayneL (25 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Ah reeeaally Didums ?  i thought i just sang Kumbya around the camp fire with my  little gay friends. I'm sure that when Tizze and yourself decide to stop and reconsider the 8th Crusade against a world wide gay takeover we can all be nice to other again..



I'm sure you do sing Kumbaya with the Komrades, Komrade.


----------



## satanoperca (25 October 2017)

Junior said:


> This is not about children, it's about extending the right to get married to a minority in our society, like everyone else can.  Religious or not religious, black or white....and now straight or gay.  It's not about children, or about religion.




Here, here, that is all that it is about. Simple really.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 October 2017)

Junior said:


> This is not about children, *it's about extending the right to get married to a minority in our society*, like everyone else can.  Religious or not religious, black or white....and now straight or gay.  *It's not about children, or about religion*.



I have never ever viewed getting married as a right. It is what a man and woman do "on most occasions" to commit and raise a family. Now homosexuals claim it is their "right", and if not for a family unit, then what for but their own self gratification. I think the underlying agenda is craving acceptance for being homosexual or acting out the opposite biological gender. Breaking the traditional marriage normality will by law make that agenda a reality.


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I have never ever viewed getting married as a right. It is what a man and woman do "on most occasions" to commit and raise a family. Now homosexuals claim it is their "right", and if not for a family unit, then what for but their own self gratification. I think the underlying agenda is craving acceptance for being homosexual or acting out the opposite biological gender. Breaking the traditional marriage normality will by law make that agenda a reality.




 Pity vote


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Pity vote



No matter the result I will not be changing my morality. Those chocolate fudge roundabouts in the park will still be repulsive.


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> No matter the result I will not be changing my morality. Those chocolate fudge roundabouts in the park will still be repulsive.




It's people like you that saw the end of the Knights Templar in parks and other places.


----------



## Macquack (25 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> And the thing is *I don't have any hate for homosexuals *at all. I don't pity them, I don't endorse them, I don't treat them any differently in social gatherings and more importantly *I actually know a few and socialise with them.*





Tisme said:


> We shouldn't have to *modify our behaviour* to accord an unnatural, indecent life style.




You must be modifying your behaviour already if you are socialising with gays. You obviously do not carry on like you do here on ASF with your prolific unadulterated sprays of extreme malice and contempt for homosexuals.

Feel free to carry on here with your schoolboy gutter aberations, because your fun and games are just about over.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Congratulations on your achievements, despite adverse circumstances. A lot of people do succeed in less than ideal circumstances and it's all credit to them.



Thinking of my own upbringing any financial aspects left a far deeper scar than anything relating to not having contact with one parent.

All good until things turned to crap because there just wasn't much money. Single parent made redundant from a specialised industry just as interest rates were high and unemployment was rising. That most certainly wasn't fun.

Thank heavens for decent public schools and the welfare system. Suffice to say I'd take the conservative side of politics more seriously if they'd become a defender of and advocate for both.

On a scale of 1 to 10 from my personal experience I rate not having a father present as 2.

Not having a cent to spare = 10+ That was an order of magnitude bigger problem.

As the saying goes though every cloud has a silver lining. If not for that experience then I probably wouldn't have been as motivated as an adult to make money and build wealth.

Having both parents around is ideal I agree but lack of that isn't the worst thing that can happen to a child.


----------



## grah33 (26 October 2017)

listen to roy moore's  poem :

“They came for the bakers, but I didn’t bake cakes. They came for the florists, but I didn’t deal flowers. They came for a little clerk down in Kentucky by the name Kim Davis, but hey, I’m not a clerk. Then they came for me, and nobody was left.”

Conscientious objection and religious freedom protect everyone (not just religious people). They limit the power of government.  It's a bit like having 2 laws in competition with each other. One law stops the other from having too much control, from turning evil and nasty.

A State controlling religion resembles communism.


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2017)

Macquack said:


> You must be modifying your behaviour already if you are socialising with gays. You obviously do not carry on like you do here on ASF with your prolific unadulterated sprays of extreme malice and contempt for homosexuals.
> 
> Feel free to carry on here with your schoolboy gutter aberations, because your fun and games are just about over.





I wasn't asking for your opinions, just stating facts, You can park your hate somewhere else. If I want your opinion I'll ask someone with a clue to do it for you.

And yes I already acknowledged people like you will take away my freedom of speech, because people like you are happy to give up what we once went to war to protect. Take away the mob and you are nothing yes?


----------



## PZ99 (26 October 2017)

Latest Essential survey has a gain for the NO vote...


----------



## Logique (26 October 2017)

In my view a hypothetical 55% 'Yes' vote to change the Marriage Act is no mandate for change.

If this was purely about making a few gays/lesbians happy, I'd be voting Yes with bells on - 

But it isn't.


----------



## PZ99 (26 October 2017)

Logique said:


> In my view a hypothetical 55% 'Yes' vote to change the Marriage Act is no mandate for change.



What percentage do you think it should be? 

After all we recently returned a Govt with 50.3% of the vote and a promise for a SSM plebiscite.

Apart from Labor + Greens I don't know anyone else challenging the above result.


----------



## Junior (26 October 2017)

If the Libs don't honour the outcome of this poll, they go from being a slim chance of another term to a zero chance, in my opinion.


----------



## PZ99 (26 October 2017)

Gotta love the idiosyncratic nature of democracy - even just for the entertainment value 

On a scale of 50 to 100 percent - how much do people in this thread wish to bend the goal posts of democracy to suit the loosing side? Almost by definition anything above 50% is a step towards Kommunism.

For example I personally accept a result of 50.000001%, maybe even a bit less. Labor on the other hand have already decided to not honour the outcome. So that puts them at 100%, despite the wishes of some of their own MP's.

And what happens if the NO side wins by 51%? Same rules or more Kommunism ? LOL


----------



## Junior (26 October 2017)

Labour's policy is to change the marriage act, so if they are voted into power at the next election, that is one of their policies people are voting in favour of.

Libs decided to go down the path of a Poll, so they will need to honour the outcome or else the whole exercise has been pointless.


----------



## wayneL (26 October 2017)

Junior said:


> Labour's policy is to change the marriage act, so if they are voted into power at the next election, that is one of their policies people are voting in favour of.
> 
> Libs decided to go down the path of a Poll, so they will need to honour the outcome or else the whole exercise has been pointless.



Great,  we get a few happy gays... and a financial and social apocalypse.


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Gotta love the idiosyncratic nature of democracy - even just for the entertainment value
> 
> On a scale of 50 to 100 percent - how much do people in this thread wish to bend the goal posts of democracy to suit the loosing side? Almost by definition anything above 50% is a step towards Kommunism.
> 
> ...





If it was a referendum it would need a national majority  of voters from all states and territories to vote ‘Yes’ and a majority (more than half) of voters in at least four of the six states to also vote ‘Yes’.

Be interesting to see the state by state.


----------



## PZ99 (26 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> If it was a referendum it would need a national majority  of voters from all states and territories to vote ‘Yes’ and a majority (more than half) of voters in at least four of the six states to also vote ‘Yes’.
> 
> Be interesting to see the state by state.



Only state by state poll I know of is the one posted some time back in this thread - even down to seat by seat in the spoiler tag. Became somewhat of a city / country divide affair.

This was last year so probably a bit different today.



Spoiler



Lowest to highest of YES %
MARANOA 42%
HINKLER 43%
FLYNN 44%
GROOM 45%
KENNEDY 46%
BLAXLAND 46%
PARKES 47%
WRIGHT 47%
CHIFLEY 47%
MCMAHON 48%
CAPRICORNIA 48%
DAWSON 48%
RANKIN 49%
GREENWAY 49%
FORDE 49%
LONGMAN 49%
WERRIWA 50%
BARKER 50%
WIDE BAY 51%
BLAIR 51%
CANNING 51%
NEW ENGLAND 51%
LYNE 51%
O'CONNOR 51%
BANKS 51%
PETRIE 52%
GREY 52%
PARRAMATTA 52%
WATSON 52%
BRADDON 52%
RIVERINA 52%
MITCHELL 52%
FOWLER 52%
CALWELL 53%
BURT 53%
MACARTHUR 53%
BOWMAN 53%
HUME 53%
DICKSON 53%
DURACK 53%
BRUCE 53%
HUGHES 54%
LINDSAY 54%
FAIRFAX 54%
COOK 54%
BONNER 54%
FADDEN 54%
FARRER 54%
WHITLAM 54%
PATERSON 55%
MURRAY 55%
HOLT 55%
LYONS 55%
LINGIARI 55%
FISHER 55%
BEROWRA 55%
CALARE 55%
OXLEY 55%
HUNTER 55%
PAGE 55%
COWPER 55%
BASS 55%
FORREST 55%
LEICHHARDT 55%
GILMORE 55%
MALLEE 55%
HASLUCK 56%
MONCRIEFF 56%
PEARCE 56%
HERBERT 56%
BENNELONG 56%
COWAN 56%
SHORTLAND 56%
GIPPSLAND 56%
MCPHERSON 56%
TANGNEY 57%
DOBELL 57%
MAKIN 57%
MORETON 57%
ROBERTSON 58%
MACQUARIE 58%
MOORE 58%
WAKEFIELD 58%
GORTON 58%
BARTON 58%
BRAND 58%
EDEN-MONARO 58%
WANNON 58%
ASTON 58%
CUNNINGHAM 59%
SCULLIN 59%
MENZIES 60%
KINGSTON 60%
BRADFIELD 60%
LALOR 60%
MACKELLAR 60%
MAYO 61%
LILLEY 61%
RICHMOND 61%
MCMILLAN 61%
FRANKLIN 61%
STURT 61%
MCEWEN 61%
REID 61%
SWAN 62%
HINDMARSH 62%
DEAKIN 62%
STIRLING 62%
BOOTHBY 63%
RYAN 63%
PORT ADELAIDE 63%
SOLOMON 63%
CHISHOLM 64%
CASEY 64%
INDI 64%
NEWCASTLE 64%
LA TROBE 64%
CORIO 64%
FREMANTLE 64%
CORANGAMITE 64%
BENDIGO 65%
FLINDERS 65%
BALLARAT 65%
HOTHAM 65%
CURTIN 66%
ADELAIDE 66%
DUNKLEY 66%
MARIBYRNONG 66%
ISAACS 67%
KINGSFORD SMITH 67%
GRIFFITH 68%
PERTH 68%
KOOYONG 68%
JAGAJAGA 68%
BRISBANE 69%
NORTH SYDNEY 69%
WARRINGAH 70%
DENISON 70%
CANBERRA 70%
FENNER 71%
GOLDSTEIN 73%
GELLIBRAND 73%
HIGGINS 74%
WILLS 75%
BATMAN 76%
GRAYNDLER 77%
WENTWORTH 78%
MELBOURNE 78%
MELBOURNE PORTS 79%
SYDNEY 79%









https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/same-sex-marriage-yes-or-no.33354/page-40#post-959527


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Only state by state poll I know of is the one posted some time back in this thread - even down to seat by seat in the spoiler tag. Became somewhat of a city / country divide affair.




Apparently the young postal vote has tanked


----------



## PZ99 (26 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Apparently the young postal vote has tanked



It's down across all the demos from what I can tell.


----------



## Logique (27 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> The ABC vote compass thingy has similar results to our result here.
> 
> This poll was carried out between May and July last year. Around 750K responded.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting presentation. As suspected, it's those arrogant inner-city types most supportive of 'Yes'. They're breathing too much atmospheric lead.

Once people get away from the city, their thoughts clear.

Mind you, what about the firm support in the NW, WA and NT!


----------



## PZ99 (27 October 2017)

I believe once you get away from the city it takes longer for your vote to be counted 

Key dates:

*Friday, 27 October 2017* - Please mail your form back to the ABS by this date to make sure it counts.  

*Tuesday, 7 November 2017 (6pm local time)* - *The survey closes*. If your survey is received after this, it will not be counted.

*Wednesday, 15 November 2017* - Survey results published on the ABS website. The Australian Statistician will publish a statement on the quality and integrity of the survey.

*Thursday, 16 November 2017 *- ASF server goes into meltdown.


----------



## Tink (28 October 2017)

Far right?
We seem to have a few versions, going by the ABC.

People that are standing up for traditions.

If we are talking about communities getting together, then yes, it is rising.

This plebiscite, which going by the constitution, should have been a referendum (?), has allowed people to come out and speak.

This is my view.


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Gotta love the idiosyncratic nature of democracy - even just for the entertainment value
> 
> On a scale of 50 to 100 percent - how much do people in this thread wish to bend the goal posts of democracy to suit the loosing side? Almost by definition anything above 50% is a step towards Kommunism.
> 
> ...




If we were instead in the 1700's USA, Voting on whether to retain the existing slavery laws, and the 55% of the vote was for "yes", Should the government have the right to retain slavery? of course not, because both the USA and Australia are not simple "Majority rules" democracy, they are "constitutional democracy", and the majority not not vote to take away human rights from minority groups.

So I think Labor have the moral high ground here, even if the vote said no, they still have the moral duty to allow gay marriage.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> If we were instead in the 1700's USA, Voting on whether to retain the existing slavery laws, and the 55% of the vote was for "yes", Should the government have the right to retain slavery? of course not, because both the USA and Australia are not simple "Majority rules" democracy, they are "constitutional democracy", and the majority not not vote to take away human rights from minority groups.
> 
> So I think Labor have the moral high ground here, even if the vote said no, they still have the moral duty to allow gay marriage.




Same sex marriage is NOT slavery.

In who's opinion is marriage a "right" ?(And if you say "the UN", I'll point out that it's an organisation dominated by countries that have Islamic or other repressive governments that have little interest in human rights).

As long as governments don't interfere with freedom of association then it's up to society to recognise what is a marriage and what isn't. That's why we are being asked our opinion, one of the few times voters ever get a chance to decide legislation.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's why we are being asked our opinion, one of the few times voters ever get a chance to decide legislation.



I think it is wrong to make legislation on the outcome of a non compulsory survey.


----------



## Value Collector (28 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Same sex marriage is NOT slavery.




So what? its an example where I think you would agree that even if the popular opinion was to retain slavery, the government has the duty to ignore the majority vote and uphold the black minorities civil rights.



> In who's opinion is marriage a "right"




The UN charter of human rights, which Australia was a signatory to, and basic common sense, e.g. marriage is a human thing, we have the right to human things proved we aren't harming anyone.



> As long as governments don't interfere with freedom of association then it's up to society to recognise what is a marriage and what isn't.




Say society was 51% catholic, would you accept a vote that said marriage would be limited to "catholic marriage" ?

Or would you think that the catholic majority have no right to remove your rights to freedom of religion, regardless of their majority position.

Its not a hard concept mate, our constitutional democracy is not a majority rules arrangement.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Its not a hard concept mate, our constitutional democracy is not a majority rules arrangement.




Yes it is. All our legislation comes down to a majority of votes in the House and the Senate.

Even if there is only one vote in it in either house, the majority wins, no matter how despicable the public may think the legislation is.


----------



## basilio (28 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes it is. All our legislation comes down to a majority of votes in the House and the Senate.
> 
> Even if there is only one vote in it in either house, the majority wins, no matter how despicable the public may think the legislation is.




Not quite true Rumpy. Your statement assumes the Parliaments reflect the public. True Australia has a fairly honest electoral system but gerrymanders of rural electorates are still happening.  It is possible for a party to gain 50% of the public vote and still not get into power.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2017)

basilio said:


> Not quite true Rumpy. Your statement assumes the Parliaments reflect the public.




No bas, I assumed no such thing. I simply pointed out to Value Collector that ultimately our legislation come down to a simple majority of votes in Parliament, regardless of what the public thinks about the result, in refutation of his statement_* "our constitutional democracy is not a majority rules arrangement.".*_


----------



## drsmith (28 October 2017)

I see the gap is slowly closing.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes it is. All our legislation comes down to a majority of votes in the House and the Senate.
> 
> Even if there is only one vote in it in either house, the majority wins, no matter how despicable the public may think the legislation is.



You are missing the point,

The majority, can not take away the rights of a minority, regardless of whether then win a vote of not.

Hence why even a law that got 100% suppport by parliament could still be struck down as "unconstitutional"

Google the term "inalienable rights"


----------



## Tink (29 October 2017)

Same sex/transgender couples are already recognised by the government, they have civil unions.
_
In 2008, 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation were changed._

--------------------

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage rejects these truths.

*Marriage is one man and one woman.*

---------------------

_http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/_


----------



## code12 (29 October 2017)

grah33 said:


> Hi Code
> 
> I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.
> 
> ...




No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now.  Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You are missing the point,
> 
> The majority, can not take away the rights of a minority, regardless of whether then win a vote of not.
> 
> ...




The ACT tried to enact SSM and the High Court knocked it back.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You are missing the point,




No, I'm not missing the point, you seem to be. The Parliament has voted 18 times against SSM and the High Court has not decided that this is unconstitutional. Every law comes down to a vote in Parliament.

People shouldn't need to be told how government works in this country.

Marriage is not an "inalienable right". It is society's recognition of a relationship. We choose not to recognise marriages between siblings because it could be bad for society, so we can choose not to recognise SSM's for the same reason.


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You are missing the point,
> 
> The majority, can not take away the rights of a minority, regardless of whether then win a vote of not.
> 
> ...




Does Australia have a bill of rights?


----------



## Tisme (29 October 2017)

code12 said:


> No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now.  Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.





Two items:

1) Tell us more about your assertion "Marriage was originally about land ownership"
2) How did what happen when you write "How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia?"? Oz has traditionally had a major aversion to homosexuality and SSM was never overtly on the agenda. it was unthinkable.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 October 2017)

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Alternative relationships need to lobby government for an alternative legal recognition. The two are not the same.


----------



## grah33 (29 October 2017)

code12 said:


> No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now.  Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.




The bigot/homophobic remarks made to religious people is nonsense. You may as well say that Jesus Christ is a bigot too since he would not have approved of gay marriage.

I think marriage occurs both naturally in humanity and is also a very religious thing too. Societies that don't have any main religion realize that marriage contracts are needed, but God also has a say too , particularly in western countries (at least in the past), of how it's meant to be done. Jesus was the one to establish the one male to one female setup, lifelong commitment. So that is where western countries get their marriage tradition from.

People here are shutting their eyes to the problems occurring in SSM countries, likely to occur here as well. Conscientious objectors are compelled to do things against their own personal moral codes. This is what happens in communism (they control religion). e.g. We see in SSM countries they are compelling religious schools to teach gay sex. And some religious and conscientious objectors are likely to give up their jobs.    And when they go after the religious people , they usually come after everyone else at some point later on. 

We saw what happened to bishop Julian Porteous for merely upholding the christian belief. Imagine what they'll do later on when they have the law behind them.

The other point is that religious freedom and conscientious objection are key features of a democracy. They limit what a government can do, so vital for the protection of everyone (religious and non religious people). Also, it is against human dignity to force people to do things that are against their own interior moral beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2017)

The Yes vote could go down according to social media.

https://theconversation.com/social-...se-result-in-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-84436


----------



## PZ99 (2 November 2017)

You may be interested in this statement too.



> Tony Abbott has hailed the rise of a new conservative movement prepared to fight for Western culture and religious freedom as a result of the same-sex marriage campaign and warned Liberals the “activated” voters will wonder “who will represent them in the years ahead”.
> 
> The former prime minister said the “nucleus of an organisation” had been created in just two months of campaigning for traditional marriage but there was no support from Malcolm Turnbull or conservative ministers.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...k=e9bbac719df9f4e81c3347abd9650d30-1509568511

A lot of fine print to decipher there - not only on SSM but of Tony Abbott's future possibilities and the future of Conservatism in general.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2017)

PZ99 said:


> You may be interested in this statement too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think he's correct in that the silent majority are looking for a party that isn't focused on social and gender engineering.


----------



## Logique (2 November 2017)

The poll on this thread has rapidly narrowed.  It was running at 2 to 1 Yes in the beginning. Now just 55% Yes: to 45% No


----------



## Value Collector (2 November 2017)




----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2017)

PZ99 said:


> You may be interested in this statement too.




Although I broadly support social conservatism; ie support for traditional family unit, anti same sex parenting etc, Tony Abbott's brand of Conservatism comes with the baggage of economic and fiscal Conservatism; protecting the rich, more corporate power and less consumer rights which are abhorrent to me so I could never vote for a party that supports these principles.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a party that expounds both social conservatism and financial liberalism so I usually take pot luck or vote for independents.

One day my ideal Party may arise.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


>





What Oliver says about polls is pretty irrelevant these days with Trump and Brexit. Only those interested in the outcome will give a positive reply, once people have to vote they will usually go with their gut instinct which is towards conservatism, usually.


----------



## tech/a (2 November 2017)

Well its an important issue that affects more straight people than Gays.

Problem is the gay crowd don't see how it could possibly impact on straight
people. Straight people are beginning to understand the impact acceptance
of gay marriage will have on a vast number of other ---seemingly un related
areas.

As Trump says far too much political correctness in the world.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What Oliver says about polls is pretty irrelevant these days with Trump and Brexit. Only those interested in the outcome will give a positive reply, once people have to vote they will usually go with their gut instinct which is towards conservatism, usually.





He's a personified cartoon, and actor and therefore cannot be believed as anymore than sideshow Bob.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> Well its an important issue that affects more straight people than Gays.
> 
> Problem is the gay crowd don't see how it could possibly impact on straight
> people. .




They must do, because they told us they are just like us.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately I can't seem to find a party that expounds both social *conservation* and financial liberalism so I usually take pot luck or vote for independents.
> 
> One day my ideal Party may arise.




Corrected for my ideal.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Corrected for my ideal.




Yes, I could go for that as well.


----------



## Tisme (2 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I could go for that as well.




Anyone whoever bothered with Liberal and Labor policies they were founded on would be wondering why they betrayed their own doctrines.

Once upon a time they prided themselves, in part, as the moral guardians of the various electoral segments they represented. These days they take their cues from the media who drive populist morality, effectively meaning that unelected people are driving the bus.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Anyone whoever bothered with Liberal and Labor policies they were founded on would be wondering why they betrayed their own doctrines.
> 
> Once upon a time they prided themselves, in part, as the moral guardians of the various electoral segments they represented. These days they take their cues from the media who drive populist morality, effectively meaning that unelected people are driving the bus.




The Labor Party used to be run by Catholics as I recall.


----------



## sptrawler (2 November 2017)

Junior said:


> Labour's policy is to change the marriage act, so if they are voted into power at the next election, that is one of their policies people are voting in favour of.
> .




Yes, who said Women don't have enough say, I'm sure they have all the say in some circles.


----------



## basilio (8 November 2017)

As the sun sets on the SSM survey how will the Churches react if/when it becomes clear their narrative has been rejected?
This is one view from a current Anglician Reverand.

* Churches who campaigned for 'no' must apologise to gay community *

*Rev. Dr Keith Mascord*
353 reading now
 Show comments

As the final flurry of votes is counted in the postal survey, it's time to reflect a little on the experience of the last few months. As a deeply committed older Christian, I've been dismayed by the contributions of Australian churches to the acrimonious and damaging debate which has been imposed upon us, and particularly by those who have joined the Coalition for Marriage.

I've been dismayed, first, because Australian churches have been callous and un-Christ-like in their support for an extended public campaign, which they surely knew was certain to cause widespread distress and suffering to some of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. Even a small amount of research would have revealed already high levels of suicide, self-harm and mental health vulnerability among those whose lives, relationships, identity, and worth would become the subject of public debate.

But instead of taking heed of this research, instead of gently seeking the counsel of LGBTI-plus Australians, churches involved in the Coalition for Marriage pushed ahead regardless. They wagered on the lives of people the church should have been protecting, when it was already a sure bet that their actions would embolden Australia's bigots and hateful homophobes, which they have.

I've been dismayed, second, by the essentially dishonest, fear-driven and fear-creating nature of the campaign churches have signed up to, and put big money towards. The Coalition for Marriage campaign is pervasively dishonest. It is dishonest in not being upfront about the foundational reason conservative Christians are implacably opposed to marriage equality, and that is their belief that any and all sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage are immoral and defective.

*Related Articles*

*Reverends in revolt over church's $1 million donation to 'no' campaign*
*Why some gay men are opposed to same-sex marriage*
The campaign is dishonest in trying to scare people into thinking that society will unravel if marriage is extended to include LGBTI-plus Australians. Scare-mongering, by its very nature, is dishonest, because it plays to people's fears, and doesn't require evidence. It is often best without evidence, except for cherry-picked and easily discredited examples from overseas, which, even when proved accurate, mostly amount to fundamentalist Christians resisting scientific and societal consensus, doggedly insisting on their right to discriminate and exclude.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...ologise-to-gay-community-20171106-gzfv6g.html


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2017)

Apologise? 

The yes vote will most likely win,  but I can tell you that the never ending acronym group has lost a hell of a lot if goodwill and support. 

As a result of how their campaign was conducted many of my contacts will be seeking to specifically avoid any cooperation with them. It is they who should be apologising. 

That author is just a moronic virtue signaller.


----------



## Tisme (9 November 2017)

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...y-disease-approves-conversion-therapy-n803016


----------



## Tink (9 November 2017)

Good on Archbishop Glenn Davies, standing up for traditional Marriage, and the law of this land.

As does our Australian Constitution, that reflects our public holidays.

Western Culture is based on our Christian heritage.

One man and one woman, becoming a father and a mother and raising their children.

It is about the *TRUTH*.

----------------------------------

_Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous was taken to the brink in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for espousing views on marriage that accord with Australian law, let alone being the view of his church, as well as all churches and that which civilisations have held for millennia. 
The avant-garde opponents of these time-honoured mores had hoped to silence him.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y/news-story/ab37e4c742c24b3506b1287e93e4303d_


----------



## Tisme (9 November 2017)

Tink said:


> ....standing up for traditional Marriage, and the law of this land.
> 
> 
> It is about the *TRUTH*.




There's also Captain Obvious who seems to be invisible to those predisposed to promotion of pity marriages. The incubators of ill health:

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm


----------



## grah33 (9 November 2017)

“scare mongering” , well that's interesting... I think the fear stems from the people themselves, but yeah, there seems to be fear in people about a lot of things (nuclear, the possibility of a future economic disaster, and this too if u explain the control of religion and conscientious objection occurring in other countries). If you're not afraid of anything, you got something I think.

If people start getting sick later, they'll probably just try to manage it better.


----------



## Tisme (13 November 2017)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...m-daughter-incest_us_5a0619c0e4b05673aa593a90


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...m-daughter-incest_us_5a0619c0e4b05673aa593a90




It's all getting too much for my little brain...


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...m-daughter-incest_us_5a0619c0e4b05673aa593a90



#loveislove


----------



## basilio (13 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> #loveislove




And incest is incest. 

It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of  incest.  I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.


----------



## Tisme (13 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> #loveislove





Yes. love is grand


----------



## Tisme (13 November 2017)

basilio said:


> And incest is incest.
> 
> It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of  incest.  I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.




I'm not sure if you are damming those or asking for consideration?.. In for a penny, in for a pound perhaps?


----------



## qldfrog (13 November 2017)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...t/news-story/bc3f8012a6844b3bce6454bae4ea4f01
how low can mankind go...


----------



## wayneL (13 November 2017)

basilio said:


> And incest is incest.
> 
> It's sad that a conversation about the giving of equal marriage rights is taken into the realms of  incest.  I suppose we should look out for examples of bestiality, pedophilia and anything else the cat can drag in.



Let's here your argument against this particular relationship bas... why not?


----------



## PZ99 (13 November 2017)

Saw two cars getting intimate on Parramatta Rd yesterday. Clearly attributable to SSM... that's if it's a YES. If it's a NO we'll have to invent some other excuse - like bad driverz


----------



## Tisme (13 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's all getting too much for my little brain...




It's about incest, the game the whole family can play.


----------



## cynic (13 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> It's about incest, the game the whole family can play.



I thought incest only applied to heterosexual acts.

Does this mean that the homosexual community now has yet more cause for complaint about discrimination?


----------



## Logique (14 November 2017)

Toxic Trent. If he's the best the Libs can come up with for North Sydney, what hope have they got.

As good as admitting that SSM supersedes any notion of freedoms of religion or expression. He is the exact reason we should have voted No.  A fanatic, and fanatics are dangerous.

Not even representative of his own electorate, parachuted in by HO


----------



## Tisme (14 November 2017)

Logique said:


> Toxic Trent. If he's the best the Libs can come up with for North Sydney, what hope have they got.
> 
> As good as admitting that SSM supersedes any notion of freedoms of religion or expression. He is the exact reason we should have voted No.  A fanatic, and fanatics are dangerous.
> 
> Not even representative of his own electorate, parachuted in by HO




It only takes one vandal to infiltrate an organisation and open the back door to his sect. They promote each other to top positions and gut it of its original purpose to the point of extinction.


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2017)

The ABC has published a who-will-vote-what in parliament in the event of a yes outcome tomorrow.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...survey-says-yes-how-will-your-mp-vote/9104112

Meanwhile from the US of A, don't forget the lube.



> “I usually use Crisco or vegetable oil but we were out of everything. It was definitely not our lucky day” admits Iglesias, visibly amused by the media attention.




http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-hospitalized-after-boyfriends-fist-gets-stuck-in-his-anus/


----------



## overhang (14 November 2017)

Logique said:


> Toxic Trent. If he's the best the Libs can come up with for North Sydney, what hope have they got.
> 
> As good as admitting that SSM supersedes any notion of freedoms of religion or expression. He is the exact reason we should have voted No.  A fanatic, and fanatics are dangerous.
> 
> Not even representative of his own electorate, parachuted in by HO




You did vote no, regardless of what Zimmerman said, by we you mean the majority of Australians that going by polls appear to disagree with you.  Freedom of religion is a load of **** and is just freedom to discriminate.  If they want a baker to be able to refuse to bake a cake because of SSM then I should be in my right to refuse to serve that baker because of their sky fairy belief system.  Yes I think churches shouldn't be forced to marry SS couples but that should be as far as their exemptions go.


----------



## Tisme (14 November 2017)

drsmith said:


> The ABC has published a who-will-vote-what in parliament in the event of a yes outcome tomorrow.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...survey-says-yes-how-will-your-mp-vote/9104112




What would we expect from a bunch of foreigners with no respect for local customs.

We need to vote some dinky die Australian citizens into parliament for a change.


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> What would we expect from a bunch of foreigners with no respect for local customs.
> 
> We need to vote some dinky die Australian citizens into parliament for a change.



It looked to me like an overwhelming majority would vote yes which is what it should be in the event of a public yes vote.


----------



## drsmith (14 November 2017)

Just heard Penny Wong on a radio news segment (6PR Perth) talking about the survey result in past tense.


----------



## Tisme (14 November 2017)

In preparedness 

https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2017)

overhang said:


> You did vote no, regardless of what Zimmerman said, by we you mean the majority of Australians that going by polls appear to disagree with you.  Freedom of religion is a load of **** and is just freedom to discriminate.  If they want a baker to be able to refuse to bake a cake because of SSM then I should be in my right to refuse to serve that baker because of their sky fairy belief system.  Yes I think churches shouldn't be forced to marry SS couples but that should be as far as their exemptions go.



Bullshyte. 

I discriminate in my business every single week for a whole range of reasons (usually, but not restricted to either idiocy, or philosophy of horsemanship).

Followers of a certain American immediately get short shrift, and anyone with donkeys (AKA equid ninjutsu practitioners), well, just no.

Likewise I have told preachers of cultural Marxism to go perform an impossible auto-erotic act.

Vis a vis, nobody should be forced to conduct business with someone they don't want to, be that religious,  ideological,  or any other grounds.

Likewise,  I should never ne able to force someone to do business with me.

Personally,  I don't give a rat's arse if someone is gay or trans or whatever , one of my client s is a prostitute ffs.

Additionally,  if you dis freedom of religion,  then Halal certification, dress codes, public prayer etc, are all open to be restricted by the state. 

Which way do you want it Komrade?


----------



## grah33 (14 November 2017)

Ultimately the system we end up with is one that our society is worthy of, good or bad. The people as a whole decide our future.


----------



## overhang (14 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Bullshyte.
> 
> I discriminate in my business every single week for a whole range of reasons (usually, but not restricted to either idiocy, or philosophy of horsemanship).
> 
> ...




It's not rocket science, if you don't want to do business with someone you say you're too busy, having stock issues etc  But the religious fundamental nut-jobs want the right to be able to tell someone to their face that they object to their lifestyle choice.  They can't have their cake and eat it too, if they want to be able to refuse service due to a lifestyle choice then it should also be legal to refuse service over their lifestyle choice.

As for your continued claims of cultural Marxism I point you to this piece.



> Arizona State University professor Braden Allenby says the word '"Marxism' in many places is already a loaded term, so the use of 'cultural Marxism' sometimes is an effort to short circuit analysis or dialogue by implying that the individual or organisation so tagged is beyond the pale of rational discourse."





> "Their arguments, which verge onto the terrain of conspiracy theorising, understand social movements that they do not like as part of a 'cultural Marxist' political strategy to first colonise the terrain of public culture prior to taking over society as a whole," he says.



http://www.theage.com.au/world/cult...-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171101-gzd7lq.html


----------



## cynic (14 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> Ultimately the system we end up with is one that our society is worthy of, good or bad. The people as a whole decide our future.



It does indeed appear that our society is terribly eager to cast a vote for enrolment in yet another refresher lesson from the shool of life experience.
And those not requiring that harsh revisionary experience, will unfortunately still be obliged to accompany their assenting classmates for the ride.


overhang said:


> It's not rocket science, if you don't want to do business with someone you say you're too busy, having stock issues etc  But the religious fundamental nut-jobs want the right to be able to tell someone to their face that they object to their lifestyle choice. They can't have their cake and eat it too, if they want to be able to refuse service due to a lifestyle choice then it should also be legal to refuse service over their lifestyle choice.
> 
> ...



So are you suggesting that fabrication of such excuses, is somehow preferable to the free and truthful expression of one's views?

And furthermore, are you suggesting that this proposed alternative, somehow makes the removal of a valuable (if not crucial) civil liberty, acceptable in a purportedly civilised society?


----------



## Tisme (14 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> Ultimately the system we end up with is one that our society is worthy of, good or bad. The people as a whole decide our future.





That's not representative democracy, it's anarchism (mob rule) and does not work.


----------



## grah33 (14 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> That's not representative democracy, it's anarchism (mob rule) and does not work.



Yeah it's definitely not democracy but mob rule. The yes group here reckons it will be good for us.


----------



## satanoperca (15 November 2017)

wayneL said:


> Bullshyte.
> 
> Likewise,  I should never ne able to force someone to do business with me.




Wayne, apart from this statement being illegal, try the trade practices act, I, as a business own, 100% agree with you, but for one exception, that being the tax free exception religious organise work under. Why do you think they have so much asset wealth?

If the church or any other charity wants to have the right to exclude any individual(s) they pay tax.

The church(s) cannot cry foul when they don't actually pay any taxes - simple.


----------



## Tink (15 November 2017)

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

— George Orwell


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Wayne, apart from this statement being illegal, try the trade practices act, I, as a business own, 100% agree with you, but for one exception, that being the tax free exception religious organise work under. Why do you think they have so much asset wealth?
> 
> If the church or any other charity wants to have the right to exclude any individual(s) they pay tax.
> 
> The church(s) cannot cry foul when they don't actually pay any taxes - simple.



so you were suggesting that if I approach the church to conduct a satanic orgy on their premises they have no right to refuse me Less they be taxed?

LMAO


----------



## Logique (15 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Wayne, apart from this statement being illegal, try the trade practices act, I, as a business own, 100% agree with you, but for one exception, that being the tax free exception religious organise work under. Why do you think they have so much asset wealth?
> If the church or any other charity wants to have the right* to exclude any individual*(s) they pay tax.
> The church(s) cannot cry foul when they *don't actually pay any taxes* - simple.



Why conflate the one with the other?  Pensioners and the poor folks don't pay any tax either. Should they also be stripped of their civil rights?


----------



## PZ99 (15 November 2017)

Logique said:


> Why conflate the one with the other?  Pensioners and the poor folks don't pay any tax either. Should they also be stripped of their civil rights?



No. Two reasons. 

Because they actually do pay tax.
Because they don't pretend to rule the world by proxy.


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

cynic said:


> So are you suggesting that fabrication of such excuses, is somehow preferable to the free and truthful expression of one's views?
> 
> And furthermore, are you suggesting that this proposed alternative, somehow makes the removal of a valuable (if not crucial) civil liberty, acceptable in a purportedly civilised society?




I think it's bull**** to suggest ones views should be protected, to be given the right to discriminate based on a belief system that then enjoys the protection of not being able to be discriminated itself.

People fabricate excuses all the time, they do it to not be a **** human being, to avoid litigation, to avoid an unfair dismissal, to not be punched in the face etc etc


----------



## PZ99 (15 November 2017)

Results out today.  I think the eyes have it... 61%


----------



## Junior (15 November 2017)

'No' voters firmly in the minority on this issue, with only 38.4% support for retaining the current legal definition of marriage, whilst 61.6% vote to change the marriage act.


----------



## explod (15 November 2017)

So now time to move forward dear Prime Minister "jobs and growth,  jobs and growth,  jobs and growth"  where did that go... 

For every job there are 18 applicants.


----------



## Junior (15 November 2017)

explod said:


> So now time to move forward dear Prime Minister "jobs and growth,  jobs and growth,  jobs and growth"  where did that go...
> 
> For every job there are 18 applicants.




Marriage celebrants, wedding venues, florists, bakers, caterers & dressmakers will boom in 2018.  Any ASX-listed entities in the wedding business?


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> I think it's bull**** to suggest ones views should be protected, to be given the right to discriminate based on a belief system that then enjoys the protection of not being able to be discriminated itself.
> 
> People fabricate excuses all the time, they do it to not be a **** human being, to avoid litigation, to avoid an unfair dismissal, to not be punched in the face etc etc




It seems that more people are going to be tempted to tell yet more untruths in order to navigate through this "fairer" society that you appear to be advocating!

If you cannot recognise a problem with the logic you are espousing, then I thoroughly recommend that you ask one of those "skyfairy" devotees (with whom you avail yourself of the freedom to express your  contempt) why it is, that the fallen angel Lucifer, (a.k.a the devil) is often referred to as "the prince of lies".


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Congratulations Australia, we are now officially on the right side of history.

It is a good feeling to know the bulk of Australians could see through the nonsense of the No campaign.

I was must admit my confidence in the Aussie people did take a hit after reading all the hate that has been spat here my the No side, but my confidence in Australia has been firmly restored.

To those that voted No, I think given time you will see the world doesn't end, and you will eventually change your mind.


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

cynic said:


> It seems that more people are going to be tempted to tell yet more untruths in order to navigate through this "fairer" society that you appear to be advocating!
> 
> If you cannot recognise a problem with the logic you are espousing, then I thoroughly recommend that you ask one of those "skyfairy" devotees (with whom you avail yourself of the freedom to express your  contempt) why it is, that the fallen angel Lucifer, (a.k.a the devil) is often referred to as "the prince of lies".




What a shame that people have to lie to avoid being assholes.

I'll be sure to ask one why they're sitting down with their second husband/wife, eating bacon and brandishing their gold jewellery.

Your rational is that someones faith should allow them to discriminate against the life style choices of others they begrudge but that very faith that allows them to discriminate enjoys the legal protections that they won't be discriminated against them-self.   This would be quite an unreasonable arrangement.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> Yeah it's definitely not democracy but mob rule. The yes group here reckons it will be good for us.




Wait until the reality bites and see who bleats the most.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> no sitting on the fence yes or no?



Australia has spoken, the Yes vote has it.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Results out today.  I think the eyes have it... 61%
> View attachment 73466




Well that is pretty much smack on with the regression analysis relative frequency of 40% representing the innate moral population versus the relative moral population. Statistician will be happy with their predictive modelling.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Australia has spoken, the Yes vote has it.





They voted for John Howard, Malcolm Fraser and Kevin Rudd ...how is that right?


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Quite interesting that the results reflect what polling had said from the get go, it appears many people weren't swayed either way by all the campaign.  The results are what this poll indicated most the way through before it mysteriously started dropping down to 55%.


----------



## tech/a (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Australia has spoken, the Yes vote has it.




Thanks VC
Love you Bro!


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> Thanks VC
> Love you Bro!




 Doing anything tonight?


----------



## PZ99 (15 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> They voted for John Howard, Malcolm Fraser and Kevin Rudd ...how is that right?



Because in all three cases the alternatives were hilarious.


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> What a shame that people have to lie to avoid being assholes.
> 
> I'll be sure to ask one why they're sitting down with their second husband/wife, eating bacon and brandishing their gold jewellery.
> 
> Your rational is that someones faith should allow them to discriminate against the life style choices of others they begrudge but that very faith that allows them to discriminate enjoys the legal protections that they won't be discriminated against them-self.   This would be quite an unreasonable arrangement.



Incorrect!

My rationale is that truthfulness and freedom of expression are of paramount importance.

Any legislation that either encroaches on this important liberty, or fosters an environment where deceitfulness is seen as a necessary and/or acceptable alternative to truthful expression, runs counter to my understanding of what is required for the continued evolution and progress of human society.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

60/40 is not a convincing victory. Will be interesting to see how it plays out in Parliament.


----------



## tech/a (15 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Doing anything tonight?




I'm out with the boys.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Because in all three cases the alternatives were hilarious.






Partial truth, but we really know why most people vote the way they do: all to do with sheep.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> I'm out with the boys.




Caring is sharing


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

cynic said:


> Incorrect!
> 
> My rationale is that truthfulness and freedom of expression are of paramount importance.
> 
> Any legislation that either encroaches on this important liberty, or fosters an environment where deceitfulness is seen as a necessary and/or acceptable alternative to truthful expression, runs counter to my understanding of what is required for the continued evolution and progress of human society.




Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.




People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Partial truth, but we really know why most people vote the way they do: all to do with sheep.



I think there may have been a cattle dog or two in the mix this time around. For those seeking power, one always has to make sure the sheeples run in the right direction!
Otherwise how will they ever succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of the flock, before fleecing them and dumping down the chute when finally done with them!

Might be time to get the Flock outta here!

Click go the shears!


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.



Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?



I don't think society has a whole benefits when particularly minorities can be targeted to the point they can't receive service due to factors outside of their control eg race.  It would be fair to say that in this day and age the backlash on the business would probably prevent this from happening but then what's to say sentiment like we saw in WWII won't occur again. I think the laws are best left in place.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> 60/40 is not a convincing victory. Will be interesting to see how it plays out in Parliament.




For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.

Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

cynic said:


> Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!




Fair enough, unfortunately I can't recipitate.  We will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.
> 
> Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.




You don't know why people voted no.

Anyway at least it's over.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?




For practicality, if we are going to function as a society we should be able to walk into any business and buy products without being discriminated against because of who we are.

If I need to buy petrel, I want to stop at any petrel station and be served, it doesn't make sense for it to be ok to be refused service at businesses that are open to the public.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> For practicality, if we are going to function as a society we should be able to walk into any business and buy products without being discriminated against because of who we are.
> 
> If I need to buy petrel, I want to stop at any petrel station and be served, it doesn't make sense for it to be ok to be refused service at businesses that are open to the public.




I think that the number of businesses that would actually discriminate would be very small, and would probably suffer from bad publicity, but forcing people by law to serve people that they don't want to is the same imo as forcing people to go to a particular bank.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't know why people voted no.
> 
> Anyway at least it's over.




People here have admited it, people have openly said that their vote was a protest against PC.

Also, the whole focus of the no campaign was on red herrings such as school programs etc, which were not what the survey was about.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> but forcing people by law to serve people that they don't want to is the same imo as forcing people to go to a particular bank.




No one is forcing anyone to be in business, if you don't want to serve the public you don't have to, you can form a special little private club if you want to exclude the public.

But you can't say you are open to the public if you are planning to discriminate.


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

cynic said:


> Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!





overhang said:


> Fair enough, unfortunately I can't recipitate.  We will just have to agree to disagree.



We can do that if you wish.

My point is not to argue for the virtue (or lack thereof) of bigotry, it is simply to say that once humanity starts finding (or creating) justification for acts of deception, the integrity of our society, and its ability to communicate with integrity, rapidly deteriorates.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> No one is forcing anyone to be in business, if you don't want to serve the public you don't have to, you can form a special little private club if you want to exclude the public.
> 
> But you can't say you are open to the public if you are planning to discriminate.




Ok so you have a point there. So you would have no objection to companies advertising that they don't serve XYZ ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok so you have a point there. So you would have no objection to companies advertising that they don't serve XYZ ?




I would prefer if they operated as a private club that laid out the membership rules in a club constitution, But yes if they are going to discriminate then as a minimum it should be clearly sign posted on the front of their shop or website.


----------



## Logique (15 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Wait until the reality bites and see who bleats the most.



Exactly.  The 'Yes' case was the most dishonest I've ever seen.

Australia, be careful what you wish for. It happened in other countries and it will happen here.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2017)

Some interesting results from individual electorates from commentary on the ABC's live page,



> Interesting electorate statistics, Tony Abbott's Warringah voted 75% "Yes" - but top 9 "No" voting electorates are all Labor held: Blaxland, Watson, McMahon, Werriwa, Fowler, Parramatta, Chifley, Calwell and Barton.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/live-blog-same-sex-marriage-survey-results-ssm/9134066


----------



## PZ99 (15 November 2017)

drsmith said:


> Some interesting results from individual electorates from commentary on the ABC's live page,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/live-blog-same-sex-marriage-survey-results-ssm/9134066



Labor will be happy with that. 

As of today they are no longer campaigning for SSM at the next election


----------



## grah33 (15 November 2017)

The commies like to control religion.  After suppressing both religion and the freedom of moral conscience it usually doesn't stop there.
In a short while (once new laws come out) we'll no longer be free...


----------



## tech/a (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.
> 
> Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.




7.2 million Yes
4.8 million No.
Hardly a minority vote.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> The commies like to control religion.  After suppressing both religion and the freedom of moral conscience it usually doesn't stop there.
> In a short while (once new laws come out) we'll no longer be free...




Legalising same sex marriage increases religious freedom, Because members of  religions that condone same sex marriage would be free to have a same sex marriage, hence extending their existing rights.

Members of religions that don't condone same sex marriages are free to continue not getting married to the same sex, so its no skin off their nose.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> 7.2 million Yes
> 4.8 million No.
> Hardly a minority vote.




Well the 4.8 Million are definitely not in the majority thats for sure, Yes voters out number no voters by 60%.


If the numbers were reverse, and 61.6% of the votes were for No and 38.4% for yes, would you have seen this as a significant victory for the No campaign? I think you would be quite chuffed at the No win with those numbers.


----------



## tech/a (15 November 2017)

It is what it is

Until it encroaches on me my family and friends.
If it never does then no issue with me.
If it does then Ill sort it when it happens--if it happens.


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> No one is forcing anyone to be in business, if you don't want to serve the public you don't have to, you can form a special little private club if you want to exclude the public.
> 
> But you can't say you are open to the public if you are planning to discriminate.





Maybe call it, I dunno um..."Private Enterprise" or something along those lines.


----------



## notting (15 November 2017)

It feels better to be inclusive.


----------



## Junior (15 November 2017)

In my opinion it's a resounding Yes, considering the Yes vote is to CHANGE the legislation....typically No would be a default position  i.e. retain the status quo.

As has been pointed out many times, SSM has been legal for several years throughout much of the Western world, and the sky has not fallen in.  There are now many happily married same-sex couples, and for everyone else there is no change.  

You don't have to attend a gay wedding, you don't have to enter a gay marriage, your rights have not been affected or diminished!!


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

Junior said:


> In my opinion it's a resounding Yes, considering the Yes vote is to CHANGE the legislation....typically No would be a default position  i.e. retain the status quo.
> 
> As has been pointed out many times, SSM has been legal for several years throughout much of the Western world, and the sky has not fallen in.  There are now many happily married same-sex couples, and for everyone else there is no change.
> 
> You don't have to attend a gay wedding, you don't have to enter a gay marriage, your rights have not been affected or diminished!!



Yeah it's all peachy over there in Noddyland! 

Nobody has an axe to grind or a chip on their shoulder! Everybody pays their taxes, tells the truth and never accuses their dog of ingesting the homework!

Noddyland is now a much better place because roughly one in a hundred people can actually now pretend to be heterosexual (counter to their homosexual inclination) and nobody need fear legal or political repercussions for abstention from participation in such fanciful notions.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

As I posted before it will take a generation to become "normal". People will have to be born into the "new normal" and be taught homosexuality is "of natural occurrence".


----------



## luutzu (15 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Maybe call it, I dunno um..."Private Enterprise" or something along those lines.




Or get a bigger sign that reads:

No shirt, No Service. 
(Also: No Dog, No Colored, No Chinaman, No raghead AND no Queers allowed)


----------



## Junior (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> As I posted before it will take a generation to become "normal". People will have to be born into the "new normal" and be taught homosexuality is "of natural occurrence".




It is, in a small percentage of the population.


----------



## notting (15 November 2017)

Junior said:


> It is, in a small percentage of the population.



But has never the less been around for as long as people have, so it is actually a natural fringe phenomena.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

Junior said:


> It is, in a small percentage of the population.



Like a God, only if you believe so.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Like a God, only if you believe so.



Except gays exist, gods don't.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Except gays exist, gods don't.



The belief that is a natural occurrence not the fact they exist. Please don't bomb me with stories of born that way. It is not provable. Feelings, emotion, love - all human.


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The belief that is a natural occurrence not the fact they exist. Please don't bomb me with stories of born that way. It is not provable. Feelings, emotion, love - all human.




Where is your peer reviewed study as proof?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Where is your peer reviewed study as proof?



That god exists or poofters are born that way?


----------



## notting (15 November 2017)

*Markets Live: 'Yes' to SSM, 'No' to ASX.  *
Gotta hand it to 'em that is a hilarious headline. (Hint - say asx as if it is a word)


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> That god exists or poofters are born that way?




Which ever you believe, both if that's the case.  The fact you think people would choose to subject themselves to attitudes like yours says it all really.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Which ever you believe, both if that's the case.  The fact you think people would choose to subject themselves to attitudes like yours says it all really.



I believe neither and it is not a fact I think people would choose to subject themselves to attitudes like mine. It would be great if people could make their own decisions but humans are inherently bias regardless of facts.


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I believe neither and it is not a fact I think people would choose to subject themselves to attitudes like mine. It would be great if people could make their own decisions but humans are inherently bias regardless of facts.




Then you won't have trouble showing your peer reviewed proof, otherwise you're just peddling ****.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The belief that is a natural occurrence not the fact they exist. Please don't bomb me with stories of born that way. It is not provable. Feelings, emotion, love - all human.




So you don't feel you were born with your sexuality?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Then you won't have trouble showing your peer reviewed proof, otherwise you're just peddling ****.



Proof of poofters being born that way? There is none.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't feel you were born with your sexuality?



What were you born as?


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Proof of poofters being born that way? There is none.



Where is your proof it's a choice?


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> What were you born as?



I have a very strong attraction to females, always have, but at no stage in my life have I ever felt it was a choice, If you feel like your sexuality has been a choice, maybe you are a bit closer to the Bisexual part of the spectrum, There is nothing wrong with that if you are, don't beat yourself up.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Where is your proof it's a choice?



 approximately 95% of the worlds population.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> approximately 95% of the worlds population.




only 2% of the population has red hair, does that make being ginger a choice?


----------



## overhang (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> approximately 95% of the worlds population.



I think VC hit the nail on the head, maybe your suppressing some sexual feelings towards the same sex, maybe you think because you can suppress them everyone else should.  Personally I've never had those feelings about another bloke, I know I was born straight and it wasn't a choice.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I have a very strong attraction to females, always have, but at no stage in my life have I ever felt it was a choice, If you feel like your sexuality has been a choice, maybe you are a bit closer to the Bisexual part of the spectrum, There is nothing wrong with that if you are, don't beat yourself up.



All this time I thought you were an ex army homosexual batting for your mates. Apologies for misreading your alliance. Regarding my 'sexuality', I was born a male and have evolved with a natural attraction toward mating with females.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I was born a male and have evolved with a natural attraction toward mating with females.




So would you say your sexuality was a choice?

If not, why would you think others have "chosen" theirs.


----------



## explod (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> That god exists or poofters are born that way?



You have a very rigid view there Wysiwyg.  In modern society its accepted that we should be free to choose our own pathways in life.  It matters ziltch whether sexual choices are natural or not.  In fact who can say what is natural at all.  

If joe blow wants to marry bill blogs,  who cares,  who's effected,  no one and joe and billy being more comfortable will make better community inhabitants. 

Fortunately in my view I'm heterosexual but I am pleased from today in Australia that others can follow their hearts in choice.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Labor will be happy with that.
> 
> As of today they are no longer campaigning for SSM at the next election



Politically, I can't help but think they would be happier keeping an issue going that's causing division within the Libs. Otherwise, if it was about SSM, they would have supported the plebiscite. Going forward, it will be interesting to see how they respond to ongoing division between the Libs on the detail of the Bill.

Labor probably didn't expect the government to come up with an alternative public count to the plebiscite.


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

I have met quite a few homosexuals in my time on this planet. Many had been homosexual since emerging from the closet, and to the best of my knowledge remained that way, leading me to suspect that the cause lies in their genetic makeup. 

There were however some exceptions. A few had clearly joined that community in order to enjoy certain membership privileges.

Another surprised herself (I was equally surprised) when after years of living the lesbian lifestyle, she suddenly realised she was heterosexual after all and proceeded to dump her girlfriend clearing the way for her marriage and subsequent production of children.


----------



## Junior (15 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> All this time I thought you were an ex army homosexual batting for your mates. Apologies for misreading your alliance. Regarding my 'sexuality', I was born a male and have evolved with a natural attraction toward mating with females.




You believe that you are only attracted to females because you evolved that way throughout your life?  So you were taught to be attracted to females as a child, and once you hit puberty Mr Winky knew to stand to attention at the sight of a naked woman, because you were taught by society that this is normal?

Or were you just born that way?


----------



## cynic (15 November 2017)

Junior said:


> You believe that you are only attracted to females because you evolved that way throughout your life?  So you were taught to be attracted to females as a child, and once you hit puberty Mr Winky knew to stand to attention at the sight of a naked woman, because you were taught by society that this is normal?
> 
> Or were you just born that way?



Although I happen to lean towards genetic causation, there is no denying that many children will experience the better part of a decade of societal conditioning and "education" before "mr winky" has any opportunity to stand up for anything.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2017)

10 of the first 12 news items on the ABC's news page is about SSM. The two news items on different topics are 5th and 10th on the list.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2017)

drsmith said:


> 10 of the first 12 news items on the ABC's news page is about SSM. The two news items on different topics are 5th and 10th on the list.




There has been saturation coverage all day on News24. My tv has been muted.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

Junior said:


> You believe that you are only attracted to females because you evolved that way throughout your life?  So you were taught to be attracted to females as a child, and once you hit puberty Mr Winky knew to stand to attention at the sight of a naked woman, because you were taught by society that this is normal?
> 
> Or were you just born that way?



I came to being via a male and female. That was a very early learning for me. Maybe if my parents were homo's I would initially have taken that as how I came to be and accepted it as normal. Later in life as I learned my old man's were doing each others pooper I would be confused about reproduction and pleasure. That is what 61% of people that returned the survey voted for. Let us hope there aren't generations of sexually disorientated kids ahead. If so the percentage should be small unless homosexuality really takes off.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2017)

explod said:


> Fortunately in my view I'm heterosexual but I am pleased from today in Australia that others can follow their hearts in choice.



Good on you for sticking by your reasoning.


----------



## satanoperca (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I came to being via a male and female. That was a very early learning for me. Maybe if my parents were homo's I would initially have taken that as how I came to be and accepted it as normal. Later in life as I learned my old man's were doing each others pooper I would be confused about reproduction and pleasure. That is what 61% of people that returned the survey voted for. Let us hope there aren't generations of sexually disorientated kids ahead. If so the percentage should be small unless homosexuality really takes off.




You might understand shares, but humans and society, your understanding is of buying the Myers IPO and thinking it was a winning, you are wrong and your thoughts are negative. 

FFS, gay couples do not engineer gay childern, really are people that stupid. My coffee shop owner told me that humans were created by god, through adam and eve yesterday. What has the world come to.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2017)

Now we get to the interesting bit - the legislation and protections of free speech, inter alia. 

This is where the sizeable no vote over such concerns was important, hopefully we can ameliorate the sort of nonsense that is occurring elsewhere.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

Junior said:


> You believe that you are only attracted to females because you evolved that way throughout your life?  So you were taught to be attracted to females as a child, and once you hit puberty Mr Winky knew to stand to attention at the sight of a naked woman, because you were taught by society that this is normal?
> 
> Or were you just born that way?





Of course they are social constructs insofar as Mr Winky. You obviously are not familiar with the societies that used to be explored in National Geographic. Copulation in western societies has, was, a lot to do with forbidden fruit.


----------



## Junior (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I came to being via a male and female. That was a very early learning for me. Maybe if my parents were homo's I would initially have taken that as how I came to be and accepted it as normal. Later in life as I learned my old man's were doing each others pooper I would be confused about reproduction and pleasure. That is what 61% of people that returned the survey voted for. Let us hope there aren't generations of sexually disorientated kids ahead. If so the percentage should be small unless homosexuality really takes off.




If your homo parents had half a brain they would teach you that the vast majority of the human population are heterosexual, and that they happen to be attracted to each other and this is OK too.  You will go off to school and quickly learn that your parents are in the minority.  Then Mr Winky will come to life and you'll find out quickly if you are straight or gay.

This view that gay people will somehow want to indoctrinate children to also be gay, is very odd.  I would think most gay people, IF they adopt children (not many in this camp, by the way), will hope that their kids are straight, as they have experienced first-hand how much more challenging it is being in the minority and being discriminated against.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2017)

I saw a couple of LGB's on ABC this morning with their prize bought child in tow (she was obviously Asian, neither of them were) pretending that they were a "just a normal family".

They are not kidding anyone but themselves, it's sickening.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Or get a bigger sign that reads:
> 
> No shirt, No Service.
> (Also: No Dog, No Colored, No Chinaman, No raghead AND no Queers allowed)





What have you got against dogs!!!!


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Then you won't have trouble showing your peer reviewed proof, otherwise you're just peddling ****.




The burden of proof is on you guys who maintain it's congenital. There are innumerable peer reviewed proofs that "born with it" is a fallacy. It's a lifestyle choice based on whatever the thought process has invented and we all know it.

You guys should just put up and shutup, but you can't because there is no scientific proof to your yarns.

I don't understand why you predicate marriage on love, what half wits did to negroes in deep south USofA, women's rights, etc. Why not just admit you have a pity for the wretched and want to gift them something you think will make them all better.... a magic pill to wipe the pain a relative or friend of a friend had managed to burden your conscience with.

You've tinkered with natural selection, but it won't change innate distrust of homosexuals in the true heterosexual human kernal for survival of the species.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> It's a lifestyle choice based on whatever the thought process has invented and we all know it.




Yet you seem to think your own sexuality wasn't a choice? (if I remember correctly from prior discussions), or do you think at some stage you could have gone either way but you made the choice to chase ladies.

I can't see how anyone can think their sexuality is a choice unless they are a confused bisexual.


----------



## Junior (16 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> You've tinkered with natural selection, but it won't change innate distrust of homosexuals in the true heterosexual human kernal for survival of the species.




Not too concerned about our survival at this point in time.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2017)

If there was a ray of light for the No vote it was the outstanding performance of  the Muslim communities (and Chinese) in rejecting same sex marriages. So I guess if the new Conservative Party retargets and boosts the sources of new immigrants to these groups  the opportunity to reverse the vote is still on the cards....

* Same-sex marriage result: Why multicultural communities registered huge 'no' votes *






*Eryk Bagshaw*
137 reading now

More than any other area in Australia, the people of western Sydney voted "no". 

Here, where up to three quarters of the population in the electorates of Blaxland and Watson voted against same sex marriage, the cultural clash of marriage equality and the conservative values of immigrant cultures told the story of the polls. 

The same two factors repeated themselves in the only two areas to vote against same-sex marriage in Victoria: Calwell and Bruce. 

The "no" campaign targeted conservative immigrant cultures and it showed. 

Voters from Lebanese and Chinese backgrounds now outnumber those with Australian parents in these areas, 72 per cent of all people had both parents born overseas. 30 per cent are from a Muslim background in Blaxland, 23 per cent in Watson, 10 times the national average of 2.6 per cent. 

The "no" vote forms a ring around the whiter, wealthier, irreligious inner-Sydney suburbs, and almost all of them are Labor-held – with the Liberal seats of Bennelong and Banks exceptions – and historically working-class. 

The story is repeated in Victoria where Bruce, one of only two electorates to vote "no" in the entire state, has three times the proportion of families with Chinese backgrounds, and in Calwell, where one of the state's largest Iraqi communities resides along with the Turkish, and Lebanese diaspora.

Despite community leaders foreshadowing the electorates will become more socially conservative as more migrants flock to them, not one "yes" voting Labor MP that spoke to Fairfax Media from the top 10 "no" voting seats in NSW or Victoria said they had decided to change their vote. 
The former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Keysar Trad, was pleased at the 75 per cent "no" vote in Labor frontbencher Jason Clare's electorate of Blaxland, and surprised it was not even higher. 

"That result is heartening," he said. "I would have expected more than that, I think the clergy of both Muslim and Christian faiths has done their role and educated our parishioners about the ramifications of a "yes" vote.

"It's quite possible that this area was the best informed about the survey." 

Mr Trad said the entire survey process was regarded with a deep mistrust by both Islamic and Chinese Christian migrant communities, who believe it had been hijacked by out-of-touch inner-city leaders. He warned local MPs to prepare for a backlash. 

"It is polarising," he said. "Unless these survey results are neutralised very quickly by a bipartisan decision then the electorate may go far more conservative in the future."

In the outer Melbourne electorate of Calwell, the religious migrant community undoubtedly had an impact, with 17.7 per cent of the electorate from an Islamic background, six times the state average, while 34 per cent are Catholic, 12 per cent higher than the rest of the state.

Community leader Bernard Amah said it was "great news" that at 56.8 per cent, Calwell recorded the highest "no" vote in Victoria.

"Islamic leaders and I talked as much as we could," the priest said. "Many people here believe same-sex marriage is against nature, if people are living in it, I have no problems, but you can't make it a law." 

University of Sydney demographer Zakia Hossain said for many migrants, even the concept of the survey could be outside the norm. 

"The literature shows that first generation migrants are more conservative and try to hold onto their traditional and religious values," she said. 

"It could be a very sensitive issue that needs to be understood from this context." 


*With James Massola *

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...registered-huge-no-votes-20171115-gzltjr.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

Junior said:


> This view that gay people will somehow want to indoctrinate children to also be gay, is very odd.  I would think most gay people, IF they adopt children (not many in this camp, by the way), will hope that their kids are straight, as they have experienced first-hand how much more challenging it is being in the minority and being discriminated against.



The children will be affected to varying degrees as they try to wrap their heads around an unnatural parenting arrangement. To think legislation will magically change the natural male/female -> offspring imprint will not happen. Psycologically modified children for selfish human desire and a f.y. to the natural beings.


----------



## tech/a (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The children will be affected to varying degrees as they try to wrap their heads around an unnatural parenting arrangement. To think legislation will magically change the natural male/female -> offspring imprint will not happen. Psycologically modified children for selfish human desire and a f.y. to the natural beings.




They wont know any different.

By the time they do know they are different they indeed WILL be different.
It will be very interesting in the long term as to the statistics of how many
kids in mixed marriages actually go on to lead a normal HETROSEXUAL life.

Suicide rates.
Mental illness.
Depression.
Relationships

But hey there is no Global warming right!!! (If I don't want to recognise it
for the better good---)


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> What have you got against dogs!!!!




That was quite funny.
Others would laugh out loud too if they don't have doubt about your Anglo heritage.


----------



## satanoperca (16 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> There are innumerable peer reviewed proofs that "born with it" is a fallacy. It's a lifestyle choice based on whatever the thought process has invented and we all know it.
> 
> You guys should just put up and shutup, but you can't because there is no scientific proof to your yarns.
> .




Can you please provide links to the peer reviewed studies and please make sure there is no association to Christian groups.

Somehow I think you cannot.


----------



## grah33 (16 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> My coffee shop owner told me that humans were created by god, through adam and eve yesterday. What has the world come to.






I don't think it's that silly, the Adam and Eve thing. When I was on a holiday once in Israel , I saw a plaque with much of human history recorded on it (most of it but not all is recorded in the Old Testament). It had Adam and Eve at the top, then all these descendants passing through to Noah, then a little later to Abraham (father of all Jews), and a fair few generations after that (post Christ). And if you follow the Israel Palestinian conflict in the news, the very borders that the Jews claim belong to them, are the same ones that God through Moses apparently laid out for them. Not picking any side in the conflict, just saying that biblical history is regarded as a very real historical source. Regards the miracles, some believe in them and some don't. Also, even this debate is related very much to the notion of 'truth' on a deeper level. The gold standard of marriage is male and female life time commitment, and that as we know came from Jesus. That itself suggests divine action on the human race.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> just saying that biblical history is regarded as a very real historical source.




It's not really. There is no archeological evidence for a lot of Bible stories, eg the Exodus, the great flood, Soddom and Gomorah etc, and most of bible history can be put down to myth, legend and allegorical tales.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not really. There is no archeological evidence for a lot of Bible stories, eg the Exodus, the great flood, Soddom and Gomorah etc, and most of bible history can be put down to myth, legend and allegorical tales.



Agree there. Complete allegory that book. Best seller.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> I don't think it's that silly, the Adam and Eve thing. When I was on a holiday once in Israel , I saw a plaque with much of human history recorded on it (most of it but not all is recorded in the Old Testament). It had Adam and Eve at the top,




Even the Catholic Church admits that the Adam and eve story isn't fact, and that its a religious story told for religious purposes. There is absolutely no evidence for the biblical creation story, in fact the is mountains of evidence against it.

Listen at the 3.50 mark and you will hear George Pell describe the story as mythological and not literal.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2017)

It will be fascinating to see the principled rejection of same sex marriages by florists, bakers and others inteh wedding industry who cannot in conscience accept or support such behaviour.

I think for matters of ontegrity thise busineses should be upfront about their position with proper signage. Perhaps something on the lines that Tisme proposed?

* Same-sex marriage 'yes' vote: Billion-dollar boom predicted as pink dollar unleashed *






*Jessica Irvine*
 Contact via Email 
 Follow on Facebook 
 Follow on Twitter 

48 reading now
 Show comments

 facebook SHARE 
 twitter TWEET 
 email 
  

  

  


Florists, photographers and wedding celebrants are among the army of small businesses set to enjoy a billion-dollar plus boost when tens of thousands of same sex couples are finally allowed to walk down the aisle.

According to ANZ senior economist Cherelle Murphy, the economic benefits of marriage equality related to weddings alone would be $650 million in the first 12 months.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...as-pink-dollar-unleashed-20171113-gzkkft.html


----------



## basilio (16 November 2017)

IMV Malcolm Turnball will ignore any push to pass legiclation that will allow people to discriminate against same sex relationships under the conscientious objection banner.

He currently has the fight of his life to hold Bennelong with a Liberal electorate that strongly supported the same sex vote and against a Labour candidate who looks every inch a winner. Too much to lose.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

basilio said:


> It will be fascinating to see the principled rejection of same sex marriages by florists, bakers and others inteh wedding industry who cannot in conscience accept or support such behaviour.
> 
> I think for matters of ontegrity thise busineses should be upfront about their position with proper signage. Perhaps something on the lines that Tisme proposed?



Business is business and most likely they will take poofter business as well as normal business. Could be a proliferation of homo's as the closets burst open and people start experimenting so they should advertise they cater for homo's to catch the wave.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The children will be affected to varying degrees as they try to wrap their heads around an unnatural parenting arrangement. To think legislation will magically change the natural male/female -> offspring imprint will not happen. Psycologically modified children for selfish human desire and a f.y. to the natural beings.





They say kids are cruel when it comes to teasing the abnormal, but infact they are unwittingly expressing their natural coding for a strong tribe.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> That was quite funny.
> Others would laugh out loud too if they don't have doubt about your Anglo heritage.




Good to see the old luutzu breaking out from the handcuffs social engineering has placed on you of late. You know I'm not racist, but I don't like the way us anglo whiteys have been demonised by a queer movement and the disappointment of so many who have mind numbingly saddled up to their propoganda.

If it wasn't for people like me the world would have continued on as a feudal slave society ....you know just like China still is.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yet you seem to think your own sexuality wasn't a choice? (if I remember correctly from prior discussions), or do you think at some stage you could have gone either way but you made the choice to chase ladies.
> 
> I can't see how anyone can think their sexuality is a choice unless they are a confused bisexual.





Don't be silly VC. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and you will continue to argue any point so long as it's contrary to mainstream human development.


----------



## satanoperca (16 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Can you please provide links to the peer reviewed studies and please make sure there is no association to Christian groups.
> 
> Somehow I think you cannot.




*Or shut the F--K up!*


----------



## IFocus (16 November 2017)

Thank god the yes vote got up sick and tired listening those that want a minority ostracized in our community based on the word of man (church) rather than the teachings of Jesus (word of god) and those that insist its a life style choice FFS.

Australia in the end chose fairness and the pics of Penny Wong just melted my heart.


----------



## PZ99 (16 November 2017)

“This whole idea of a plebiscite was mine, originally,” | “I think the result now should be respected — respected by the community, respected by the parliament.”

Tony Abbott.


----------



## satanoperca (16 November 2017)

Hey Tease Me,

Do you need some money, help in anyway? Are you confused about your sexuality so see the need to attack others?
Think you are obsessed with Same Sex Marriage as you have *clocked up* an outstanding *1120* posts on the subject.

Mostly vitriolic, impatient and lack any understanding of really anything of value other than you construct the english language well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> 7.2 million Yes
> 4.8 million No.
> Hardly a minority vote.



Agreed that it's not a minority.

It is however a more convincing win for the "yes" case than typical federal or state election outcomes represent wins for either the Coalition or Labor. 61% in favour of the "yes" case versus plenty of elections over the years with support for the winning party considerably less than that.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Don't be silly VC. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and you will continue to argue any point so long as it's contrary to mainstream human development.



You just can't seem to comprehend that if you insist that sexuality is a "life style choice", you are also admitting that you feel like you chose yours.

So you have two choices.

1, Insist that sexuality is a choice, and therefore make every one think you are bisexual or a repressed gay man pretending to be straight.

or

2. admit you were born straight and didn't choose it, and therefore gays didn't choose theirs either.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2017)

Anyway, Australia has voted, Yes has it.

I will leave this thread now happy that they majority of Aussies are rational, and leave the rest of the bitter old men and Tink to stew in their bitterness.


----------



## cynic (16 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Anyway, Australia has voted, Yes has it.
> 
> I will leave this thread now happy that they majority of Aussies are rational, and leave the rest of the bitter old men and Tink to stew in their bitterness.



Rational?!!!

It seems that Australians are under the illusion that legislation can somehow equate two mutually exclusive and unequal concepts?!!!

And that their efforts to do so, will somehow foster a more harmonious society, despite the apparence of a 60/40 rift!!


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Anyway, Australia has voted, Yes has it.
> 
> I will leave this thread now happy that they majority of Aussies are rational, and leave the rest of the bitter old men and Tink to stew in their bitterness.




Well how do you feel that a large majority it seems of another of your protected species ie the Muslims voted No and are now stewing in their bitterness ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2017)

Now the dust is settling and legislation for homosexual marriage is going through, ladies, I - am - your - man.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well how do you feel that a large majority it seems of another of your protected species ie the Muslims voted No and are now stewing in their bitterness ?



I am not much fussed on which brand of religion No voters are. 

I think that you should be asking that question of yourself, how do you guys feel that you are sharing views with people you would be scared to sit next to on a plane, lol.


But seriously I am out of this thread, if you want to talk religion, start a conversation in the religion thread.


----------



## Macquack (16 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well how do you feel that a large majority it seems of another of your protected species ie the Muslims voted No and are now stewing in their bitterness ?



Feel free to move to Lakemba and be part of the majority in Paul Keating's former seat.


----------



## grah33 (17 November 2017)

You lot obviously haven't experienced Christianity before. It goes beyond knowledge. Take a look at this:



(the clearer HD footage is what i'm interested in)
6:24-6:56

3:43-4:24

The people there are looking for God and healings so the best explanation would seem to be that (God).  No myth going on here

Onto people's questions:



SirRumpole said:


> It's not really. There is no archeological evidence for a lot of Bible stories, eg the Exodus, the great flood, Soddom and Gomorah etc, and most of bible history can be put down to myth, legend and allegorical tales.



I always thought they're digging up new things all the time, in the same locations/same name cities 2000+ years ago.  Jewish culture probably has more to say about the details of Sodom /Gomorah and other very old stuff.   I thought countries once had anti-sodom laws.


Wysiwyg said:


> Agree there. Complete allegory that book. Best seller.





Value Collector said:


> Even the Catholic Church admits that the Adam and eve story isn't fact, and that its a religious story told for religious purposes. There is absolutely no evidence for the biblical creation story, in fact the is mountains of evidence against it.



The Church doesn't say that. As Pell said at the start people have their own view on it. The Catholic Church doesn't have an official view. His view would be different from other cardinals and popes. Also, at the start Pell points out that Darwin was a theist (found that interesting). I've also heard another story that Darwin was bitter at God when he lost his daughter, and that made him want to publish it all the more, but my knowledge about this is limited. What I've noticed though is that there are quite a few experts out there that don't see evolution as a provable fact, people who are seemingly honest. From a philosophical standpoint that's a problem.


basilio said:


> It will be fascinating to see the principled rejection of same sex marriages by florists


----------



## fiftyeight (17 November 2017)

1976 wasted posts (yes including mine)


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> You lot obviously haven't experienced Christianity before. It goes beyond knowledge. Take a look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Isn't that a literal rainbow from God?


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Good to see the old luutzu breaking out from the handcuffs social engineering has placed on you of late. You know I'm not racist, but I don't like the way us anglo whiteys have been demonised by a queer movement and the disappointment of so many who have mind numbingly saddled up to their propoganda.
> 
> If it wasn't for people like me the world would have continued on as a feudal slave society ....you know just like China still is.




Not too sure how the United Kingdom isn't still a feudal society. 

There's three kingdoms "united" to form that tiny island outpost of the American empire for Christ sake. There's still literal Lords and Barons, King/Queen, princes and other self-entitled useless imbreds living on welfare, cheating on taxes and acting like they own the place. 

I guess that's just all tradition and heritage. The real UK no longer have landless peasants or blueblood idiots. It's all classless now - like the People's Republic of China with its comrades and billionaire princelings.


----------



## PZ99 (17 November 2017)

grah33 said:


> You lot obviously haven't experienced Christianity before. It goes beyond knowledge.



You're not wrong. It frequently crosses the line into the realm of Orwellian fiction. If there's a stairway to heaven and a highway to hell it says much about the anticipated traffic flow


----------



## Tink (17 November 2017)

VC, you are entitled to your view.

As I have mentioned in here before, our country is based on our Christian heritage and Almighty God is in the preamble.
The Lord's Prayer is still said in our parliament.
Our public holidays reflect our nation.

Marriage is one man and one woman because it is the truth and responsibility in raising our children.

It seems many of you despise our country that was set up by the founding fathers, and are quick to try and dismantle the Australian Constitution.
That is your choice.

----------------------------------------------
_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-australian-greens-party.20238/page-60_


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I think that you should be asking that question of yourself, how do you guys feel that you are sharing views with people you would be scared to sit next to on a plane, lol.




I don't think I share their views. I've said I don't care if gays get married it just should not be under the Marriage Act. You seem to have no problem with Muslims flogging gays as you never seem to speak out against it.

Anyway, life is life. The public vote is what was needed and it's strange that it was villified by people  like yourself who said it should never have happened. Such people should have shown some principle and abstained.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tink said:


> VC, you are entitled to your view.
> 
> As I have mentioned in here before, our country is based on our Christian heritage and Almighty God is in the preamble.
> The Lord's Prayer is still said in our parliament.
> ...




Thankfully the majority of Australians disagree with your view, your religion is dying in this country.


----------



## Junior (17 November 2017)

Tink said:


> It seems many of you despise our country that was set up by the founding fathers, and are quick to try and dismantle the Australian Constitution.
> That is your choice.




I don't think anyone on this forum despises this country.  

Have a look at life expectancy, infant mortality, average wealth per person, standard of living index.  Australia has continually improved as a nation since our 'founding fathers' set up this place.  More than a third of the population associate themselves with NO RELIGION, so you can harp on about Christianity all you want, it's increasingly irrelevant for the day to day life of the majority of Aussies.

Australia just got a little bit better in the past few days, now embracing yet another minority in our community.  1,000s of couples who wish to marry will now be able to do so.

Many MPs who opposed the change will have some reflecting to do, as the vote shows they are out of step with the majority in their electorate.


----------



## Tink (17 November 2017)

Being a conservative, Junior, I don't agree with BIG Government.
People should be made accountable.

As I have said, I am all for private and public.

The State and the Church need to be separate, but it seems the state is getting bigger and encroaching on peoples lives.

This is my view.


----------



## Junior (17 November 2017)

Tink said:


> Being a conservative, Junior, I don't agree with BIG Government.
> People should be made accountable.
> 
> As I have said, I am all for private and public.
> ...




We agree on these points Tink.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tink said:


> Being a conservative, Junior, I don't agree with BIG Government.
> People should be made accountable.
> 
> As I have said, I am all for private and public.
> ...




Why do you not hold churches to the same standard?  The church encroaches on other peoples lives, they continually attempt to dictate our policies, whether that be SSM or euthanasia or abortion.  I'm all for a church telling it's followers what the churches values are and what the church stands for but the church should stay out of other peoples private lives.  It's none of their business if someone of a different faith or no faith chooses assisted dying or to have a SSM and they should not stand in the way.  It seems like cognitive dissonance to condemn BIG government but support BIG church.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Not too sure how the United Kingdom isn't still a feudal society.
> 
> There's three kingdoms "united" to form that tiny island outpost of the American empire for Christ sake. There's still literal Lords and Barons, King/Queen, princes and other self-entitled useless imbreds living on welfare, cheating on taxes and acting like they own the place.
> 
> I guess that's just all tradition and heritage. The real UK no longer have landless peasants or blueblood idiots. It's all classless now - like the People's Republic of China with its comrades and billionaire princelings.





I have a feeling those billionaire princelings are about to get the Putin treatment and lose some of their feathers at the hands of the devolving communist party


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Hey Tease Me,
> 
> Do you need some money, help in anyway? Are you confused about your sexuality so see the need to attack others?
> Think you are obsessed with Same Sex Marriage as you have *clocked up* an outstanding *1120* posts on the subject.
> ...





Sarcasm need a certain amount of finesse to distance itself from vitriol. You need to hone your skills before trying to play with the big boys (pun intended).


----------



## satanoperca (17 November 2017)

Tease me, 

Big words written by a little man, know please provide links to "There are innumerable peer reviewed proofs that "born with it" is a fallacy." 

Or shut the F---k up.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

Value Collector said:


> You just can't seem to comprehend that if you insist that sexuality is a "life style choice", you are also admitting that you feel like you chose yours.
> 
> So you have two choices.
> 
> ...




You don't seem to understand anything that doesn't agree with your ingrained bias and need to be contrary.

Lets go down your logic path. You are maintaining that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, yet happy to suggest heterosexual activity is. Then you will suggest if one is choice the other is choice because you say so. You will ignore the captain obvious that without science interfering "natural" procreation is simply between female and male. You will ignore the fact an an anus is for waste management. You will ignore the cocktail of diseases and maladies that arise because unfit for purpose body parts are being forced into a sewer system. And then same people wear those sewer systems out in public on their hands, mouth, etc.

But they are just like the majority rest yeah?


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> Tease me,
> 
> Big words written by a little man, know please provide links to "There are innumerable peer reviewed proofs that "born with it" is a fallacy."
> 
> Or shut the F---k up.





You are obviously traumatised by your own situation.  Using profanity to unsettle me won't work I'm afraid and won't resolve your own internal issues.


----------



## satanoperca (17 November 2017)

As I thought, you are all words and no substance.

You cannot provide the links. 

Just a boy behind a keyboard. 

At least people of Australia don't think like you and you are now the minority. lol


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

Tink said:


> It seems many of you despise our country that was set up by the founding fathers, and are quick to try and dismantle the Australian Constitution.
> That is your choice.




They may not despise it, but a vast amount of people don't value it for it's traditions, preferring to adopt their cultural heritages that made their ancestoral family homes unbearable enough to migrate. We introduced a disease into our nation when we embraced multi culturalism without any brake pads on the rotors.

We once prided ourselves as being uninfected by old world ethnic diseases, but now we had devolved to old world and taking our cues from morally corrupt moribund societies half way around the world who are in self denial about the mistakes they have made as public policy.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

satanoperca said:


> As I thought, you are all words and no substance.
> 
> You cannot provide the links.
> 
> ...





You're sounding silly. If you want the proofs look back on my posts, they are there already. But I'm sure you will cherry pick and use illogical themes to justify your misery.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> You don't seem to understand anything that doesn't agree with your ingrained bias and need to be contrary.
> 
> Lets go down your logic path. You are maintaining that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, yet happy to suggest heterosexual activity is. Then you will suggest if one is choice the other is choice because you say so. You will ignore the captain obvious that without science interfering "natural" procreation is simply between female and male. You will ignore the fact an an anus is for waste management. You will ignore the cocktail of diseases and maladies that arise because unfit for purpose body parts are being forced into a sewer system. And then same people wear those sewer systems out in public on their hands, mouth, etc.
> 
> But they are just like the majority rest yeah?



 I've already linked you this in the past but you conveniently ignore anything that doesn't follow your preconceived opinion that you being gay is a lifestyle choice.



> The midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure in homosexual men was 18% larger than in heterosexual women and 34% larger than in heterosexual men.



https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf


> Dean Hamer finally feels vindicated. More than 20 years ago, in a study that triggered both scientific and cultural controversy, the molecular biologist offered the first direct evidence of a “gay gene,” by identifying a stretch on the X chromosome likely associated with homosexuality. But several subsequent studies called his finding into question. Now the largest independent replication effort so far, looking at 409 pairs of gay brothers, fingers the same region on the X.




http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

There are biological anomalies found in gay individuals, anomalies that can't be chosen.

Any straight male knows they can't choose to get an erection over another bloke even if they wanted to but for some reason you think you can, this says more about your own sexuality than it does about lifestyle choices.


https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> I have a feeling those billionaire princelings are about to get the Putin treatment and lose some of their feathers at the hands of the devolving communist party




They already got the Xi treatment.

Rooting out corruption, abuse of power and probably this or that anti-people's-revolutionary activities.

Xi can't help it if all those dragged in just happen to be that those from the Hu faction.

The little I know of Putin's handy work were quite patriotic. I mean he remove the dozen or so plutocrats that own most of Russia's assets from a firesale/gift to them under Yelsin (at the advise of Uncle Sam and his neoliberal retards).

Heard that Yelsin's admin sold practically all of the former Soviet's industries to his cronies for about $490B. Or was it million. But what's a few extra digits for the entirety of the soviet empire mines, oil, industries among friends.

But yes, those commies take national assets, money and power from the struggling princelings and plutocrats all to themselves and their cronies.

Unlike the more civilised Western politicians who take it from the poor and gave it to entrepreneurs.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> I've already linked you this in the past but you conveniently ignore anything that doesn't follow your preconceived opinion that you being gay is a lifestyle choice.
> 
> 
> https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf
> ...




Where have you guys been. In the last few weeks the gay press and publicity machine, have been expounding the imminent success of the"gay lifestyle" and the right to "choose". It's not me using these terms, I just repeated what they have been saying for years and years.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> They already got the Xi treatment.
> 
> Rooting out corruption, abuse of power and probably this or that anti-people's-revolutionary activities.
> 
> ...





You know I'm starting to wonder if you are blessed with an intelligence approaching my own, albeit somewhat twisted from the righteous path I "chose" as part of my "lifestyle choice"


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Where have you guys been. In the last few weeks the gay press and publicity machine, have been expounding the imminent success of the"gay lifestyle" and the right to "choose". It's not me using these terms, I just repeated what they have been saying for years and years.




Yes they mean choosing to follow their sexual urges, sexual urges that aren't chosen.  Keep ignoring the science and your own sexuality by the look of things.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Thankfully the majority of Australians disagree with your view, your religion is dying in this country.





Just remember you chose this and when you reflect on the consequences for your descendants you will be culpable.  You tinker with nature and nature will always retaliate in kind.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Just remember you chose this and when you reflect on the consequences for your descendants you will be culpable.  You tinker with nature and nature will always retaliate in kind.



You just remember you were on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> You just remember you were on the wrong side of history.




I'll remember alright and I'll delight in the misery you guys are going to go through and the guilt you will carry to your death beds and bonus for heathens like me, no chance of heaven for you people even if you are a Catholic and confess this sin !!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2017)

Sigmund wrote a letter ...

In 1935, Freud wrote to a mother who had asked him to treat her son's homosexuality, a letter that would later become famous:
I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? *Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.* Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). *It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too*. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'll remember alright and I'll delight in the misery you guys are going to go through and the guilt you will carry to your death beds and bonus for heathens like me, no chance of heaven you people even if you are a Catholic and confess this sin !!!!




I question your intellect if your major concern is a few gays getting married and not our deficit, threats of climate change, housing affordability, automation, record low wage growth etc


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> I question your intellect if your major concern is a few gays getting married and not our deficit, threats of climate change, housing affordability, automation, record low wage growth etc




That's obscuration and deflection arguing and doesn't deal with case at hand. Social trends and fads like the this latest SSM one have an ongoing affect on the community in intangible ways, but history has a way of repeating itself and a correction will occur in the future to repeal any unnatural laws of nature.

If you were a student of common law you would know the succession of laws upto that point in the beginning of the 13th century when the beginnings of public records in England and the distillation of the Laws of Mercia, Dane Law and Law of Wessex using Frankish and Roman law into Glanvilles treatise. This was enhanced by Bracton, Fleta and Britton. Common law has its roots in pre Christian lifestyles, but draw much of its codified morality from ecclesiastical law.

Fleta itself reflects the historical and contemporary attitudes to homosexuality by advocating death for sodomites. Buggery was example based and the word derived from the malaise of heretical fad activity centred in Bulgaria.   Queen Mary I repealed the law that Thomas Cromwell had used so well to attack the Catholic church and its sodomite pastors, but Queen Elizabeth reinstated it after knocking off her blood lust catholic sister and institutionalising the Anglican Church to reflect the displeasure of the act to "Almighty God".

So when you guys twist history and try to make out SSM bans are a relatively new thing, it just isn't so is it. Those laws go back way before Christianity.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> I question your intellect if your major concern is a few gays getting married and not our deficit, threats of climate change, housing affordability, automation, record low wage growth etc





You can question all you like, but you are one of the many who have made an emotional vote predicated on nothing more than pity, completely devoid of the facts and refusing to acknowledge the king wearing no cloths. Have you even bothered to look at what the schools are teaching? In QLD the Labor Govt is refusing to disclose the 10% of test schools where it is promoting alternative sexual lifestyles to youg impressionable minds, with the presumption that girls are sexually active at 13 and telling those abstaining girls by extension that it's OK to lose their virginity....something true lesbians (which is a genetic impossibility being X&X combination) never voluntarily lose and in no position to usher forth their wisdom of what equal is.

Stay with the facts overhang and you will see I am correct. The insult you feel is your own set of codes reacting, which obviously have no place for empathy for the insult of SSM on millions of people in this country and the sentence you have put on children now and in the future.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> You can question all you like, but you are one of the many who have made an emotional vote predicated on nothing more than pity, completely devoid of the facts and refusing to acknowledge the king wearing no cloths. Have you even bothered to look at what the schools are teaching? In QLD the Labor Govt is refusing to disclose the 10% of test schools where it is promoting alternative sexual lifestyles to youg impressionable minds, with the presumption that girls are sexually active at 13 and telling those abstaining girls by extension that it's OK to lose their virginity....something true lesbians (which is a genetic impossibility being X&X combination) never voluntarily lose and in no position to usher forth their wisdom of what equal is.
> 
> Stay with the facts overhang and you will see I am correct. The insult you feel is your own set of codes reacting, which obviously have no place for empathy for the insult of SSM on millions of people in this country and the sentence you have put on children now and in the future.




You couldn't waffle more crap if you tried.  But none of this has anything to do with SSM, just another red herring you throw up.  But I wouldn't expect someone who still thinks that people choose to be gay would think anything different, no wonder you hate education as you ignore science.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sigmund wrote a letter ...
> 
> In 1935, Freud wrote to a mother who had asked him to treat her son's homosexuality, a letter that would later become famous:
> I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? *Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.* Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). *It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too*. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.




https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815?IR=T


----------



## basilio (17 November 2017)

Enough of the interminable diatribes against homosexuality, the decay of civilisation as we know, the loss of Western Glory, the need to put the Anglo/Christian/ Colonialist heritage back on the front page and send the darkies, chinks and poofs back into their respective holes.

The spirit of where we are now was well put in the Canberra Times.

_Turnbull conveyed the aura of a leader intent on capitalising on the emphatic mandate that the Australian people had delivered to him. The contrast with his predecessor, Tony Abbott, captured on Four Corners, speaking to a forlorn group of Christian activists about Judeo-Christian culture was stark.

Abbott's rhetoric in the wilderness is esoteric, pompous and marginal, with no resonance outside the pseudo-intellectual ghetto populated by the alt right. They revel in their alienation from the mainstream like the communists of old.


Of course, this costly, hateful campaign was Abbott's legacy to his riven party. While ostensibly about same-sex marriage, it was really a ramshackle compromise to allow the Liberal Party to avoid a schism between the progressives and reactionaries inside its ranks. It was merely a delaying tactic.

Yet, even Abbott seemed resigned to defeat by last week. He sought to deflate expectations among reactionaries by asserting that a 40 per cent "no" vote was effectively a victory for the shrinking, sanctimonious clique who have assumed the mantle of defending Western civilisation from the depravity of the rest of us.
_

_





 Illustration: Simon Letch 
Despite his own disingenuous and contemptible attempts to link gender variance, defective parenting and other risible distractions to same-sex marriage Abbott failed dismally. He is the biggest loser out of this rout.
_
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...tionary-mps-to-the-sword-20171115-gzm79p.html_

_


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> You couldn't waffle more crap if you tried.  But none of this has anything to do with SSM, just another red herring you throw up.  But I wouldn't expect someone who still thinks that people choose to be gay would think anything different, no wonder you hate education as you ignore science.





Where did I say I hate education? You're just now outright lying to qualify your fault in this injustice on children and community.

If you take away homosexuality you take away SSM n'est pas?

Your pejorative posts and hateful personal insults clearly point to your own lack of education, which I can assure you is nowhere near the levels I have achieved and especially on your fitness to make qualitative votes on matter of national importance.

Thankfully being one of the apex men in this thread means I can easily dismiss you comments for what they = hysterical response to a conflict between common sense and riding the bandwagon of fads.


----------



## overhang (17 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Where did I say I hate education? You're just now outright lying to qualify your fault in this injustice on children and community.
> 
> If you take away homosexuality you take away SSM n'est pas?
> 
> ...




Perhaps you should just come to terms with the fact your side lost, most the country has seen through the hate and fear campaign the no camp ran.  If society somehow turns on it's head then so be it but frankly there are far greater threats to our country than a few gays marrying.


----------



## basilio (17 November 2017)

There were some constructive comments made by politicans who debated the No case in the SSM survey.  Maybe it's worth acknowledging and respecting their thoughts.

*In a generous speech to the Senate on Thursday evening, cabinet minister and social conservative, Matt Canavan warmly congratulated equality campaigners for their success, noting that a simple proposition that two people in love should be able to "solemnise" their relationship, had been compelling. He went as far as to call it a good argument.*
_ 
Undertaking to keep his word and reflect the peoples' decision in the Senate, Canavan did however part company with many "yes" campaigners by applauding the survey, citing the French moralist, Joseph Joubert's excellent dictum, "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

As hard as this is for many to acknowledge – especially because it involves ceding ground to conservative naysayers – his assessment cuts a lot of ice on the Coalition side. Canavan's own new pluralism on the question is testament, driven as it is by the unimpeachable virtue in a democracy of the majority verdict.

And this transformation is evident more broadly as all but the most doctrinaire campaigners on the "no" side begin a similar journey of acceptance.

The blizzard of red herrings about "safe schools", radical gender theory, conscientious objecting bakers and faith groups being told what to teach, has slowed.
_
*Author of the private senator's bill now before the Parliament, Dean Smith, loathed the survey. But his main objection was as an institutional conservative worried about sidelining Parliament.

Still, his words in the Senate on Thursday morning as he opened this momentous debate reflected the surprising worth of what was a testing, painful process.*

*"I never believed the day would come when my relationship would be judged by my country to be as meaningful and valued as any other. The Australian people have proven me wrong," he said.

"It wasn't just a vote of acceptance, it was that deep loving embrace of a big family."*

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...age-on-the-national-soul-20171117-gznbih.html


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Perhaps you should just come to terms with the fact your side lost, most the country has seen through the hate and fear campaign the no camp ran.  If society somehow turns on it's head then so be it but frankly there are far greater threats to our country than a few gays marrying.




Hey I'm onboard and you guys can gloat all you like.... I wear a teflon suit most times, especially on forums. The pollies are already lining up to save their political necks so it's a non sequitur in my view. 

The whole exercise has been highly predicable, basic marketing tactics and strategies. For me I am disappointed so many succumbed, citing cliche mistruths wrapped up as fact, but then again the 80/20 consumer rule of emotional buying held true +/-. 

Say something often enough and even the bull54itter starts to believe it. The rapacious socialist media (e.g. ABC, Ten, etc) and carefully positioned misleading memes, fake history and fake articles have been very compelling to many, but for me the most disappointing is the juggernaut ability of actors and tv productions to manipulate and desensitise viewers to point of acceptance.... It worries me how much of our opinions have been manipulated and why the laws that were in place to prevent subliminal manipulation haven't been invoked.

I have stated before that I actually socialise with homosexuals. Drawing a conclusion that I in any way hate or detest them would be wrong. My concern is the unhealthy aspect of such behaviours and the imprinting of young minds to ignore their disciplines towards unnatural behaviours. It's not about men getting a tent in their pants looking at other men, in this thread it's about marriage and marriage isn't predicated on love, professing that love, etc it about children and family in a balanced environment even though 45% of the 61% who voted yes are divorce material themselves.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2017)

I accept the survey result and ensuing legislation.


----------



## cynic (17 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I accept the survey result and ensuing legislation.



How about we wait until the legislation is finalised before giving the govnuts a blank cheque?


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2017)

cynic said:


> How about we wait until the legislation is finalised before giving the govnuts a blank cheque?



Blank cheque for?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2017)

I foresee that we will have outbreak of gay militants targetting and suing anyone whom they think are opposed to them, demanding service and litigating if the poor service providers don't bend over backwards (literally) and submit to the gay's smallest desires.


----------



## basilio (17 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I foresee that we will have outbreak of gay militants targetting and suing anyone whom they think are opposed to them, demanding service and litigating if the poor service providers don't bend over backwards (literally) and submit to the gay's smallest desires.




Really !!?? And truly  ? You can see them having the money, vindictiveness and capacity to create a storm in a teacup ? For what purpose ? 

Overreach by* miles* at this point in time Rumpy.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I foresee that we will have outbreak of gay militants targetting and suing anyone whom they think are opposed to them, demanding service and litigating if the poor service providers don't bend over backwards (literally) and submit to the gay's smallest desires.





Never happen:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hea...hse-of-institutionalised-homophobia-1.3185630


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2017)

basilio said:


> Really !!?? And truly  ? You can see them having the a. money, b. vindictiveness and c. capacity to create a storm in a teacup ? d. For what purpose ?
> 
> Overreach by* miles* at this point in time Rumpy.




a. yes
b. yes.
c. yes

d. Revenge. It's already happened .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/7e3acb1b3b1e0c81d00ba6a3a034b1d9

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...t/news-story/a484c2cd65444a672ebf600ffbb3a6ee

https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/gay-activist-targets-high-profile-christians/


----------



## cynic (17 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Blank cheque for?



I may have been remiss in failing to insert the word "metaphorical" in that post.


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

Watch how preferential treatment here will mirror the repeal of section 37 in Ireland:

This is what had to be got rid of to get access to the children for indoctrination into all things anti hetero:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Section-37-submission.pdf

excerpt:



> Section 37 does not protect denominational schools only. But the Constitution would appear to give denominational schools a ‘double protection’, as it were, through Article 44 and Article 42.
> 
> Therefore, any attempt to weaken or repeal Section 37 must argue past both freedom of religion and the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit within certain very broad limits.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (17 November 2017)

@DavidLeyonhjelm


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2017)

So I wonder if an LGBTI goes for a wedding dress and gets told "sorry I'm too busy" will the business get sued ? 

I wonder just how far people will take this discrimination stuff.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder just how far people will take this discrimination stuff.



Thou shall not discriminate against another human being.


> *Article 1. *
> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
> *Article 7. *
> All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.



Except in China, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Islamic states etc etc.


----------



## Tink (18 November 2017)

I have put this up before, and I think it is important in Australia as well, regarding bathrooms, schools, sports etc...



--------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/feminism.29219/page-11


----------



## Tisme (18 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So I wonder if an LGBTI goes for a wedding dress and gets told "sorry I'm too busy" will the business get sued ?
> 
> I wonder just how far people will take this discrimination stuff.





I find it rather curious why sites that are supposed to provide clinical information about homosexual disease, hygiene, etc are fairly difficult to find by Google standards.

e.g. the hyperlinks on this page:

http://www.ausfamily.org/resources/...x-secret-homosexuals-want-no-one-to-know.html


----------



## SirRumpole (18 November 2017)

If I click on this link I'll probably start getting ads for homosexual holidays


----------



## Tisme (18 November 2017)

Remember the children and how they need to be watched = be vigilant and report concerns to police . 

Born with it .... yeah right.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300



> In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.


----------



## Logique (18 November 2017)

There's already talk from Federal MPs about putting personal/religious freedom safeguards on the never never. 

Just push through SSM by Christmas, and we'll discuss personal freedoms 'later' (i.e. never)


----------



## grah33 (18 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Isn't that a literal rainbow from God?






PZ99 said:


> You're not wrong. It frequently crosses the line into the realm of Orwellian fiction. If there's a stairway to heaven and a highway to hell it says much about the anticipated traffic flow




Look again, it's fiction turned reality. If you looked at it where I referenced u too, you should have realized there are no camera tricks, no acting. They were wowed very much on that day. I'm confidant you won't find anybody alive that can debunk such a clip. I thought it a good response to the “Christianity is fairy tale/has no relevance” type of comments shown here.  It's a throwback.


----------



## luutzu (18 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> You know I'm starting to wonder if you are blessed with an intelligence approaching my own, albeit somewhat twisted from the righteous path I "chose" as part of my "lifestyle choice"




This might not apply in this particular case, but I've always found that whenever I start to wonder whether a person is as intelligent as myself... they turn out to already be light years ahead 

Read that the Trump's latest, and greatest, "tax reform" just passed the House. There's no hearing, no expert witnesses.. .and 75% of the (lower) American people will see their taxes GO UP.

For the top 25%, they can now have about $1.3Trillion to start saving up for bids for another da Vinci painting... well, maybe a freaking Picasso to start out with.


----------



## basilio (19 November 2017)

Perhaps it's time to ask whether we should have Freedom from Religion rather the Freedom for Religion.

Just how much influence should religion have in a secular state ?  Which religious rules should be applied to everyone ? How many tax breaks (from the overall tax paying community)  should religious bodies recieve ?

* Marriage quality: we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion *

*Crispin Hull *
71 reading now
Just as the postal plebiscite has blown up in the faces of the conservatives who promoted it, let us hope that any subsequent rearguard sabotage attempt, under the guise of freedom of religion, does the same thing.

For more than two decades (since John Howard was elected prime minister) politicians have been utterly-risk averse, fearfully imagining that some silent, conservative, Christian majority lurks out there ready to punish them at the slightest hint of social progress on human rights or fairness to the marginalised, whether LGBTIQ, refugees, the unemployed or homeless.

*Same-sex marriage: the timeframe*
The bill to change the marriage act is in, the aim is to have same sex marriage legalised before Christmas and with just a few weeks to get it done, politicians will begin debating the legislation straight away.

Wednesday's result should put paid to that.

But if we are going to turn over some rocks in a debate on religious freedom, we may see a greater need for freedom _from_ religion, not freedom _of_ religion.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...-not-freedom-of-religion-20171116-gzn7dw.html


----------



## SirRumpole (19 November 2017)

basilio said:


> Marriage quality: we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion




Tell it to the Muslims.


----------



## Tisme (19 November 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Thou shall not discriminate against another human being.
> 
> Except in China, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Islamic states etc etc.



And our govt always sticks with the spirit of conventions :

http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/1951-refugee-convention.html


----------



## basilio (19 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the Muslims.




Absolutely.. In fact if you read that story it referenced Muslim practices (multiple wives) which arn't acceptable in our society.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 November 2017)

From Crispin Hull's article

_"Freedom of speech does not permit you to yell fire in a theatre or *trash reputations*._"

Trashing reputations has been going on for a while now. Maybe we need stronger defamation laws ?

I agree with him on tax free status, and the chaplaincy program.

As for employment discrimination, well it's a blurry line. Employers have the right imo to employ people who are good for their business. Religious business like schools and nursing homes most likely attract people of that faith as customers who wish the business carried out according to that faith and maybe certain employees don't conform to that business image. If we are going to stick official noses into who businesses employ and why then maybe all businesses should be required to accept a certain number of minorities ? I think most people would regard that as an intrusion into normal business operations and it really opens up a Pandora's box of increasing and unneccesary red tape.

'


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

https://www.advocate.com/business/2...F&tse_id=INF_1dda9180cbd711e7b926579f881108d6


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the Muslims.




Jews and Christians are all for the gays are they?


----------



## Tink (20 November 2017)

Homosexuals, heterosexuals, they are all men and women.
Homosexuals cannot have children.

Marriage is about the family.

It takes a man and a woman to have a baby and raise that child.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought,  is about being able to tell the TRUTH.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Jews and Christians are all for the gays are they?




No, but it's the Christians that come in for the most attention from the gay activists who rarely seem to try and get Muslims sacked from their jobs.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> If I click on this link I'll probably start getting ads for homosexual holidays




Great holidays if you want to get some free time for serious mans golf without worrying about the femme de corp insisting you show them some attention.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Jews and Christians are all for the gays are they?




True Christians = nope.
Jews = well look at all the apex actors out there in Hollywood who make a living out of subterfuge, sexual sluttiness, and publicity and they tend to all share the same ethnicity. The same ones who promote anti Anglo cultural norms and morals


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> No, but it's the Christians that come in for the most attention from the gay activists who rarely seem to try and get Muslims sacked from their jobs.




Huh?


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> True Christians = nope.
> Jews = well look at all the apex actors out there in Hollywood who make a living out of subterfuge, sexual sluttiness, and publicity and they tend to all share the same ethnicity. The same ones who promote anti Anglo cultural norms and morals




I guess it's their way of getting back at the Christians for thinking they should get back the Promised (then all die) so Christ can return 

BUt c'om, there's uncle Rupee in Hollywood doing God's work. Though rumour has it his empire is being offered up in the latest media consolidation drive.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Huh?




You didn't read my link the IBM employee targetted by gay activists and forced to resign.

Just for you, here it is again.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...t/news-story/a484c2cd65444a672ebf600ffbb3a6ee


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> I guess it's their way of getting back at the Christians for thinking they should get back the Promised (then all die) so Christ can return
> 
> BUt c'om, there's uncle Rupee in Hollywood doing God's work. Though rumour has it his empire is being offered up in the latest media consolidation drive.




The reason they got their promised land was because of largely christian fighting men from the Commonwealth countries who gifted them part of Palestine.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You didn't read my link the IBM employee targetted by gay activists and forced to resign.
> 
> Just for you, here it is again.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...t/news-story/a484c2cd65444a672ebf600ffbb3a6ee




I think Australian laws permit individuals to be bigots in private, or among friends. Just when you're in a public position, holding some role of influence... you can't use such position to influence bigotry.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> The reason they got their promised land was because of largely christian fighting men from the Commonwealth countries who gifted them part of Palestine.




Some British governor of the Middle East, in Britain's waning days as an imperial power, sign some declaration [Balfour?] that eventually lead to the UN giving part of Palestine to the Israelite. 

They've since been very hard at work liberating for themselves the rest and fencing in ghettos. All with mostly American financial and military support. So your Commonwealth can't take credit for the hard work of freedom and liberty on this one McGee.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> Some British governor of the Middle East, in Britain's waning days as an imperial power, sign some declaration [Balfour?] that eventually lead to the UN giving part of Palestine to the Israelite.
> 
> They've since been very hard at work liberating for themselves the rest and fencing in ghettos. All with mostly American financial and military support. So your Commonwealth can't take credit for the hard work of freedom and liberty on this one McGee.





You need to read a little more my contrary friend and remember that USofA history is rarely the whole story. Oil trade was a big factor in the Americans doing a number on the British.

Lookup Mandatory Palestine.

Also count back to an earlier war and Beersheba http://ontheworldmap.com/israel/city/beersheba/beersheba-location-on-the-israel-map-max.jpg


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2017)

Local pub owner posed this one to me last night:

_If two lesbians divorce how do they get 3/4 of the combined assets each? _

corollary:

I'm thinking I'd put my hat in the ring for the half the two male gays leave on the table.


----------



## tech/a (20 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Local pub owner posed this one to me last night:
> 
> _If two lesbians divorce how do they get 3/4 of the combined assets each? _
> 
> ...




Yeh same problem with the guys
After splitting 25% 25% (Or worse) who gets the left over 50%


----------



## PZ99 (20 November 2017)

tech/a said:


> Yeh same problem with the guys
> After splitting 25% 25% (Or worse) who gets the left over 50%



Easy. The kids 



grah33 said:


> Look again, it's fiction turned reality. If you looked at it where I referenced u too, you should have realized there are no camera tricks, no acting. They were wowed very much on that day. I'm confidant you won't find anybody alive that can debunk such a clip. I thought it a good response to the “Christianity is fairy tale/has no relevance” type of comments shown here.  It's a throwback.



Oh don't get me wrong I'm not calling camera tricks. But they see things differently.
For example when you press a button on your TV remote you don't see any light from the sender. Point it at your camera and it will glare with remarkable similarity to your video. It doesn't mean you've experienced Christianity. It means what you see isn't always what you get.


----------



## Macquack (20 November 2017)

Tink said:


> Homosexuals, heterosexuals, they are all men and women.
> Homosexuals cannot have children.
> 
> Marriage is about the family.
> ...



By Jesus if I haven't read that same post a dozen times.

The TRUTH is that this religious freedom bull**** is nothing more than maintaining the churches ability to continue to discriminate.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> You need to read a little more my contrary friend and remember that USofA history is rarely the whole story. Oil trade was a big factor in the Americans doing a number on the British.
> 
> Lookup Mandatory Palestine.
> 
> Also count back to an earlier war and Beersheba http://ontheworldmap.com/israel/city/beersheba/beersheba-location-on-the-israel-map-max.jpg




Dam! Is there a place the Poms didn't managed to messed up? 

Now, now, the Yanks didn't do a number on the Brits. They overreached and fell on the sword on by themselves just fine.

The Yanks did actually prevented the Poms from becoming a colony of the 1000 year Third Reich, then again prevented it from falling behind the Iron Curtain.

The least one could do for such White Knight is to become their second lieutenant and hand over all the valuable assets and colonies you tried to enlightened but "failed" 

oh btw, the new proxy wars in SE Asia is starting. Cambodia seems to be leaning Red and about to get sanctioned; the Yanks have finally figured out a way to feel the pain of the Muslims in Myanmar without ruining their image of Islam being evil and them clash of civilisation talking point.

I think a few close call on Duterte got him to open to talks with Yanks again.


----------



## Tink (21 November 2017)

Was this vote a survey or a plebiscite

I wonder how they are going to deal with Australian Constitution when it is based on our Christian heritage
I wonder how it will go with the High Court.

Just thoughts...

-----------------------

Protections for religious freedom, Macquack.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought.

As I have said, this country was built on our Christian heritage, including our Constitution.

Everyone has a mother and father
Marriage is based on a man and a woman becoming a father and a mother, and raising their children.
That is the TRUTH.

You are entitled to your view.


----------



## PZ99 (21 November 2017)

Tink, the YES brigade already challenged the SSM survey in the high court saying it was unconstitutional. They were accused by the NO brigade of blocking the people from having their say.

The high court unanimously ruled against the challenge 7-0 and the people had their say.

Are you now suggesting the NO brigade should challenge the outcome in the high court again?

What are the odds?


----------



## Logique (21 November 2017)

'Love is Love'...until you disagree with the Rainbow Fascists.

Andrew Hastie is an MP who fought for his country in military service.  Sadly he is the first of many who will cop this treatment, as the No campaign has predicted. Check the language of the 'Love is Love' crowd







> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/8e69f8780832ad164ecbfdc4e4bd9371
> 21 Nov 2017 - No fury like a same-sex voter scorned
> *The angry, foul-mouthed phone calls to Liberal MP Andrew Hastie’s electorate office started soon after the results of the same-sex marriage survey were declared last Wednesday*......
> ...One anonymous correspondent emailed Mr Hastie’s office: “Listen you f..king maggot. You are there to carry out the wishes of your electorate & not to enforce your own homophobic & bigoted views. Don’t be a c... Vote for it in parliament.”
> ...


----------



## overhang (21 November 2017)

Freedom of religion is just the freedom to discriminate.  It's not really possible in this case to protect both freedom of religion and peoples right not to be discriminated against.  Right now a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a couple entering a civil union, I don't see why the law should be changed so that they can refuse a marriage.  I baker would still be able to say "Just so you know I morally object to your marriage, would you still like me to proceed with your cake?".  Common sense is going to prevail under most circumstances in this case and the gay couple would probably choose another bake that is happy to have their business.


----------



## Tink (21 November 2017)

And the yes brigade were wrong.
It should have been a referendum on any changes, going by the constitution.

Is the constitution still valid, as we seem to have a mess in parliament.
Too many public servants warming their seats.


----------



## overhang (21 November 2017)

Howard altered the Marriage Act without any type of public vote, this is just grasping at straws now.  The will of the people have spoken and they have voted yes.


----------



## PZ99 (21 November 2017)

^ Correct. It should have been a referendum in 2004 when the marriage act was meddled with in the first place.

Moving the goalposts to suit your desired outcome is a step towards communism.

The mess in parliament is a result of pollies not doing their homework and they deserve the same sympathy as people get from the ATO when they mess up their tax returns: the COLD standard


----------



## Tink (21 November 2017)

So going against what the founding fathers had hoped for, we now move into tyranny?


----------



## PZ99 (21 November 2017)

More like "freedom".


----------



## Tisme (21 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Freedom of religion is just the freedom to discriminate.  It's not really possible in this case to protect both freedom of religion and peoples right not to be discriminated against.  Right now a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a couple entering a civil union, I don't see why the law should be changed so that they can refuse a marriage.  I baker would still be able to say "Just so you know I morally object to your marriage, would you still like me to proceed with your cake?".  Common sense is going to prevail under most circumstances in this case and the gay couple would probably choose another bake that is happy to have their business.





That's just supposition and rhetoric. 

We all know that we have lost our freedoms of association, freedom of custom to provide goods and services, etc. We are infact a utility of govt policy.

We all know that legislation in the future will be governed by on the prevailing interpretation in that future. This no more obvious than the citizenship test being black and white, but the LNP trying to make it a blur for it's own gain. No more obvious than the excuse of "love" as a binding agent for marriage in an act that does not embrace love as a considered variable.

We all know this is just another fad from a bored community acting out a rebellion looking for a cause and prepared to hijack any social norms to get the adrenalin going.

Just remember that when the legislation turns around and bites you or you rfamily on the bum ... it's all your fault for tinkering with a millenial custom.


----------



## Tisme (21 November 2017)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/a522aee7894e7aa7357600b85ffcdaac



> *The new deity is the secular religion of same-sex marriage*
> The Daily Telegraph
> November 20, 2017 11:00pm
> Subscriber only
> ...


----------



## overhang (21 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> That's just supposition and rhetoric.
> 
> We all know that we have lost our freedoms of association, freedom of custom to provide goods and services, etc. We are infact a utility of govt policy.
> 
> ...




Nothing is really altering here, you currently can't refuse service to gays because you disagree with their lifestyle choice and this shouldn't change.  You lost that right a long time ago and nothing is changing that.


----------



## Tisme (21 November 2017)

overhang said:


> Nothing is really altering here, you currently can't refuse service to gays because you disagree with their lifestyle choice and this shouldn't change.  You lost that right a long time ago and nothing is changing that.





Exactly, but we just added more layers to the prevent freedom resurfacing.


----------



## Tisme (21 November 2017)

luutzu said:


> oh btw, the new proxy wars in SE Asia is starting. Cambodia seems to be leaning Red and about to get sanctioned; the Yanks have finally figured out a way to feel the pain of the Muslims in Myanmar without ruining their image of Islam being evil and them clash of civilisation talking point.
> 
> I think a few close call on Duterte got him to open to talks with Yanks again.




Duterte is a petulant child and has been dealt with.

Cambodia has two masters to concern itself with : Vietnam and USA. If the Viets wanted it to be communist it would have done so when it invaded in 1979 and ruled for 10 years until Bill Hayden's peace negotiations finally broke through.


----------



## wayneL (21 November 2017)

Macquack said:


> By Jesus if I haven't read that same post a dozen times.
> 
> The TRUTH is that this religious freedom bull**** is nothing more than maintaining the churches ability to continue to discriminate.



So is it your position that no form of discrimination is acceptable? (be careful of the own goal here)


----------



## luutzu (22 November 2017)

Tisme said:


> Duterte is a petulant child and has been dealt with.
> 
> Cambodia has two masters to concern itself with : Vietnam and USA. If the Viets wanted it to be communist it would have done so when it invaded in 1979 and ruled for 10 years until Bill Hayden's peace negotiations finally broke through.




Cambodia was VN's junior but they've since gone Red further North. That's why the US is going to sanction Hun Sen [?]... for violating democracy or something.

That and the Comrades in Hanoi are too busy stealing their own peasants' land and what luxury food not to eat lest they go the way a couple of senior generals went after a visit to Beijing in which they didn't kiss the ring with enough passion. 

Yea, Duterte, what a childish right wing nut job. You don't permit extra-judicial killing of small time drug pushers and users you idiot. You should follow the US model of justice where you bring those stupid kids in, pretend to have a trial in which no lawyer represents them, then you lock them up for 10 to 20 years for pushing drugs.

At $40k a year per head, locking up some hundreds of thousands or a million... that's kaching, kaching, kar ching. 
On top of that, you can hire them out at market rate but pay them a buck a day; then charge their loved ones crap load for phone calls, visits etc. etc.

Justice, freedom and money.

As to appeasing the Chinese, that's even crazier. Handing the Chinese a few corals and rights to your economic zones, why would you do that when you can buy hundreds of millions in US made weapons, bullets and sovereignty to see which side blink first.


----------



## sptrawler (22 November 2017)

Now to address bestiality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

I suppose we have to get all the ducks lined up, before the NBN is up and running, then download censorship won't cause a drama. lol


----------



## Tisme (1 December 2017)

*How senators voted on same-sex marriage*

Australian Associated Press
2:24PM November 29, 2017
Save

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more...

'YES' VOTERS (43)

Liberal Simon Birmingham George Brandis David Bushby Mathias Cormann Jonathon Duniam Mitch Fifield Ian McDonald Nigel Scullion Anne Ruston James Paterson Jane Hume Marise Payne Linda Reynolds Scott Ryan Dean Smith

Labor

Carol Brown Catryna Bilyk Doug Cameron Kim Carr Anthony Chisholm Kimberley Kitching Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Claire Moore Louise Pratt Lisa Singh Anne Urquhart Murray Watt Penny Wong

Greens

Andrew Bartlett Richard Di Natale Sarah Hanson-Young Nick McKim Lee Rhiannon Janet Rice Jordon Steele-John Rachel Siewert Peter Whish-Wilson

Crossbench Stirling Griff; Rex Patrick NXT) David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democrats) Derryn Hinch

'NO' VOTERS (12)

Labor Chris Ketter Helen Polley

Liberals Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Eric Abetz Slade Brockman

Nationals John Williams Matt Canavan Barry O'Sullivan

Crossbench Lucy Gichuhi Fraser Anning Cory Bernardi Brian Burston (One Nation)

DID NOT VOTE (17)

Liberals Michaelia Cash David Fawcett James McGrath Zed Seselja Arthur Sinodinos (on leave)

Nationals Bridget McKenzie

Labor

Jacinta Collins Sam Dastyari Pat Dodson Don Farrell Alex Gallacher Katy Gallagher Gavin Marshall (overseas) Deb O'Neill Glenn Sterle

One Nation

Pauline Hanson Peter Georgiou


----------



## basilio (4 December 2017)

From Parliament House


_"I am very firmly of the view that families are the foundation of our society and ours would be a stronger society if more people were married and by that I mean formally, legally married and
fewer were divorced. If consulted by friends at about marital dramas I always encouraged the singles to marriage, the married to stick together and the wronged to forgive."


"Let's be honest with each other, the threat to traditional marriage is not from gay people but a lack of loving commitment, whether found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of that loveless desert in which so many marriages come to grief.


"Co-dependency is a good thing", he says, and gay people are better off together than "living alone comforted only by their respective cats".


(*coughs*)_


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2017)

More theatre with the Senate being misused for a proposal of an illegal marriage.

One rule for some ....................


----------



## basilio (4 December 2017)

You are so xxxxing lame Tisme.  Give it a rest.  Even Tony Abbott (God help us)  has discovered some form of good grace in acknowledging the will of the Australian public.


----------



## basilio (4 December 2017)

But back to our Parlimentarians waxing eloquent on their new found consensus.
_
"I think this is an uplifting moment in our nation but we need to be mindful to match our joy without humility. Humility to acknowledge that on so long on marriage equality, Australia has trailed the world. The humility to seek forgiveness from LGBTQI Australians, forgiveness for long delay, for the injustices and the indignities both great and small. The gift less for subjecting you and your relationships to public judgement. Forgiveness for the hurt and harm your and your families have suffered. We seek your forgiveness, we salute your courage and we thank you for including us in your historic moment."_


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2017)

basilio said:


> You are so xxxxing lame Tisme.  Give it a rest.  Even Tony Abbott (God help us)  has discovered some form of good grace in acknowledging the will of the Australian public.




I'm not surprised you have no sincerity when it comes to parliament and parliamentary esteem. You constantly show no regard for any respect of authority, discipline and self control.

So being as I really don't think you have the capacity for common sense and prefer the easy mob mentality social fads I forgive you for you lack of civic duty. See I'm the bigger man, if you are a man that is because you do come across as a teenager looking for causes.


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2017)

basilio said:


> But back to our Parlimentarians waxing eloquent on their new found consensus.
> _
> "I think this is an uplifting moment in our nation but we need to be mindful to match our joy without humility. Humility to acknowledge that on so long on marriage equality, Australia has trailed the world. The humility to seek forgiveness from LGBTQI Australians, forgiveness for long delay, for the injustices and the indignities both great and small. The gift less for subjecting you and your relationships to public judgement. Forgiveness for the hurt and harm your and your families have suffered. We seek your forgiveness, we salute your courage and we thank you for including us in your historic moment."_




you are so xxxxing lame basillo. Give it a rest. Even Tony Abbott (God help us) votes Liberal.


----------



## Logique (4 December 2017)

Spare a thought for this brave young Canadian woman, Lindsay Shepherd. 

We will have Australian Lindsay Shepherds soon enough.  Her offence - she provided a different perspective to her students on the use of personal pronouns, citing an author who stands by 'he' or 'she'.  For this she was accused of being trans-phobic, and subjected to a multi-professor interrogation.  Which fortunately she recorded. It is sickening to hear these university thought police in action.

As for Lib MP Tim Wilson, tell your fiance husband, I won't be accepting the wedding invitation, thanks all the same.  Using the floor of the Australian Reps for your juvenile posturing, disgraceful







> https://globalnews.ca/news/3870557/wilfred-laurier-freedom-of-expression-lindsay-shepherd/
> Updated: November 21, 2017
> *Laurier university’s handling of freedom of expression ‘inexcusable’: prof*
> By Maham Abedi, National Online Journalist, Breaking News, Global News
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2017)

Logique said:


> It is sickening to hear these university thought police in action.l



What of Company Board decisions regarding new company policy toward LGBTIQ types. Thou shalt welcome into the fold or else breach Code of Conduct. The above acronym is specifically about sexuality and it has become bigger than Ben Hur. Society being reconditioned as we type.

recondition
riːkənˈdɪʃ(ə)n/
_verb_
condition again.
"it was necessary to recondition the human mind to accept change"


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2017)

Logique said:


> As for Lib MP Tim Wilson, tell your fiance husband, I won't be accepting the wedding invitation, thanks all the same. Using the floor of the Australian Reps for your juvenile posturing, disgraceful




Totally agree, misuse of Parliament.


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Totally agree, misuse of Parliament.



It just adds to the circus atmosphere, that Parliament generates these days, what a joke.


----------



## Tisme (5 December 2017)

sptrawler said:


> It just adds to the circus atmosphere, that Parliament generates these days, what a joke.




You think?


----------



## PZ99 (5 December 2017)

If the slipper fits...


----------



## Tisme (6 December 2017)

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-cake-gay-rights-same-sex-colorado



> The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over a Colorado baker’s claim that free-speech and religious exercise protections exempt him from state law outlawing discrimination against gay people. We'll have regular updates and analysis from our Supreme Court team..............


----------



## Logique (6 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/supreme-court-cake-gay-rights-same-sex-colorado



This is why the SSM legislation must not pass the House of Reps un-amended.  Otherwise it just opens up a channel for vexatious litigants, such as in the current US case.  There's no link between SSM and civil rights, say the 'Yes' lobby - which is baloney.
Also:







> http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/09/why-court-cant-decide-masterpiece-bakery.html
> September 17, 2017 - *Why the Court Can't Decide Masterpiece Bakery* - By Eric Segall


----------



## Tisme (6 December 2017)

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...w/news-story/e9abbac5a0953e92f3344efa9c6df11f






> A LIBERAL MP has been put in his place in one of the most brutal, and brief, television interviews Australian politics has seen.
> 
> Tim Wilson appeared on Sky News on Thursday afternoon to talk politics with host Peter van Onselen, but their interview was cut sensationally short when the pro-gay marriage politician refused to engage on one issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (6 December 2017)

Tim Wilson interviewed on August 3rd.

SSM  approved  by Australian population at 61.8% on Nov 8th.  Australian Parliament with support from all major parties about to endorse the overwheming public support for allowing SSM.

Bye, bye Tisme and co.


----------



## Logique (7 December 2017)

The science is decided, all discussion must cease


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2017)

basilio said:


> Tim Wilson interviewed on August 3rd.
> 
> SSM  approved  by Australian population at 61.8% on Nov 8th.  Australian Parliament with support from all major parties about to endorse the overwheming public support for allowing SSM.
> 
> Bye, bye Tisme and co.




Just hang around bas. I'm going to keep reminding you of the farce you and other zombies wasted their votes on.

Already poster boy Tim has abandoned you and other fawning fanboys now he's getting what he wanted.

The cake shop controversy is real, not the fallacy you would have had people believe.

Parliament has been used like a side show alley where tacky grandstanding homosexual "proposals" can be made on taxpayer time without any member protests for fear of social media and ABC  backlash.


----------



## basilio (7 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> Just hang around bas. I'm going to keep reminding you of the farce you and other zombies wasted their votes on.
> 
> Already poster boy Tim has abandoned you and other fawning fanboys now he's getting what he wanted.
> 
> ...




Crap Tisme. Confecting a cake shop controversy whose existence lies in the die hard conservatives wanting to beat a drum that is broken. 

Rabbitting on about a gay marriage proposal in Parliament when such a historic change of policy has been made is just PETTY  STOOPID. !!  The enourmous waste of taxpayers time. ! What total dribble.  Is there nothing else that happens in parliament that could earn such a comment ? Or is just another way to beat the broken drum.


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2017)

basilio said:


> Crap Tisme. Confecting a cake shop controversy whose existence lies in the die hard conservatives wanting to beat a drum that is broken.
> 
> Rabbitting on about a gay marriage proposal in Parliament when such a historic change of policy has been made is just PETTY  STOOPID. !!  The enourmous waste of taxpayers time. ! What total dribble.  Is there nothing else that happens in parliament that could earn such a comment ? Or is just another way to beat the broken drum.





Settle Gretel. It's too late to keep beating the drums to cover your mistake. We'll see who is the bigger man when it comes around and bites your bum...and it will.


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2017)

This is sooo funny and just goes to show how arrested development manifests itself:


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2017)

Xmas party last night in camp central. The boys are feeling a bit flat about getting equal rights to messy divorces.

One actually gained crowd approval by stating they will have to find another agenda


----------



## basilio (24 December 2017)

The joys of same sex marriage (even when your straight)

*Two heterosexual Irish men marry to avoid inheritance tax on property *
Matt Murphy, 83, intends to leave his house to his carer Michael O’Sullivan, 58, but it would have left him with a €50,000 tax bill




Two Irish best friends, neither of whom is gay, have married to avoid paying inheritance tax. Photograph: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images
Pádraig Collins

Sat 23 Dec ‘17 21.03 AEDT   First published on Sat 23 Dec ‘17 14.21 AEDT


*Shares*
21k
 
* Comments*
 142 
Two Irish men have married in Dublin to avoid paying €50,000 in inheritance tax on a house.

Best friends Matt Murphy and Michael O’Sullivan are both heterosexual, but decided to get married when they discovered how much tax would have to be paid on the house Murphy, 83, intended to leave in his will to O’Sullivan, 58, who is his carer.

Same-sex marriage was legalised in Ireland following a referendum in May 2015.

“I’ve known Matty for 30 years. We became very friendly after my second relationship broke up,” O’Sullivan, a father of three, told the Irish Mirror.

“I have been bringing Matt out in my car to various parties and all that kind of thing. He became friends with all my friends, they all loved him.”

Each man went through some tough times, with O’Sullivan becoming homeless and Murphy suffering from giant cell arteritis, which affects the optic nerve.

“I stayed over with him for a while and eventually Matt said ‘Why don’t you come and stay here?’ I would go over and stay with him the odd time but never full time.”

Murphy could not afford to pay O’Sullivan as a carer. “Eventually Matt said the only way he could pay me was to leave me the house. He said he would give me the house so I have somewhere to live when he goes.”

However, O’Sullivan knew that would mean a huge tax bill and the house would have to be sold to pay it. He said Murphy “was chatting a friend down the country in Cashel, Co Tipperary, and she jokingly said we should get married.

“Then one night he turned around and said it to me and I said I would marry him.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...h-men-marry-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-on-house


----------



## Tisme (25 December 2017)

basilio said:


> The joys of same sex marriage (even when your straight)
> 
> *Two heterosexual Irish men marry to avoid inheritance tax on property *
> Matt Murphy, 83, intends to leave his house to his carer Michael O’Sullivan, 58, but it would have left him with a €50,000 tax bill
> ...





That was a Paul Hogan and Michael Caton movie yes?


----------



## basilio (25 December 2017)

Yeah Paul and Michael did a poorish movie.  But the two Irish guys have their own special relationship.
It's a good story.


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2018)

It seems the SSM magic bullet that, according to and including our resident Marxist oracle,  was supposed eliminate mental disease and self immolation:

http://www.fava.org.au/news/2016/high-suicide-rate-in-married-homosexuals-swedish-study/


----------



## Tisme (26 February 2018)

Thanks dickheds who voted yes. Now we are being ambushed with Apple ads with same gender kissing.

So much for "what people do in their own bedrooms"


----------



## drsmith (26 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanks dickheds who voted yes.



If this is the lingering rancour after a public vote, one can only imagine where the debate would still be if it was decided by parliamentary vote only.


----------



## tech/a (26 February 2018)

We are doing way more Same Sex couple projects in the domestic field.
Perhaps because its no longer hidden.
Good clients both are generally well employed and are terrific to deal with.
They know what they want and are prepared to pay for no hassle.

Not a yes voter --- but not a hater.


----------



## code12 (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanks dickheds who voted yes. Now we are being ambushed with Apple ads with same gender kissing.
> 
> So much for "what people do in their own bedrooms"



Try Using the off button - it's worked for us over dozens of years when all we see is hetrosexual advertising every second of the day.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Our Deputy PM's past comments have come back to haunt him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...vious-comments-about-gays-be-forgiven/9486684


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

code12 said:


> Try Using the off button - it's worked for us over dozens of years when all we see is hetrosexual advertising every second of the day.




The ones where males are personified as half wits, while their smug contemptuous wives look on at the bumbling fool they married?

Or the ones where the ads are defiantly targetted to the audience as a political statement and celebration of the alternative heterosexual experience ..... oh hang on they are banned because they might make people uneasy, but worse they might illicit the truth about how vulgar they are personally perceived by some?

You always have the ABC, no ads, but plenty 'o gay and gender bending promotion and content.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Our Deputy PM's past comments have come back to haunt him.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...vious-comments-about-gays-be-forgiven/9486684





Didn't I predict this the other day? The bohemians, hipsters and socialists would have a hit list of  afflicted unfortunates who have a strong awareness of gender role violation.

He probably said what he said before the manual of what you are allowed to say was published... back in the days when it was fashionable to have thoughts in lockstep with the spoken and written words.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Our Deputy PM's past comments have come back to haunt him.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...vious-comments-about-gays-be-forgiven/9486684




I believe the local gay community has accepted the comments were made in another time and place and don't reflect his current attitude. ie he's not a hater.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> I believe the local gay community has accepted the comments were made in another time and place and don't reflect his current attitude. ie he's not a hater.





 You're kidding right !!! 

Here's a thought, try hanging out with group of men (hetero and homo normalised mix) for a few months without you opening your trap and let the conversation flow. You'll soon see what most blokes really feel and apology won't be anywhere on the radar. Then try your usual countervailing warrior arguments and see how long you are included in the group after that.


----------



## Junior (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanks dickheds who voted yes. Now we are being ambushed with Apple ads with same gender kissing.
> 
> So much for "what people do in their own bedrooms"




Change the channel.  Don't buy Apple products.

I find the majority of TV advertising to be offensive.  I use the mute button or watch Netflix, easy solution.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> You always have the ABC, no ads, but plenty 'o gay and gender bending promotion and content.




Are they that obvious ?


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> You're kidding right !!!
> 
> Here's a thought, try hanging out with group of men (hetero and homo normalised mix) for a few months without you opening your trap and let the conversation flow. You'll soon see what most blokes really feel and apology won't be anywhere on the radar. Then try your usual countervailing warrior arguments and see how long you are included in the group after that.



Your just a nasty piece of shite Tisme. 
Shut the xuck up will you and live and let live.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Local response from Riverina gay alliannce.

_It demanded to know how the gay community could demand rights when its “sordid behaviour” was causing “the greatest medical dilemma known to man - AIDS”.

McCormack has since apologised and recanted a number of times.

Even Rainbow Riverina, an advocacy group for LBGTI people and their families, appears to have all but forgiven him all these years later - the group wished him well on Monday.

“As a committee, we feel that any comments made many years ago were, in the context of the times, what one could consider to be a reasonably held position by many people, given that many had zero or limited experience with homosexuality generally, with the added fear and hysteria of the AIDS crisis contributing to the holding of these views,” Rainbow Riverina spokeswoman Kat van der Wijngaart said.

“Mr McCormack has shown he has moved forward in his thinking, as he did vote ‘Yes’ in the marriage equality amendment to the Marriage Act, accurately reflecting the view of his electorate.

“We have to be mature and give him the benefit of the doubt, as we would with any other person.”

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...nister-michael-mccormack-20180226-p4z1st.html_


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

tech/a said:


> We are doing way more Same Sex couple projects in the domestic field.
> Perhaps because its no longer hidden.
> Good clients both are generally well employed and are terrific to deal with.
> They know what they want and are prepared to pay for no hassle.
> ...





That's a different issue. I have been transacting business for decades with couples and individuals, but it's business, not a love in.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> That's a different issue. I have been transacting business for decades with couples and individuals, but it's business, not a love in.




It's just respect for others and allowing people to live their lives without trying to poison the atmosphere around them.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanks dickheds who voted yes. Now we are being ambushed with Apple ads with same gender kissing.
> 
> So much for "what people do in their own bedrooms"



Samsung Galaxy S9 pre-sales have started.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Samsung Galaxy S9 pre-sales have started.




Yes, Are there any Amish brands?


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Anyone see this story in The Age ?   

*And this guy was head of the Professional Standards command.* What a farce.

*Top cop resigns in disgrace over link to racist and obscene posts *

One of Victoria Police's most senior officers and the head of the force's Professional Standards Command has resigned in disgrace over racist and obscene posts made under the pseudonym Vernon Demerest.

Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin, head of Professional Standards and a police officer of 40 years, was last week referred to Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog after _The Age_ revealed he posted shocking comments under the online pseudonym "Vernon Demerest".

_The Age_ revealed on Monday that that nom de plume has been also linked to several vile posts on social media under the Demerest alias, including references to "cheating dagos", "third world dullards", "Indian and Pakistani peasant" and "jigaboo".

Within an hour of _The Age_ revealing the new allegations, Mr Guerin resigned from Victoria Police. His resignation was accepted by the chief commissioner.

_The Age_ can reveal that Demerest posted vile insults under YouTube videos – often using profane language or referring to sodomy and rape. Some of the comments are too offensive to publish.
*
Under a video of a Somali pirate attack, Demerest posted: "I'm afraid this is what happens when the lash is abolished. The jigaboo runs riot and out of control. The 'boo needs the lash. The 'boo wants the lash. Deep, deep down the 'boo knows the lash provides the governance and stability." *

Under a video of Argentina losing to Holland in the 1998 World Cup, he posted: "Wonderful to see greasy, diving, cheating dagoes get their just reward. Bitter, lingering defeat."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/vic...racist-and-obscene-posts-20180226-p4z1u5.html


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> It's just respect for others and allowing people to live their lives without trying to poison the atmosphere around them.




Wot!? Try tuning into frequency band FM "Reality"


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> Anyone see this story in The Age ?
> 
> *And this guy was head of the Professional Standards command.* What a farce.
> 
> ...





Eventually happens to most men. Some of them break the shackles that bind, many others do as they are told and to behave by their better halves:


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin, head of Professional Standards and a police officer of 40 years, was last week referred to Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog after _The Age_ revealed he posted shocking comments under the online pseudonym "Vernon Demerest".




Pretty disgusting, but corruption ? That's when you get a personal monetary benefit from doing your job and I can't see that he has.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Wot!? Try tuning into frequency band FM "Reality"




Reality ?  Right Tizzie. In my reality I don't hear people being so offensive.   They are just nicer people who arn't nasty xhits. 

Maybe you just need to be told LOUD AND OFTEN.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> Reality ?  Right Tizzie. In my reality I don't hear people being so offensive.   They are just nicer people who arn't nasty xhits.
> 
> Maybe you just need to be told LOUD AND OFTEN.





You're too busy crusading, threatening and shouting down people to hear the messages from the cheap seats.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> You're too busy crusading, threatening and shouting down people to hear the messages from the cheap seats.




So your in the cheap seats mate ? Is that where we hear the undiluted truth ? Just how sick these poofs and lezzos are ? Classy stuff.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Pretty disgusting, but corruption ? That's when you get a personal monetary benefit from doing your job and I can't see that he has.




I don't think it was to do with corruption. More just the reality that such a foul mouthed bigot couldn't be head of the Professional Standerds section in the Police force.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> I don't think it was to do with corruption. More just the reality that such a foul mouthed bigot couldn't be head of the Professional Standerds section in the Police force.




Well, he was referred to the anti corruption watchdog it said.


----------



## basilio (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, he was referred to the anti corruption watchdog it said.




Yes he was.  The context for that can be read below.  I think that was the only body that could take action. Anyway 4 days later the fallout from his other comments as Vernon Demerest has taken its  toll.

* Victoria Police integrity boss ‘embarrassed’ by Facebook actions *
Brett Guerin told to take leave after posting comments about police officials under the fake profile ‘Vernon Demerest’

Calla Wahlquist

 @callapilla 
Fri 23 Feb 2018 00.48 EST   Last modified on Fri 23 Feb 2018 00.54 EST


*Shares*
28




The pseudonym ‘Vernon Demerest’ used by Brett Guerin on Facebook is a reference to a character played by Dean Martin (pictured). Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
The head of the Victoria Police integrity unit has been ordered to take leave after admitting he made a fake Facebook profile under the name “Vernon Demerest” and used it to make inappropriate remarks about the former police commissioner Christine Nixon.

Brett Guerin, the assistant commissioner for professional standards, said he was “embarrassed” by his actions, which also included disparaging comments about the former police association president Paul Mullett and the former chief commissioner Kel Glare.

“For the head of ethical standards to be trolling over a period is really beyond belief,” Glare told Fairfax Media. 

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ntegrity-boss-embarrassed-by-facebook-actions


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> So your in the cheap seats mate ? Is that where we hear the undiluted truth ? Just how sick these poofs and lezzos are ? Classy stuff.




Yes, yes, no, yes


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, he was referred to the anti corruption watchdog it said.




 Corruption of feelings ... hurt feelings are a Greek Tragedy when it comes to SJWs, Greens and Feminists.... there is no greater pain.


----------



## wayneL (27 February 2018)

code12 said:


> Try Using the off button - it's worked for us over dozens of years when all we see is hetrosexual advertising every second of the day.



Yeah,  how dare they pitch their priducts and services to the 97% of the population who are biologically normative.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

Junior said:


> Change the channel.  Don't buy Apple products.
> 
> I find the majority of TV advertising to be offensive.  I use the mute button or watch Netflix, easy solution.




Now I can identify the INXS song to the blatant cynical Apple target marketing I can quickly mute and avert my eyes.... the song will be lost to a brand now.

Yes I'm a fan of Netflix, Stan and Putlocker, but it is sad that I can't turn on the ABC without shock ambush marketing ... their latest a schlock theatre about the gay warriors fighting for social acceptance in a dissonant, intolerant, evil society tainted by white anglo Christian virtue.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

basilio said:


> Your just a nasty piece of shite Tisme.
> Shut the xuck up will you and live and let live.




 I did say dip5heets who voted with the spin will have to wear the consequences of your social abrogation for the sheeple choices they made. 

I'm just reminding you of your responsibility to be accountable for the waves upon waves of bizzare sexual grooming that are coming our way...with a bit of luck even your prodigy and theirs will become active participants in the new sexual revolution and you can be so proud you were a foundation flag waver.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)




----------



## code12 (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> The ones where males are personified as half wits, while their smug contemptuous wives look on at the bumbling fool they married?
> 
> Or the ones where the ads are defiantly targetted to the audience as a political statement and celebration of the alternative heterosexual experience ..... oh hang on they are banned because they might make people uneasy, but worse they might illicit the truth about how vulgar they are personally perceived by some?
> 
> You always have the ABC, no ads, but plenty 'o gay and gender bending promotion and content.



turn the lot off. Or keep moaning and whinging..which you are ..yawn....


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

code12 said:


> turn the lot off. Or keep moaning and whinging..which you are ..yawn....




I'll choose the latter....if that's alright by you of course, I wouldn't want to offend you by doing something of my own free will.


----------



## HelloU (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanks dickheds who voted yes....."






Tisme said:


> ...if that's alright by you of course, I wouldn't want to offend you by doing something of my own free will.



...


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'll choose the latter....if that's alright by you of course, I wouldn't want to offend you by doing something of my own free will.



You seem to be the one moaning about being offended, it seems those that moan about things being to PC, moan the most when they see things that they don't consider PC to them.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> You seem to be the one moaning about being offended, it seems those that moan about things being to PC, moan the most when they see things that they don't consider PC to them.




I guess there's something that for all of us ... if we could work out the logic behind it.

I'm never offended, to be so would be an admission I care what lesser people say. Involuntary revulsion reflex is what's going on.... something fairy men can't ever experience....you would have read about it I'm sure.


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm never offended, to be so would be an admission I care what lesser people say.




you seem to care a whole lot.


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> you seem to care a whole lot.




Well you would be wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> it seems those that moan about things being to PC, moan the most when they see things that they don't consider PC to them.




Please explain with examples ?


----------



## Tisme (27 February 2018)




----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Please explain with examples ?



Take Tisme as the example, claims he hates Pc, yet constantly Moans about homosexual references.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Take Tisme as the example, claims he hates Pc, yet constantly Moans about homosexual references.




Take me as an example.

I don't like PC when it gets in the way of the facts.

Take the attached story about child sexual assault in Tennant Creek.

It's all the government's fault apparently. There does not appear to be any word of criticism against the community members who allowed this to happen. It's basically down to whitey's incompetence that the rate of child molestation is many times higher in indigenous families than the anglo population.

How about a bit of responsibility acceptance from the indigenous community ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...rnment-to-address-tennant-creek-abuse/9473002


----------



## Tisme (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Take Tisme as the example, claims he hates Pc, yet constantly Moans about homosexual references.





If you can't grasp the concept there is little merit in trying to explain it. This would explain why you are too quick to open our moral, geographical and social boundaries to barbarians at the gate.

Like I said, you can argue all you like, but you and your mob will be held responsible for the consequences of your vandalism. And I'm just the person to keep reminding you, whether you want to call it moaning or what or really is.

It's you who will have to suffer your children and their children being deprived the freedoms you were born with, but have managed to heavily dilute in your short time here because you think with self indulgent guilt rather than the tribal good.

Trust me you will know I'm right when you look back in old age at the dystopian mess you championed.


----------



## Junior (28 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> If you can't grasp the concept there is little merit in trying to explain it. This would explain why you are too quick to open our moral, geographical and social boundaries to barbarians at the gate.
> 
> Like I said, you can argue all you like, but you and your mob will be held responsible for the consequences of your vandalism. And I'm just the person to keep reminding you, whether you want to call it moaning or what or really is.
> 
> ...




I still don't grasp how two men or two women marrying each other deprives anyone of freedom.  In fact, it really seems like an expansion of freedom.  Freedom to marry regardless of gender.


----------



## dutchie (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How about a bit of responsibility acceptance from the indigenous community ?




No No No You can't say that. That's racist.

But saying it's whiteys fault is most suitable.


----------



## Tisme (28 February 2018)

Junior said:


> I still don't grasp how two men or two women marrying each other deprives anyone of freedom.  In fact, it really seems like an expansion of freedom.  Freedom to marry regardless of gender.




I think I have explained that from the outset and even admitted my own duplicity in the usefulness of marriage. 

The trouble with these arguments is that all sorts of malignant lies are told about history, genetics, etc. to counter the other. 

I do hope the good that comes out of this is that homosexuals can no longer use their fringe status as excuse for special treatment... that they must accept being included in the general population's penalties for breaching the continuous stream of new anti personal, crowd controlling policing laws as they are introduced. They need to share the bite of the nanny state now they are" equal".


----------



## Tink (28 February 2018)

Margaret Court and her achievements in Melbourne, including the Margaret Court Arena, is an example of what Melbourne has become, imv.

She is being attacked because of her views in her own country in our state.

---------------------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/page-26


----------



## Tisme (28 February 2018)

Tink said:


> Margaret Court and her achievements in Melbourne, including the Margaret Court Arena, is an example of what Melbourne has become, imv.
> 
> She is being attacked because of her views in her own country in our state.
> 
> ...




Competition between Victoria and West Oz?


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

Tink said:


> Margaret Court and her achievements in Melbourne, including the Margaret Court Arena, is an example of what Melbourne has become, imv.
> 
> She is being attacked because of her views in her own country in our state.
> 
> ...




No matter how good at sports you are/were, it doesn't mean everyone has to continue worshipping you after we find out you are a dick.


----------



## wayneL (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No matter how good at sports you are/were, it doesn't mean everyone has to continue worshipping you after we find out you are a dick.



She's a dick because she has traditional values in common with most people get age? 

Hey,  she ain't my cup 'o tea,  but I think you're name-calling the wrong person,  Komrade.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

wayneL said:


> She's a dick because she has traditional values in common with most people get age?
> 
> Hey,  she ain't my cup 'o tea,  but I think you're name-calling the wrong person,  Komrade.




No, she's is a dick because she campaigns to restrict peoples rights, and force her religious views on others.

If it wasn't for the campaigning part, I wouldn't have a problem she is free to hold an opinion, and have a religion, but to force them on others makes her a dick.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, she's is a dick because she campaigns to restrict peoples rights, and force her religious views on others.
> 
> If it wasn't for the campaigning part, I wouldn't have a problem she is free to hold an opinion, and have a religion, but to force them on others makes her a dick.




Well she got a tennis arena named after her because of her tennis ability not her religious views, so that makes Navratilova and Billie Jean dicks for calling for her stadium to be renamed.


----------



## wayneL (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, she's is a dick because she campaigns to restrict peoples rights, and force her religious views on others.
> 
> If it wasn't for the campaigning part, I wouldn't have a problem she is free to hold an opinion, and have a religion, but to force them on others makes her a dick.



There's a lot of dicks then,  like most in the SSM lobby, SJWs and Marxist "intelligentsia ".

Hoist by your own petard there bro.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well she got a tennis arena named after her because of her tennis ability not her religious views, so that makes Navratilova and Billie Jean dicks for calling for her stadium to be renamed.



Say hitler was good at tennis and had a stadium named after him, once we realised he was a dick, there would be nothing wrong with calling for the stadium to be renamed.

If a person wants to be remembered for their tennis, and have a stadium named after them, they should probably keep their public image all about tennis, otherwise they may taint their own reputation and then people won't want to remember them anymore.


----------



## Value Collector (28 February 2018)

wayneL said:


> There's a lot of dicks then,  like most in the SSM lobby, SJWs and Marxist "intelligentsia ".
> 
> .




Which rights are they trying to deny people?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> otherwise they may taint their own reputation .




Only in the eyes of some.

Navratilova and King are probably more remembered for being lesbians, overt and covert that they are for their tennis.


----------



## wayneL (28 February 2018)

Equating Court with Hitler is ludicrous and is way beyond the pail there Sunshine


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No matter how good at sports you are/were, it doesn't mean everyone has to continue worshipping you after we find out you are a dick.




I must say I find that post transparently disrespectful of Tink and a bridge a tad too far. Just saying.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Equating Court with Hitler is ludicrous and is way beyond the pail there Sunshine




Sometimes it easy to understand analogies if you use extreme examples, I used hitler as the example because most people would agree that even though he was once held in high regard, he later fell from grace due to his opinions growing unpopular.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Sometimes it easy to understand analogies if you use extreme examples, I used hitler as the example because most people would agree that even though he was once held in high regard, he later fell from grace due to his opinions growing unpopular.




But Margaret Court gave pleasure to tennis fans, she didn't slaughter millions of people.

Some perspective is needed here.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> But Margaret Court gave pleasure to tennis fans, .




Yeah, and then she started pushing her religion on people and trying to restrict peoples rights.

Once the public starts remembering you for the bad stuff you have done, rather than the inspiring stuff, then they may not want to have public infrastructure named after you anymore. 


> she didn't slaughter millions of people.




I didn't say she did.

I simply used hitler as the example, because most people would agree that his name leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, so regardless of how good he was a tennis people would agree having a stadium named after him now repulses people rather than inspires.

Now Margret Court is a less extreme example, but due to her actions a lot of people are repulsed by her name, hence why some people would like the name changed.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> a lot of people are repulsed by her name, hence why some people would like the name changed.




I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.


----------



## Value Collector (1 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.



and they have the right to protest don't they?

But I don't think many Australians below the age of 40 would know who Margret court is if it wasn't for hearing about her religious and political views. So they name isn't really inspiring people, but it would be annoying to those who only know about her because of the drama she caused.

I don't care if the name is changed or not.


----------



## wayneL (1 March 2018)

Pardon me,  perhaps my interest had been diverted on what I think are more important issues... What rights was she trying to restrict?


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.




Usual 1% ers who can't even be fagged to know their national history because they just don't care. 

Life before them was just a precursory darkness preceding the age of enlightenment corresponding with their own messianic birth.


----------



## Junior (1 March 2018)

She does come across as a nasty individual.


----------



## Tisme (1 March 2018)

Junior said:


> She does come across as a nasty individual.





She's just old skool. That generation never brooked nonsense and never backed down from a fight .

Her's is an outstanding achievement in tennis and unique from any other player. Whatever drives her worked.


----------



## Tink (2 March 2018)

We are all entitled to our view.
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

As I mentioned in another thread -

_Good on you, Margaret Court.
Don't let them silence you.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...ean-kings-transgender-criticism-ng-b88713610z_

Faith - Family - Truth - Freedom.

-------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/tennis.5619/page-8#post-972094


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2018)

Tink said:


> We are all entitled to our view.
> Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.




So they have the right to request the name be changed then, or does freedom of speech only apply to the cause you agree with?


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Pardon me,  perhaps my interest had been diverted on what I think are more important issues... What rights was she trying to restrict?



I think you know Wayne, I am not getting into the whole debate again, Australia has spoken issue.


----------



## Tisme (2 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So they have the right to request the name be changed then, or does freedom of speech only apply to the cause you agree with?




When has Tink, or any of us, prevented your freedom of speech?


----------



## Tink (2 March 2018)

Margaret Court has given her service in our country.

What was she standing up for?

Family (mother and father) and children.


----------



## Tisme (2 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> When has Tink, or any of us, prevented your freedom of speech?




and of course none of us are allowed to utter a word about LGBT, females, etc without risk of legal penalty for vilification, only committed by white skinned people .... the dystopian brakes on freedom speech by Bas' camp.


----------



## wayneL (2 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I think you know Wayne, I am not getting into the whole debate again, Australia has spoken issue.



If you are referring to SSM,  you are indulginging in doublethink. When MC spoke against that,  it was not yet a right and had not been anywhere until recently. Ergo, she was not trying to restrict any right at all.

She was merely exercising her own right of free speech.


----------



## wayneL (2 March 2018)

Pinker on free speech.  He is a leftist speaker I quite enjoy.


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> If you are referring to SSM,  you are indulginging in doublethink. When MC spoke against that,  it was not yet a right and had not been anywhere until recently. Ergo, she was not trying to restrict any right at all.
> 
> She was merely exercising her own right of free speech.




you are confusing rights with laws, eg blacks had a right to freedom even when it was lawful to enslave them.

But as I said, I am done with this thread, Australia has spoke, the nay sayers are in the minority,


----------



## wayneL (2 March 2018)

Is polygamy a right? 

How about incest between consenting family members?

How about the right of a minor to have sex with whomever they want? 

I posit that some rights are inalienable,  others subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (2 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Is polygamy a right?
> 
> How about incest between consenting family members?
> .




Quite possibly, I mean I can't see any reason those relations should be banned. and if they are banned, it should be based on rational real world arguments, not a persons religion.

Of course the religious are free to make and live by what ever rules they like, but they have no right to try and make people who aren't in their cult obey those rules.


----------



## Tisme (3 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Quite possibly, I mean I can't see any reason those relations should be banned. and if they are banned, it should be based on rational real world arguments, not a persons religion.
> 
> Of course the religious are free to make and live by what ever rules they like, but they have no right to try and make people who aren't in their cult obey those rules.





So those of us who object to the secular religious orthodoxy of social justice should continue to put in the good fight. 

We should resist those who worship the false Gods who supposedly fight against homophobia, racism, sexism, uniquity and national pride.


----------



## sptrawler (5 March 2018)

Just watched a couple of minutes, of the Sydney gay mardi gra, from the positive ramping by the commentators I would guess gay tourism will go through the roof. lol
Jeez the way they were talking it up, I was thinking,  I'm missing out.


----------



## Tisme (5 March 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Just watched a couple of minutes, of the Sydney gay mardi gra, from the positive ramping by the commentators I would guess gay tourism will go through the roof. lol
> Jeez the way they were talking it up, I was thinking,  I'm missing out.




Used to be stacked with friends and family to swell the numbers. Now it's the in thing I'm wondering what the real split is.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Used to be stacked with friends and family to swell the numbers. Now it's the in thing I'm wondering what the real split is.




People buy tickets to freak shows in circuses too.


----------



## Tisme (5 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> People buy tickets to freak shows in circuses too.




Yes, but still found myself looking away from the ambush marketing masquerading as news.

Hard to watch sleaze when you have a natural aversion to it and zip inclination to deny a strong innate sense of natural physiological construction and purpose.

Not sure we should be celebrating people with a screw loose, it is kinda court jester stuff and emblematic of a human need for theatre.

Should we have a parade for down syndromers too?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Not sure we should be celebrating people with a screw loose, it is kinda court jester stuff and emblematic of a human need for theatre.




I think it's basically immaturity and insecurity.

Those who are happy heterosexuals don't feel the need to revel in such and ram it down other people's throats. (in a manner of speaking ).


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-04/mardi-gras-leaves-a-bad-smell-for-residents/9507346


----------



## Tink (5 March 2018)

Political correctness is a poison that lets evil flourish.

_When every benefit received is a right, there is no place for good manners, let alone for gratitude.
― Theodore Dalrymple_

--------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_


----------



## Value Collector (5 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it's basically immaturity and insecurity.
> 
> Those who are happy heterosexuals don't feel the need to revel in such and ram it down other people's throats. .




Are you sure about that, there is plenty of heterosexual Mardi Gras and other celebrations are the world.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Are you sure about that, there is plenty of heterosexual Mardi Gras and other celebrations are the world.





And I think those people are immature and insecure as well.


----------



## Value Collector (5 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And I think those people are immature and insecure as well.




it was the claim in your second paragraph I was address.

eg 



> Those who are happy heterosexuals don't feel the need to revel in such and ram it down other people's throats.




I don't really see a difference.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I don't really see a difference.




So you think the Mardi Gras is a parade of the immature and insecure ?


----------



## Value Collector (5 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you think the Mardi Gras is a parade of the immature and insecure ?




I didn't comment at all on your first paragraph, I was only referencing your second paragraph.

I think all the different versions of Mardi Gras and carnival are just about having fun, celebrating sexuality, I would much rather that than a culture that celebrates sexual repression. 

Whether they are mainly attended by people who are immature and insecure I don't know, and I don't think it matters.


----------



## Macquack (5 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Not sure we should be celebrating people with *a screw loose*, it is kinda court jester stuff and emblematic of a human need for theatre.
> 
> Should we have a parade for down syndromers too?



We are not all perfect specimens like you.

I am all for a down syndrome parade if it makes them feel more included.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I would much rather that than a culture that celebrates sexual repression.




Are you saying heterosexuality is sexual repression ?


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you saying heterosexuality is sexual repression ?



??? Where did I say that, there videos I put up are heterosexual people.


I said Mardi Gras and carnival in all there forms, are a celebration of sexuality and I would rather that than sexual repression, most Mardi Gras are heterosexual people celebrating.

Live and let live bud, it’s not hurting anyone.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

But there has to be some sexual repression,  there has to be a line somewhere. 

We ask,  nay,  demand under penalty of prosecution that pedophiles supress their sexuality. 

We teach that there be no sex between family members and is illegal.

The #metoo movement asks that a wholw gender repress their sexuality. 

Dammit,  I'd like to pork about half of my clientele,  but I have to suppress that under implicit threat of divorce.

Some peoples sexuality include animals ferchrissake...  The law demands that be suppressed too. 

We know that line has shifted recently with regards to homosexuality. Yet that arbitrary  line of sexual repression remains. 

Or is #loveislove?


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> But there has to be some sexual repression,  there has to be a line somewhere.
> 
> We ask,  nay,  demand under penalty of prosecution that pedophiles supress their sexuality.
> 
> ...




Yes there has been sexual repression for a long time, and in the case of the church it created pedophiles, I didn’t say there isn’t sexual repression, I said I prefer not to repress people’s sexuality.

Me too, is not sexual repression.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

Macquack said:


> We are not all perfect specimens like you.
> .




I think you have patently established yourself as a walking truth of that a few times before.

I believe there is also a cure around the corner for hate fueled congenital caustic sarcasm (HFCCS), trying to masquerade as intelligence.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes there has been sexual repression for a long time, *and in the case of the church it created pedophiles,* I didn’t say there isn’t sexual repression, I said I prefer not to repress people’s sexuality.
> 
> Me too, is not sexual repression.



n?
You saying pedophilia is a church invention?  That's a joke right? Who created gays then?


----------



## basilio (6 March 2018)

_Value Collector said: ↑
Yes there has been sexual repression for a long time, *and in the case of the church it created pedophiles,* I didn’t say there isn’t sexual repression, I said I prefer not to repress people’s sexuality.

Me too, is not sexual repression._



Tisme said:


> n?
> You saying pedophilia is a church invention?  That's a joke right? Who created gays then?




Pedophiles (and other sexual abuse) were allowed to flourish in the Catholic Church and others for many reasons, almost all of which were created by the institutions.
1) *The institutions were almost always all male.*  This in itself encouraged people with homosexual interest to join and in particular those who had an interest in children.

2) *They were a law unto themself. * In communities where the Church was the strong religious authority no civil organisations were prepared to challenge the right or role of the Church as moral guardians. Check out how the police force was nobbled  from above when people came to make complaints about sexual abuse.

3) *In the Catholic Church at least Canon Law forbids people to contact civil authorites about abuses in the Church*. Any issue had to be dealt with in house. (And we know how well that worked)

4) *The Church was always aware  and  determined to protect its right to be the guardian of public morals. *In that context any suggestion of impropriety or abuse had to be managed away or denied. In a society where the Church was powerful and civil institutions unable to challenge behaviours sexual abuse flourished.

5) *The Catholic Church unwittingly increased the risks of child abuse by demanding children go to confession weekly from the age of 7. *This happened around 1910  and as a result young children went into confession every week and particular priests used this opportunity to prey on children.

*How confession enabled abuse in the Catholic Church*
Wednesday 9 April 2014 10:02AM




*Image:* According to John Cornwell, confession is the cause of many of the Catholic Church's ills. (Getty Images) 
_Confession is one of the most recognisable Catholic rituals, but it hasn’t always existed in the way we recognise today. A new book argues that the modern form of the sacrament is the root cause of many of the church’s problems, from child sex abuse to dwindling congregations, writes *Alex McClintock*.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/5375766_


----------



## basilio (6 March 2018)

*Child abuse royal commission: Victoria Police admits 'Catholic mafia' covered up allegations of abuse*
By Sarah Farnsworth
Updated 9 Dec 2015, 8:00am




* Photo:* Former Mildura policeman Denis Ryan said Catholic officers protected abusive priests. (AAP: Tracey Nearmy) 
*Related Story:* Pell overheard discussing priest's abuse with colleague, inquiry hears
More than four decades after former Mildura police officer Denis Ryan was stopped from investigating allegations of child sexual abuse by a Catholic priest, Victoria Police has admitted a conspiracy to cover up the crimes went right to the top.

Mr Ryan detailed to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse how his attempt to investigate allegations against Monsignor John Day in the 1970s was thwarted by what he describes as a "Catholic mafia" within the force.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...-up-allegations-of-abuse-inquiry-told/7010442


----------



## basilio (6 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think you have patently established yourself as a walking truth of that a few times before.
> 
> I believe there is also a cure around the corner for hate fueled congenital caustic sarcasm (HFCCS), trying to masquerade as intelligence.




Nasty Tisme.. But hey everyone has a right use the stiletto don't they ?


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

basilio said:


> _Value Collector said: ↑
> Yes there has been sexual repression for a long time, *and in the case of the church it created pedophiles,* I didn’t say there isn’t sexual repression, I said I prefer not to repress people’s sexuality.
> 
> Me too, is not sexual repression._
> ...





What is this .. you guys forming a wagon ring or something?

Surely, pedophilia would be the same indomitable drive characteristics as any perversion of natural sex is. How can you suggest otherwise?

On one hand you guys insult us by demanding people with aberrant desires are "just like us" as if you think your metal state is normal and that you speak for normal people. Then you have the audacity to apply moral and spiritual filters to people that you consider a bridge too far, as if you are the morals guardians when you are actually three rungs up the 20 step ladder yourselves.

In the absence of any genetic or innate proofs, you can't have it both ways, either you embrace all appetites as personal liberties or you make a lie of your presumptions.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Canon Law forbids




Religious law can't "forbid" people  from doing their civic duty.

If a priest went to the police over abuse and was sacked by the Church, he could have a case for wrongful dismissal.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Nasty Tisme.. But hey everyone has a right use the stiletto don't they ?





No mate I wasn't being nasty. That member is a troll just like you; that is why you identify with his indent desire to be personally "nasty", hateful and abusive.

Now you have been blooded in the world of "he who shouts and abuses loses"  perhaps you can find a way to be successful in business, rather than hand to mouth, blame the world success.

Elevate yourself above the chanting masses my son, it's a much better view from up here.


----------



## basilio (6 March 2018)

And of course Tisme, elevated as you are,  you can't be a nasty little troll. 
Because of course ... you say so.


----------



## basilio (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Religious law can't "forbid" people  from doing their civic duty.
> 
> If a priest went to the police over abuse and was sacked by the Church, he could have a case for wrongful dismissal.




Good luck on that Sir Rumpole. And think about  it  for a minute. The Church forbiding people to speak to civil authorities on "church issues" (which covered a multitude of sins) is akin to the no disclosure laws operating in cabinets, business and many other institutions.  Whistle blowers get it in the neck regardless of the institution. The Church simply puts it in a religious framework.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Good luck on that Sir Rumpole. And think about  it  for a minute. The Church forbiding people to speak to civil authorities on "church issues" (which covered a multitude of sins) is akin to the no disclosure laws operating in cabinets, business and many other institutions.  Whistle blowers get it in the neck regardless of the institution. The Church simply puts it in a religious framework.




Covering up a crime is a serious offence. 

No religious law can override criminal law.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

basilio said:


> And of course Tisme, elevated as you are,  you can't be a nasty little troll.
> Because of course ... you say so.





runs on the board cobber. Read your own posts to see how low you have been delving and tell me how proud your mum would be of her polite little boy.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

Paedophilia is reported to be 1-5% of males and somewhat less in females. 

So let say only 0.5% of the population are paedophiles. That is still a whoppingly bigger number than the number of Catholic priests.

That means that just in my semi rural suburb wirh a pop of 4100, there are twenty pedos... And we don't even have a Catholic Church. 

Come on guys,  in your culturally Marxist zeal to throw every traditional western institution under the bus,  your making gooses of yourselves.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Come on guys, in your culturally Marxist zeal to throw every traditional western institution under the bus, your making gooses of yourselves.




I don't get your point Wayne.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

*troll2*

*Pronunciation /trəʊl/*
*NOUN*

1A person who makes a deliberately makes a statement to right of Pol Pot and not sanctioned by the politically über correct Stasi


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't get your point Wayne.



The point is that vc and bas seem to be implying that the Catholic Priesthood is solely responsible for paedophilia,  uncritically accepting PC doctrine on this matter. 

That argument is foolish, reprehensible and demonstably false.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> n?
> You saying pedophilia is a church invention?  That's a joke right?




I am saying that the churches policy of sexual repression, turned some men towards pedophilia that would not have otherwise became pedophiles, it they lived in a culture that embraced their sexuality and allowed sexual relations with adults.



> Who created gays then?




A certain amount of people will be born gay.

However, in situations such as jails and male boarding schools where sexuality is repressed, otherwise straight males can form temporary homosexual tendencies, this is the sort of thing that happens in churches, the priests repress there natural sexuality so long that they end up acting out in a sexual assault against the easiest target, normally a little boy or a little girl.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Religious law can't "forbid" people  from doing their civic duty.
> 
> .




Mate, there is people that have let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion due to their religious laws, I wouldn't think that people will automatically follow "civic duty" rather than religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I wouldn't think that people will automatically follow "civic duty" rather than religion.




How many Catholic priests have been prosecuted for failing to report a crime ?

A few years in gaol might encourage others to do their civic duty.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> The point is that vc and bas seem to be implying that the Catholic Priesthood is solely responsible for paedophilia,  uncritically accepting PC doctrine on this matter.
> 
> That argument is foolish, reprehensible and demonstably false.




Yes, you are right. Pedophiles joined the church because it created a power relationship with children and a cover for their activities.

The church did not create pedophiles, but it did cover for them.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, you are right. Pedophiles joined the church because it created a power relationship with children and a cover for their activities.
> 
> The church did not create pedophiles, but it did cover for them.



Yes of course,  but that is an entirely different point. 

Families often cover for pedos too,  whether through denial or embarrassment... or deviance, that happens too


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> The point is that vc and bas seem to be implying that the Catholic Priesthood is solely responsible for paedophilia, .




Nope, I said sexual repression was responsible for a lot of it, I didn't say all paedophilia was due to sexual repression neither did I say the church was the sole source of sexual repression.

eg, If I say smoking causes lung cancer, I am not claiming all lung cancer comes from smoking, or that all cancers are in the lungs.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yes of course,  but that is an entirely different point.
> 
> Families often cover for pedos too,  whether through denial or embarrassment... or deviance, that happens too





Should be have a plebiscite?  I know if I insist on voting no, there will be two who vote yes just to be contrary so it should get up, just based on ratios.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, I said sexual repression was responsible for a lot of it, I didn't say all paedophilia was due to sexual repression neither did I say the church was the sole source of sexual repression.
> 
> eg, If I say smoking causes lung cancer, I am not claiming all lung cancer comes from smoking, or that all cancers are in the lungs.



Poor analogy. 

Catholic priests are so underepresented in the sample,  they are hardly when statistically relevant,  even if eminently newsworthy.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Catholic priests are so underepresented in the sample,  they are hardly when statistically relevant,  even if eminently newsworthy.




Firstly I didn't mention catholic priests, I mentioned churches in general.

but what is your point? do you not think sexual repression can cause paedophilia?

Because that was my only relevant point in using the church as an example.

As I stated there are many examples of situations where the formation of healthy sexual relationships is suppressed and men act out sexual tendencies they wouldn't normally have, eg Jails, Churches, Boarding schools, Navy ships to just name a few.

I think if the sexually frustrated inmates of prisons can sexually assault other men, I don't think some of them would avoid sexually assaulting  little girls or boys if they had access, priests for example just have more access to the easier victims.


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2018)

Hair splitting

Dont dodge the point VC


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Dont dodge the point VC




I am not sure you understood my original point, You seem to think my point was about attacking the church or priests.

My original statement was - "I think all the different versions of Mardi Gras and carnival are just about having fun, celebrating sexuality, I would much rather that than a culture that celebrates sexual repression."

I then gave an example of where sexual repression creates negative outcomes.

Thats my point - sexual repression is bad.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My original statement was - "I think all the different versions of Mardi Gras and carnival are just about having fun, celebrating sexuality, I would much rather that than a culture that celebrates sexual repression."




Are you really saying that a normal relationship between two people is sexual repression ?

If not, why would a happy couple either hetero or gay want to prance around on the street making fools of themselves ?

Do you feel so repressed that you have the need to go on the street and scream your sexuality ?

Which goes back to my point that festivals like the Mardi Gras are demonstrations of immaturity and insecurity.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you really saying that a normal relationship between two people is sexual repression ?



OMG, are you even reading my posts, where have I said that?



> If not, why would a happy couple either hetero or gay want to prance around on the street making fools of themselves ?




A lot of them are probably single, but who cares why they want to do it, it might just be fun.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> OMG, are you even reading my posts, where have I said that?




That's your implication. Read my whole post for the logic.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's your implication. Read my whole post for the logic.




Does it matter why they want to do it? it might just be fun.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you really saying that a normal relationship between two people is sexual repression ?
> 
> If not, why would a happy couple either hetero or gay want to prance around on the street making fools of themselves ?
> 
> ...




The Gay Mardis Gras was and is a political statement aimed at social change.

I'm fairly certain the e.g. New Orleans and Mardi Gras' are Catholic based on celebratory observances such as Shrove Tuesday, before the fasting of Lent.

Big difference between engaging in Christian and Anti Christian rituals.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> The Gay Mardis Gras was and is a political statement aimed at social change.




So they have got their social change, now they can stop the nonsense.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So they have got their social change, now they can stop the nonsense.



Who are you talking about? the people from the videos I uploaded? they were heterosexual.

But, anyway, why would anyone want to stop a celebration they enjoy?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Who are you talking about? the people from the videos I uploaded? they were heterosexual.
> 
> But, anyway, why would anyone want to stop a celebration they enjoy?




The rest of us were talking about the Gay Mardi Gras. 

Personally I'm sick of the fawning media giving blanket coverage to a few mentally juvenile exhibitionists who think they soooo great darling because they happen to be in a one or two percent minority.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Personally I'm sick of the fawning media giving blanket coverage to a few mentally juvenile exhibitionists who think they soooo great darling because they happen to be in a one or two percent minority.




dude, its once a year just change the channel or flip the page, personally I don't like most sports, but I don't complain about media coverage.


----------



## Value Collector (6 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm fairly certain the e.g. New Orleans and Mardi Gras' are Catholic based on celebratory observances such as Shrove Tuesday, before the fasting of Lent.
> .




Thats like trying to say Christmas is about Jesus, it may have been true before, but its not about that anymore, and now it is more fun.


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Thats like trying to say Christmas is about Jesus, it may have been true before, but its not about that anymore, and now it is more fun.




So you think because we have become more secular, the sectarian gay lobby should be exempt from that, but churches shouldn't?


----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)




----------



## Value Collector (7 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> So you think because we have become more secular, the sectarian gay lobby should be exempt from that, but churches shouldn't?



I have no idea what you mean by that


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I have no idea what you mean by that




I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Tink (7 March 2018)

in my view,

there is misinformation out there, but I am reminding them of their/our history.


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Paedophilia is reported to be 1-5% of males and somewhat less in females.
> 
> So let say only 0.5% of the population are paedophiles. That is still a whoppingly bigger number than the number of Catholic priests.
> 
> ...




Well seeing as same sex couples are 0.9% of all couples in Oz, and pedophiles are 3% of the population, I can't understand why the SJWs aren't putting in three times the effort on behalf of rock spiders either.


----------



## basilio (7 March 2018)

↑
_Paedophilia is reported to be 1-5% of males and somewhat less in females.

So let say only 0.5% of the population are paedophiles. That is still a whoppingly bigger number than the number of Catholic priests.

That means that just in my semi rural suburb wirh a pop of 4100, there are twenty pedos... And we don't even have a Catholic Church.

Come on guys, in your culturally Marxist zeal to throw every traditional western institution under the bus, your making gooses of yourselves.  Wayne_


Well seeing as same sex couples are 0.9% of all couples in Oz, and pedophiles are 3% of the population, I can't understand why the SJWs aren't putting in three times the effort on behalf of rock spiders either.  Tisme

There are a number of problems with the maths and logic of your statements.

1) Wayne suggests that .5% of 4100 is   20 Pedos.   Mathematically it's actually only 8

2) Paedophile ?  Who is a paedophile. Surveys sugest that  "up to "  1-3-5% of men report fantasies of child sex. That doesn't translate into active behaviour.  It would be very hard to properly quantify the number of people who take their fantasies and put them in practice.

3) The issue of child sex abuse  in the Catholic Church is about the *structures *in the Church that have allowed Paedophiles to flourish. I outlined this in detail earlier.  If the Church and other organisations had been doing their job instead of protecting their reputations and influence these people would have been been charged and jailed far earlier.  On top of that the Church might have recognised that some of it's practices were unwittingly aiding corrupt priests.

4) The Royal Commission found that between 9% and 40% of the clergy in Catholic Institutions (depending on the institution)  had been involved in child sex offences. Unfortunately that is way more than what is even considered as average across the population. The fact that were allowed to go unchecked over almost a lifetime and that at least some offenders destroyed the lives of hundreds of children and their families is shattering beyond reason. (And lets not  forget all the other institutions  that had similar outcomes.)

______________________________________________________________
Tisme why would anyone want to be "putting in an effort " for paedophiles ?  Conflating this with SSM  is yet another one of your  nasty, poisonous efforts at debasing the discussion about allowing consenting adults the right to their* adult* relationships.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

basilio said:


> 1) Wayne suggests that .5% of 4100 is 20 Pedos. Mathematically it's actually only 8




One percent of 4100 = 41, half of that is 20.5.


----------



## basilio (7 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> One percent of 4100 = 41, half of that is 20.5.




My bad. It doesn't change the rest of the issues. 
I wonder how idyllic Wayne's little piece of paradise is with 20 active child molesters on the loose? If one thinks about for a microsecond it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

basilio said:


> I wonder how idyllic Wayne's little piece of paradise is with 20 active child molesters on the loose? If one thinks about for a microsecond it just doesn't make sense.




One never knows how much pedophillia goes on in families that gets covered up.

I well remember Julia's tales of what went on in her family and wondered how many families are like that.


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

basilio said:


> ↑
> ________________
> Tisme why would anyone want to be "putting in an effort " for paedophiles ?  Conflating this with SSM  is yet another one of your  nasty, poisonous efforts at debasing the discussion about allowing consenting adults the right to their* adult* relationships.




No it isn't conflation. It is thoroughly in line with the arguments put forward about homoseuality, SSM  transwhatever ... basically (according to your doctrine) people have a right to identify with and play out their desires without any fear of social pariah attribution and better still we taxpayers should pay for that via govt funded social support payments, agencies, surgery, pills and a grooming SJW nursery national broadcaster.

Why would you object to pedophilia? And don't just talk about community standards, law, disgust, etc because for many of us the descent into base sacrilegious behaviour has been alarming.

You and others were pretty quick to support SSM because it supposedly had ancient roots in Grecian culture, hell someone even hand on heart stated marriage was a homosexual invention, well its fairly well documented that those same primitive low lifes embraced and celebrated pederasty, so what's the problem?


----------



## Junior (7 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Why would you object to pedophilia? And don't just talk about community standards, law, disgust, etc because for many of us the descent into base sacrilegious behaviour has been alarming.




Same-sex relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS is very, very different to an adult sexually abusing a child.


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

Junior said:


> Same-sex relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS is very, very different to an adult sexually abusing a child.





How so? Since when was a 16 yearold an adult? 

The new social nuances include the right to personal gratification without stigma. Who are you, or anyone deserving of passing judgement, God forbid it's predicated on archaic white anglo social expectations and norms, that just wont do.


----------



## Junior (7 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> How so? Since when was a 16 yearold an adult?




I made no mention of age.  There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.  

Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults??  That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.


----------



## Value Collector (7 March 2018)

Junior said:


> I made no mention of age.  There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.
> 
> Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults??  That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.




I would only use the term pedophile to describe someone attracted to some one that hasn't reached sexual maturity.

for example if some one is attracted to a 15 year girl that has reached sexual maturity because she started puberty early, I wouldn't call them a pedophile, of course if they act on it, then they are a criminal under the law, but not a pedophile in my opinion, I think that term should only apply to people attracted to prepubescent children, not young women capable of having children.

for example this girl is apparently 15, if a 20 year old guy liked the look of her, I wouldn't automatically think he is a pedophile, I might make fun of him jokingly and point out she is 15, but I wouldn't think he is a pedo.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

Got any more photos like that ?



And where do you get them from ?


----------



## Value Collector (7 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Got any more photos like that ?
> 
> 
> 
> And where do you get them from ?




Google images


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

Junior said:


> I made no mention of age.  There is a grey area in terms of when a child becomes an adult, however surely we can all agree that say, someone under the age of 10 is a child.
> 
> Or to you, is an adult sexually abusing a child under the age of 10, no different morally to a same sex relationship between two consenting adults??  That's what your comments imply, and it's disturbing.





I'm not implying anything except morality is a different thing to different people. I'm trying to gauge if the same campaigning successfully used elsewhere could, some day, result in acceptance of what is widely abhorred currently, so thus what is DILLIGAF line in the sand age now?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm trying to gauge if the same campaigning successfully used elsewhere could, some day, result in acceptance of what is widely abhorred currently, so thus what is DILLIGAF line in the sand age now?




The Muslims want it reduced to 10 I believe.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/201...slation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html


----------



## explod (7 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I would only use the term pedophile to describe someone attracted to some one that hasn't reached sexual maturity.
> 
> for example if some one is attracted to a 15 year girl that has reached sexual maturity because she started puberty early, I wouldn't call them a pedophile, of course if they act on it, then they are a criminal under the law, but not a pedophile in my opinion, I think that term should only apply to people attracted to prepubescent children, not young women capable of having children.
> 
> for example this girl is apparently 15, if a 20 year old guy liked the look of her, I wouldn't automatically think he is a pedophile, I might make fun of him jokingly and point out she is 15, but I wouldn't think he is a pedo.



As a Father and Grandfather I find the image abhorrent.  However I'm very much heterasexual and love it whenever, wherever, even at my age.  Why can't we move on to more constructive discussion.

Some of you are disgusting because of the revealed curiosity aspect


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

explod said:


> Some of you are disgusting because of the revealed curiosity aspect




Just so you know, I was joking and did no further searches.

If you want the picture removed, just ask Joe.

Further more, whoever encouraged that girl to publish the photo has some questions to answer.


----------



## Joe Blow (7 March 2018)

I've gone ahead and removed the image in Value Collector's post.

This thread is about same sex marriage and the discussion seems to have drifted off topic. It would be good if it were steered back to the original topic so we can leave the child abuse aspect behind. It is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people and I think it's best if we move on from it.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 March 2018)

I just saw the iPhone ad.

I'll never buy one now.

Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.


----------



## Tisme (11 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I just saw the iPhone ad.
> 
> I'll never buy one now.
> 
> Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.





They are saturation marketing Twatter with that ad. Universally the comments are one of revulsion, with many of those being optically punished saying they voted YES, but didn't want to see any of the mechanics ... .what you don't see can''t hurt you


----------



## Macquack (11 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I just saw the iPhone ad.
> 
> I'll never buy one now.
> 
> Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.



Can you provide a link to the exact ad you refer to.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 March 2018)

Macquack said:


> Can you provide a link to the exact ad you refer to.


----------



## Value Collector (11 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I just saw the iPhone ad.
> 
> I'll never buy one now.
> 
> Why companies try to pander to the one percent and risk turning off the 99% I'll never know.




I don’t see it as pandering to anyone, it’s just that same sex marriage is a recent thing in many countries, I could imagine them doing an ad highlighting slavery ending or segregation ending if the phones were around at those times.

Also your 1% figure is way off, firstly well over 61% of voters supported same sex marriage, so they are appealing to majority opinion,

Also, for every 1 gay person you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents plus siblings, cousins, aunties, uncles, neighbors, friends, work colleagues etc etc who all care about that gay person and increasingly would be happy to see that person happy and this ad speaks to all those people 

Not only that, images of happy weddings make a lot of people happy regardless of whether they are same sex or not.

Live and let live buddy, be happy, don’t sweat the small stuff, especially when it doesn’t affect you in any way.


----------



## basilio (11 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also, for every 1 gay person you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents plus siblings, cousins, aunties, uncles, neighbors, friends, work colleagues etc etc who all care about that gay person and increasingly would be happy to see that person happy and this ad speaks to all those people.  Live and let live..




And they, we, don't have overwhelming revulsion at these relationships just because they are same sex.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also your 1% figure is way off, firstly well over 61% of voters supported same sex marriage, so they are appealing to majority opinion,
> 
> Also, for every 1 gay person you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents plus siblings, cousins, aunties, uncles, neighbors, friends, work colleagues etc etc who all care about that gay person and increasingly would be happy to see that person happy and this ad speaks to all those people
> 
> Not only that, images of happy weddings make a lot of people happy regardless of whether they are same sex or not.




I believe that a lot of the 60% who voted yes did so because they were virtually beaten into submission by the relentless media campaign and just wanted the (w)hole thing to go away, and certainly didn't want the gay deviances shoved in their faces at every availability.

Selling a phone on the basis of sexuality is a pretty crude advertising ploy anyway, and if they can't sell the device on its merits then it raises questions of how good it really is.


----------



## bellenuit (11 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> They are saturation marketing Twatter with that ad. Universally the comments are one of revulsion, with many of those being optically punished saying they voted YES, but didn't want to see any of the mechanics ... .what you don't see can''t hurt you




The mechanics of kissing? Male - male kissing has been commonplace in many cultures (Eastern Europe, Russia) for centuries. Men kissing on the lips is a bit more intimate but hardly deserving of revulsion when the meeting of the lips was for just a few seconds. People will get used to it.


----------



## Macquack (11 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


>




Geez that singer murders the INXS classic song.

I didn' t fancy the ad, but if Carlton United Brewery made a terrible Victorian Bitter ad, it would not influence my hard earned thirst.


----------



## Tisme (11 March 2018)

bellenuit said:


> The mechanics of kissing? Male - male kissing has been commonplace in many cultures (Eastern Europe, Russia) for centuries. Men kissing on the lips is a bit more intimate but hardly deserving of revulsion when the meeting of the lips was for just a few seconds. People will get used to it.




Hey it's not me posting the comments on Twatter. Go look for yourself.

I just remind them that they voted for it so they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions....which for some reason doesn't go down well.


----------



## Tisme (11 March 2018)

http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/



> About 25% of LGBT people suffer through violent or threatening relationships


----------



## basilio (11 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/




And the figure for domestic abuse in straight relationships is  ???


----------



## wayneL (11 March 2018)

For me its not the same sex snogging that is so off-putting... (And it is)

Its the underlying postmodern agenda. 

Apple (and a whole bunch of other companies),  can go #$@* themselves.


----------



## explod (11 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> For me its not the same sex snogging that is so off-putting... (And it is)
> 
> Its the underlying postmodern agenda.
> 
> Apple (and a whole bunch of other companies),  can go #$@* themselves.



Not sure that I agree on your take of the Postmodern as an "agenda".  It was generally regarded as a rebellion or statement of independence, a bit like your "can go #$@* themselves." ole Pal.  The (pre-post) "modern" equalled the status quo (generally)

It should be nobody's business who one loves, how its expressed or what people do providing it has no actual effect on others nor breaks any laws (as distinct of course from the biblical)


----------



## wayneL (11 March 2018)

You should study up on postmodernism plod. 

Nobody's business,  yes indeed,  you got it,  congratulations.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also, for every 1 gay person you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents plus siblings, cousins, aunties, uncles, neighbors, friends, work colleagues etc etc who all care about that gay person and increasingly would be happy to see that person happy and this ad speaks to all those people




Acceptance doesn't mean approval.

All those parents and grandparents may accept that their children/grandchildren are gay, but that doesn't mean that they prefer it that way, it's just that they can't do anything about it.


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> And they, we, don't have overwhelming revulsion at these relationships just because they are same sex.



Yeah, to be honest I didn’t even notice it was same sex couples st first, all I noticed at first was the pretty girls in wedding dresses.


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Acceptance doesn't mean approval.
> 
> All those parents and grandparents may accept that their children/grandchildren are gay, but that doesn't mean that they prefer it that way, it's just that they can't do anything about it.



Either way “approval” rates would be much higher than 1%, and know that the vote happened, and its law, more and more people will both accept it and approve, ads like this help normalize it, so it’s good.


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

In the big picture family and friends want their children/friends to be happy in a relationship with someone who loves them and cares about them. Hopefully that person has good character and isn't going to rip off/hurt their child at some stage in the future.  So we all hope.

In a strictly white bread world that person had to be of the opposite sex,  the right social class, about the right age (not much younger or older -  unless there were special circumstances) the right colour ( absolutely !)  the right religion and... anything else ? Help me out here folks.

If our world has progressed at all it has become more accepting of inter faith relationships. The naked hatred between Catholcis and Protestants has receded markedly. Even non believers are now accepted as potential marriage partners !
Racism has become less overt and families can accept potential partners that are from other cultures. Parents and friends understanding and accepting their child's sexuality and accepting their subsequent choice in partner is just helping to make the world a happier place.


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Acceptance doesn't mean approval.
> 
> All those parents and grandparents may accept that their children/grandchildren are gay, but that doesn't mean that they prefer it that way, it's just that they can't do anything about it.




Well actually they can.  The traditional cry is "Don't ever darken my door again. You are not my child".  The threat or action was usually enough to ensure acquiesance and usually ended up in a unhappy marriage to some poor person who couldn't quite understand why their new wife/husband  wasn't comfortable with them.

And if the kid did finally up and leave society treated  them as perverts /criminals /weirdos.  And that was well within our lifetime Sir Rumpole.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Well actually they can.  The traditional cry is "Don't ever darken my door again. You are not my child".  The threat or action was usually enough to ensure acquiesance and usually ended up in a unhappy marriage to some poor person who couldn't quite understand why their new wife/husband  wasn't comfortable with them.
> 
> And if the kid did finally up and leave society treated  them as perverts /criminals /weirdos.  And that was well within our lifetime Sir Rumpole.




Don't take it to extremes bas. The fact is that the vast majority of parents and grandparents want heterosexual children/grandchildren because that is simply the norm. Sure they all want their relatives treated properly but that doesn't mean that they prefer them to be gay.


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure they all want their relatives treated properly but that doesn't mean that they prefer them to be gay.



No one here has claimed people “prefer” gays, we have only claimed that same sex couples deserve fair and equal treatment.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No one here has claimed people “prefer” gays, we have only claimed that same sex couples deserve fair and equal treatment.




Now they have that in marriage terms, but I doubt if the vast majority want the gay lifestyle shoved in their faces in the media.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> And the figure for domestic abuse in straight relationships is  ???




One in eleven = less than half of your mates.

Homosexuals are fairly violent people as it turns out..yes?


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> One in eleven = less than half of your mates.
> 
> Homosexuals are fairly violent people as it turns out..yes?




Really Tisme ? I've seen colanders that would hold more water than your poisonous observations.
I have no problem with recognising that all relationships can turn abusive - straight or gay. But your willingness to throw any mud at SSM relationships makes almost anything you say unbelievable and with a particular vindictive intention.

Domestic violence surveys in Australia.
https://www.popsugar.com.au/news/Australian-Domestic-Violence-Statistics-2017-43319136
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/intimate-partner-violence-lgbtiq-communities


----------



## explod (12 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> You should study up on postmodernism plod.
> 
> Nobody's business,  yes indeed,  you got it,  congratulations.



Studied its many facets over several years at uni, (RMIT 85 till 94) , maintain contact with peers in the field, tute and mentor others and always keen to learn more.

A clear explanation of my error would be most helpful wayneL.


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Now they have that in marriage terms, but I doubt if the vast majority want the gay lifestyle shoved in their faces in the media.



would you object to an ad showing straight couples?

If not, wouldn't "fair and equal treatment" involve you not objecting to same sex couples, if you are only going to complain about the 1 or 2 ads showing same sex couples and not the 1000's of other representations of straight couples in media, can yo really say that you have given same sex couples "fair and equal treatment".

If you are still here complaining about same sex couples being shown on TV, maybe we still have a way to go, and we need further exposure to continue to normalise it.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> would you object to an ad showing straight couples?




I said before that an ad for a phone based on sexuality is a poor ad. It doesn't tell me what the product does or why it is better. It doesn't induce me to buy the product.



> If you are still here complaining about same sex couples being shown on TV, maybe we still have a way to go, and we need further exposure to continue to normalise it.




A stupid thing to do if you want to sell products to the 99% who find gay activities unnatural and revolting.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> And they, we, don't have overwhelming revulsion at these relationships just because they are same sex.





Of course you don't. You have proven time and time again that whatever the prevailing winds, you will tilt against wind mills.

I propose that black is a combination of all colours, I'm sure you can find an argument to counter that?


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I said before that an ad for a phone based on sexuality is a poor ad. It doesn't tell me what the product does or why it is better. It doesn't induce me to buy the product.
> 
> 
> .




The ad is showing off the camera on the phone, the whole ad was shot using the camera on the phone.

Would you have cared if the subjects were straight couples?



> A stupid thing to do if you want to sell products to the 99% who find gay activities unnatural and revolting




I didn't even notice they were same sex couples at first, all I noticed was pretty women in wedding dresses, I certainly wasn't revolted, I thought they were good looking.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Acceptance doesn't mean approval.
> 
> All those parents and grandparents may accept that their children/grandchildren are gay, but that doesn't mean that they prefer it that way, it's just that they can't do anything about it.





Traumatised relatives will nearly always rally around the runt of the family to protect them from the alpha males. It's those alpha males who innately preserve the strength of the group; that is why they don't put up with nonsense growl fests and the actions of the weak males.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, to be honest I didn’t even notice it was same sex couples st first, all I noticed at first was the pretty girls in wedding dresses.





Marketing 101. You are susceptible, a marketer's dream.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The ad is showing off the camera on the phone, the whole ad was shot using the camera on the phone.




Big deal, every phone has a camera these days.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> The traditional cry is "Don't ever darken my door again. You are not my child".  .




You want to quantify that? My experience is that is something that was rarely aired or spoken about. That is why closets were invented?


----------



## Value Collector (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Big deal, every phone has a camera these days.



they aren't all the same quality though are they?


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

Value Collector said:


> they aren't all the same quality though are they?




No the Samsungs are great and the Nokia had a 40meg camera 3 years ago.


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't take it to extremes bas. The fact is that the vast majority of parents and grandparents want heterosexual children/grandchildren because that is simply the norm. Sure they all want their relatives treated properly but that doesn't mean that they prefer them to be gay.




I don't think that the "Don't darken my doors again" line would be common in 2018 even with relatively conservative families. I don't believe that was the case 50-60 years ago.
Certainly the majority of parents and grandparents would like to see happy hetro sexual children.  But I suggest that a happy gay child in an accepted relationship would be preferable to an unhappy gay child in a sham marriage.


----------



## wayneL (12 March 2018)

explod said:


> Studied its many facets over several years at uni, (RMIT 85 till 94) , maintain contact with peers in the field, tute and mentor others and always keen to learn more.
> 
> A clear explanation of my error would be most helpful wayneL.



Well that explains your predilection for Greed/Red politics Plod. 

Did you also learn that wholesale embtracement of postmidernism can only result in disfunction and dystopia? 

Just like your Marxist brethren,  you haven't applied reality to your ideological studies.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> Really Tisme ? I've seen colanders that would hold more water than your poisonous observations.
> I have no problem with recognising that all relationships can turn abusive - straight or gay. But your willingness to throw any mud at SSM relationships makes almost anything you say unbelievable and with a particular vindictive intention.
> 
> Domestic violence surveys in Australia.
> ...




I'm just stating facts for all to see. You can refute them all you like, but facts is facts.

You're like Malcolm Turbull, whenever he's asked anything he hooks into Bill Shorten's laundry instead of just taking the facts and admitting he's right or wrong:- heterosexuals aren't to blame for the obvious rampant domestic/relationship violence amongst homosexuals.. the figures speak for themselves.

Apart from the obvious anguish trauma of having a special person in the mix, how many mums, dads and siblings have been abused by these people too?


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well that explains your predilection for Greed/Red politics Plod.
> 
> Did you also learn that wholesale embtracement of postmidernism can only result in disfunction and dystopia?
> 
> Just like your Marxist brethren,  you haven't applied reality to your ideological studies.




I always had a problem with the idea of post-modernism based on the presumption that modernism is the territory of white heterosexual, racist, patriarchal males, modernism supposedly a movement to break tradition by drawing inspiration from and producing barbaric pastiches, a kind of oneupsmanship revolution within the ruling Victorian elite at the time.

Along comes post moderism which, I presume, is the lagging middle class who want to toss out anything elite and rehash it to include marxist ideals of turning traditional iniquity into fundamental liberties using homosexuality, womens rights and colonial oppression as the vehicles for change for the sake of change?

On the right track or too simple?


----------



## explod (12 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well that explains your predilection for Greed/Red politics Plod.
> 
> Did you also learn that wholesale embtracement of postmidernism can only result in disfunction and dystopia?
> 
> Just like your Marxist brethren,  you haven't applied reality to your ideological studies.



Diversionary rubbish to head off topic.  Not able to explain or answer either. 

You're not Malcolm Turnbull by any chance?


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> Apart from the obvious anguish trauma of having a special person in the mix, how many mums, dads and siblings have been abused by these people too?




I don't know Tisme.  But probably only a fraction of those destroyed by sociopathetic, alpha males who delight in trolling/destroying anyone they can get away with to prove how tough they are.


----------



## wayneL (12 March 2018)

explod said:


> Diversionary rubbish to head off topic.  Not able to explain or answer either.
> 
> You're not Malcolm Turnbull by any chance?



It's a complicated topic but, if you would like to give us your vision of a postmodern future and we can create a discussion around there please go ahead


----------



## explod (12 March 2018)

wayneL said:


> It's a complicated topic but, if you would like to give us your vision of a postmodern future and we can create a discussion around there please go ahead



Agree, I believe it could be well worth its own thread and have the potential to draw newcomers if set right.  I'll put some thought into that and feel free to jump the gun.


----------



## Tisme (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> I don't know Tisme.  But probably only a fraction of those destroyed by sociopathetic, alpha males who delight in trolling/destroying anyone they can get away with to prove how tough they are.




Apart from yourself, name a few.


----------



## Tisme (6 April 2018)

*Mark Latham's Outsiders shared NSW Justices Association Inc's post.*
2 hrs · 
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE LOSS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

One of the unresolved issues when Malcolm Turnbull pushed through his Same-Sex Marriage Act last year was religious freedom. Would people who object to same-sex marriage according to their strongly-held religious beliefs be disadvantaged by the new definition of marriage?

Turnbull and Bill Shorten said this would not be the case. I said it would be wrong for governments to punish people for believing in traditional man-woman marriage. No one should be forced by government into doing things they regard as morally wrong.

In truth, the new legislation did not protect religious freedom. This has now become clear. Have a look at this notice by the NSW Justices Association (representing tens of thousands of JPs). It passes on instructions from the NSW Department of Justice, as follows:

"Refusing to witness a Commonwealth Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form are of the same sex even if that refusal was on religious grounds, would amount to unlawful discrimination under anti-discrimination legislation." It goes on to say that Justices of the Peace who refuse to witness for gay couples will be suspended or sacked.

This is heavy stuff. JPs can have genuine religious beliefs objecting to same-sex marriage, yet they can be prosecuted (for breaking discrimination laws) and/or lose their position serving the community. It is a shocking denial of religious freedom.

Unfortunately, when parliament passed the Turnbull/Shorten gay marriage law, Australia moved one step closer to the powers of a police state.



> NSW Justices Association Inc
> April 4 at 1:42pm ·
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## satanoperca (6 April 2018)

This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.

Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.

Cheers to you.


----------



## Tisme (6 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.
> 
> Cheers to you.





I'm sure you will find everything I post is factual, it's how it fits with your personal bias that pleases or displeases you; still the facts remain.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.
> 
> Cheers to you.



 Lord forgive him, for he knows not what he says.( with apologies to the author of Luke)


----------



## bellenuit (6 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.




I agree. Those who hold public office should not be allowed discriminate because of their religious beliefs. 

_"Refusing to witness a Commonwealth Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form are of the same sex even if that refusal was on religious grounds, would amount to unlawful discrimination under anti-discrimination legislation." It goes on to say that Justices of the Peace who refuse to witness for gay couples will be suspended or sacked._

This is exactly like that marriage registrar (or was it celebrant) in the US that refused to register/perform a civil ceremony on religious grounds. She is employed to do a job and that job should be performed without regards to the religion, colour, ethnicity or gender orientation of the person or persons taking part in the ceremony. If the celebrant/JP/registrar feel so strongly about not wanting to perform the act that they have been employed and paid to do, they should resign.

The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.


----------



## Tink (6 April 2018)

Our Parliament has the Lord's Prayer.

That is public office.


----------



## basilio (6 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.




That is *far* too clear sighted for this thread Bellenuit. Your just showing off aren't you...!


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2018)

One can always find a compliant jp bellanuit,  so no rights have been denied. It is becoming dangerously close to government mandated behaviour,  such as is the case with bill c16.in Canada.

IE you WILL marry gays, removing abstinence as a fundamental right.

If I was a jp, Christian,  Muslim,  or not,   I would hand in my stripes forthwith.


----------



## bellenuit (6 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> One can always find a compliant jp bellanuit,  so no rights have been denied.




Of course rights have been denied. You have a right to marry and someone who is employed by the state and paid to perform marriages says you have to find someone else. The very fact that you have to look elsewhere when a hetero couple does not is an infringement of your rights.



> It is becoming dangerously close to government mandated behaviour




Yes, government is mandating that you do not deny others their lawful rights.



> If I was a jp, Christian,  Muslim,  or not,   I would hand in my stripes forthwith.




Good. So let someone who is prepared not to discriminate and will obey the law have the job.

How would you feel if you were white and were denied the right to marry a black person in a civil ceremony because the celebrant didn't believe in mixed marriages?


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Of course rights have been denied. You have a right to marry and someone who is employed by the state and paid to perform marriages says you have to find someone else. The very fact that you have to look elsewhere when a hetero couple does not is an infringement of your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude,  as a white,  middle aged hetro male,  there are hundreds of jobs that are closed to me. Thank god I have my own business otherwise I would be virtually unemployable. 

So don't talk to me about discrimination. Discrimination is alive and well in the identity politics,  pc world. 

As it happens I personally have no problem in my business.  Holy 5hit, the horse world is full of same sex couples and many of my clients are gay,  as long a they're nice people I don't give a crap. 

But you know who I do discriminate against? 

Post modernists. As soon as they espouse the type of crap quoted,  I sack them immediately because they are monumental hypocrites.


----------



## Tink (7 April 2018)

_If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem._

_- Ronald Reagan_
----------------------

_Faith, Family, Truth, Freedom._


----------



## Tisme (7 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Lord forgive him, for he knows not what he says.( with apologies to the author of Luke)




When natural collides with synthetic polution.

There's skin in the game so an obligation to regurgitate the rote learned memetics adolescents demand of grown ups these days.

A previously hidden world of buttercups, unicorns and toadstool houses, where society is full of marxist drones doing good things for the purposely dysfunctional. Who wouldn't give up freedoms for that!


----------



## Tisme (7 April 2018)

basilio said:


> That is *far* too clear sighted for this thread Bellenuit. Your just showing off aren't you...!




Farsighted doesn't mean you don't see a mirage.


----------



## Tisme (7 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I agree. Those who hold public office should not be allowed discriminate because of their religious beliefs........
> 
> The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.




So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?

Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.


----------



## bellenuit (7 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?
> 
> Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.




Complete non-sequitor.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 April 2018)

Surely there is more than one official who can do the job of authorising a marriage ? If one doesn't want to do it for religious reasons then they could delegate to someone else.


----------



## satanoperca (7 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?
> 
> Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.




Even for you Tisme, this is a little OTT.

You seem to be losing your touch, maybe up your medication so your thoughts can become clearer again.


----------



## Tisme (9 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Complete non-sequitor.




How so? You'd have to have to leave most of logic on the cutting room floor to come to that statement.


----------



## Tisme (9 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Even for you Tisme, this is a little OTT.
> 
> You seem to be losing your touch, maybe up your medication so your thoughts can become clearer again.




The meds comment is just entry level trolling that I thought would have been  below your pay grade; more something bas would write when he's having one of his regular brain farts and tantrums.

Anyway you have resorted to insult which means you have nowhere to go with your logic and getting closer to sensible objectivity. This is a good thing because it draws back the blockout curtains and opens a window you shut ages ago, when you decided to create a fortress against the world..... the truth shall set you free.


----------



## satanoperca (9 April 2018)

You so easily take the bait.


----------



## noirua (9 April 2018)

Just abolish marriage.  Last time I checked over 50% of marriages ended in divorce. If there is no marriage then there is no divorce.


----------



## wayneL (9 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Just abolish marriage.  Last time I checked over 50% of marriages ended in divorce. If there is no marriage then there is no divorce.



Nah,  just find someone willing to put up with your shyte. 

Maybe I just got lucky.


----------



## bellenuit (9 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> How so? You'd have to have to leave most of logic on the cutting room floor to come to that statement.




Because protecting religious freedom was what was promised. That is not the same as being allowed to deny others their rights because of your religious beliefs.


----------



## satanoperca (9 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Nah,  just find someone willing to put up with your shyte.
> 
> Maybe I just got lucky.




That is funny WayneL, I read that as "Maybe I just got lucky that I found someone to put up with my shyte".


----------



## wayneL (9 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> That is funny WayneL, I read that as "Maybe I just got lucky that I found someone to put up with my shyte".



You read that correctly


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> You so easily take the bait.




You're the one who gets all bent out of shape and I don't care.

Wasn't it you who went all hysterical and ballistic about something that I posted, albeit true, but something you decided play Wyatt Earp with six shooters on behalf of... the gays I think it was?


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Because protecting religious freedom was what was promised. That is not the same as being allowed to deny others their rights because of your religious beliefs.




There was to be no persecution of conscientious objectors. If you look back on record you will find Malcolm stated Churches, Celebrants and Charities would be protected.

If the population knew the govt would come after freedom of choice to choose the survey results would have been different, given the NO camps could have articulated that.


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

Why are religious groups to be excluded from discriminating against others?
If average Joe is not allowed to, why is someone who believes in God allowed to?
1+1 = 2


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You're the one who gets all bent out of shape and I don't care.
> 
> Wasn't it you who went all hysterical and ballistic about something that I posted, albeit true, but something you decided play Wyatt Earp with six shooters on behalf of... the gays I think it was?



I wish trout could be caught as easily as you.

Again, you are way way OTT.


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Why are religious groups to be excluded from discriminating against others?
> If average Joe is not allowed to, why is someone who believes in God allowed to?
> 1+1 = 2




Because that was the guarantee to win the Christian Yes vote. Arguments about skyfairies and their existence are superfluous to what we wise heads all knew .... create a crack and a root will eventually invade and destroy the foundations.


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> I wish trout could be caught as easily as you.
> 
> Again, you are way way OTT.




sigh ...... so lame


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Why are religious groups to be excluded from discriminating against others?
> If average Joe is not allowed to, why is someone who believes in God allowed to?
> 1+1 = 2



Should Muslims be forced to serve bacon?


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

If they work in a cafe, yes


----------



## Tisme (10 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Should Muslims be forced to serve bacon?




They must be punished, because that would constitute freedom of expression and lifestyle, something only LGBTxyzs are entitled too. 

Religion is such an archaic concept with only 84% of the world population adhered in some way to it.


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

"Religion is such an archaic concept with only 84% of the world population adhered in some way to it."

Doesn't mean it is correct or right or benefits society. It is being challenge and in decline in Australia for a good reason, times have changed

And who cares about what the world does, we are talking about Australia, where 70% of the populations identifies to a religion.


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Should Muslims be forced to serve bacon?




No, they shouldn't be forced to sell bacon, they can change their business to non bacon selling business anytime they want.

However if they are selling bacon, they should not be able to discriminate against who they serve based on race, sexuality or creed.

eg. we aren't asking "muslims to sell bacon", we asking people to not discriminate against customers, they can choose to sell what ever they like, but need to serve everybody without discriminating.


----------



## Tink (10 April 2018)

Well I am sure the vegans will be protesting in the restaurants next in Melbourne..

_two legs bad, four legs good._

-------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/i-dislike-daniel-andrews-intensely.32824/page-6

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/freedom-of-speech-and-protest.31657/page-7_


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> There was to be no persecution of conscientious objectors. If you look back on record you will find Malcolm stated Churches, Celebrants and Charities would be protected.




Not quite correct. They were promised protection for religious ceremonies and events only and that is the case. There is no compulsion on them to marry gays under the rites of the Christian or other churches. However, marriage is also a civil ceremony and if religious celebrants want to maintain their ability to also act as civil celebrants, then they cannot refuse to do civil marriages based on their religious beliefs. They can simply forego (resign or whatever is the process) their right to perform civil marriages and continue to perform religious marriages according to the dictates of their church. That is not persecution.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> then they cannot refuse to do civil marriages based on their religious beliefs.




If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

That is a sound and logical argument.......
So on the very basis of that, you are saying that everyone out their loves their employers, because if they didn't they would just leave......
Thinks of 7Eleven


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> So on the very basis of that, you are saying that everyone out their loves their employers, because if they didn't they would just leave......




I'm sure a lot have left their employment for that very reason.


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?




It's about serving customers, do we really want to live in a country where customers are regularly refused service because of race, sexuality or creed?

If you offer a service to the public, just provide that service to all. 

It's not about forcing them to do anything, its just about getting them to provide the service they have chosen to provide without discrimination.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It's not about forcing them to do anything, its just about getting them to provide the service they have chosen to provide without discrimination.




If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ? How would you prove it ?


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ?




If he blatantly says I am not fixing your tap because you are white, then yes that discrimination.

Of course if you lie you have a better chance of getting away with breaking the law, but that in no way means you didn't break the law, or that we should abandon having laws.

its a simple fact that society operates better if  businesses open to the public serve all people without discriminating, if you really, really, really want to discriminate, start a club and limit your services to club members, but don't act like you are open to the public and then routinely turn people just because you don't like the colour of their skin or sexuality etc, that just causes to much unnecessary awkwardness and humiliation for people that have done nothing wrong.


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you ask a plumber to fix a tap for you and he doesn't like you he can just say he's busy. Is that discrimination ? How would you prove it ?



I just tell people i don't want to work for to go $@€# themselves.

Call me a temperamentist if you like,  but I ride to work for a55holes.


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2018)

Okay,  we've established that our resident post modernists are agin discrimination in any form.  

What to you think of discrimatination against whites in the employment market?


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

White people suck, they have small d---ks and cannot get laid.
They also cannot cook.
They are old, fusion colour is the way to go.
White is so last century


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?




The celebrants are not employed by the gay couple. They are agents of the state providing a state service under terms set by the state. The gay couple is engaging the celebrant to provide the service.   You are right, if they don’t want to do the job under those terms, they can resign their position.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> They are agents of the state providing a state service under terms set by the state.




They are still self employed , only registered by the State like plumbers and electricians. If they have a heavy workload they have to decide who they can serve and who they can't.



> The celebrants are not employed by the gay couple.




Well , actually they are. The couple pay fees to the celebrant.


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> White people suck, they have small d---ks and cannot get laid.
> They also cannot cook.
> They are old, fusion colour is the way to go.
> White is so last century



Trolling is more entertaining when subtle and not quite so transparent. 

Poor effort Komrade.


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

Not trolling, you asked a question, I answered it. 
I like to keep things simple and transparent, it makes for a happy life


----------



## wayneL (10 April 2018)

Right, okay. 

Nice try all the same.


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They are still self employed , only registered by the State like plumbers and electricians. If they have a heavy workload they have to decide who they can serve and who they can't.




You said "_If I don't like an employer I don't have to work for them. Why should others be forced to work for people they don't like ?"_. As I said they are not employed by the gay couple. Now you say they are self-employed. OK, but as agents for the state they have to work within the terms of their agency. Yes, they may schedule their workloads, but we are talking about refusing to marry certain couples because they do not want to for religious purposes. They do not have that choice and if they do not like it, then they can quit, just as you said.



> Well , actually they are. The couple pay fees to the celebrant.




Actually they are not. They are service providers, not employees. Is your local butcher your employee?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> but we are talking about refusing to marry certain couples because they do not want to for religious purposes. They do not have that choice and if they do not like it, then they can quit, just as you said.




I don't believe that the mere registration by the State of certain service providers mean the State can dictate to those providers how they manage their workload. But anyway, wasn't there supposed to be protection for "conscientious objectors" in this legislation ?. That seems to have been kicked down the road.


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

"Conscientious Objectors" WTF, that would be mean anyone could discriminate. 

Do some of the people posting on this thread live in a bubble and while I am at it, why is it that when pollies don't eliver on their commitments, if it is religious related, it is such an issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> "Conscientious Objectors" WTF, that would be mean anyone could discriminate.




We were assured that people who objected on the grounds of religion would be protected. But now that seems to have gone by the board, so the public was lied to by the pro GM lobby.

But anyway, the number of people objecting on religious grounds would be minimal, so the LGB's can just find someone else instead of trying to persecute a minority.


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> We were assured that people who objected on the grounds of religion would be protected.




They are protected. They are under no obligation to marry gay people. They can simply relinquish their authority as celebrants for civil marriages if they have conscientious objections to such marriages. They can continue as celebrants for church endorsed marriages. No one is forcing them to marry gay couples.

If gay marriage was legislated, then the state would not interfere in the carrying out of religious duties and would not force the churches to marry gay couples in churches or under religious rites. That was what was promised.

They were not promised that they could deny people who are legally entitled to marry the right to marry. That is now a legal right in this country and if they wish to act as a civil celebrant then they cannot deny others their legal rights. That was not the deal, just as no other public office holder has the right to deny gay people their rights in other spheres, such as unemployment assistance or medical treatment.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> They were not promised that they could deny people who are legally entitled to marry the right to marry.




I don't think "they" as in churches are denying anyone's rights. There are civil celebrants that will marry gay couples if the churches or 'religious' celebrants won't. The gay couples have the choice to go to someone who will serve them, they don't have the right to force people to marry them. 

As for registrars,  I have to agree that they have to conform to the law. If they don't carry out their duties as required then they may pay a price.


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think "they" as in churches are denying anyone's rights. There are civil celebrants that will marry gay couples if the churches or 'religious' celebrants won't.




You mean like black people had seats on the back of the bus they could go to, they didn't have to mix with the white people up front.



> The gay couples have the choice to go to someone who will serve them, they don't have the right to force people to marry them.




The gay couple aren't forcing the celebrants to marry them. Those who issue a celebrant licence are. If they discriminate against people then they don't get to hold a marriage celebrant license.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> The gay couple aren't forcing the celebrants to marry them. Those who issue a celebrant licence are. If they discriminate against people then they don't get to hold a marriage celebrant license.




OK, so what if the celebrant had a full book when the gay couple turned up, and the celebrant just said "sorry I don't have the time" ? Is (s)he going to be dragged through the courts to prove that they didn't discriminate ? What if the celebrant was gay and turned away a straight couple on the same grounds ? 

The whole thing can get ridiculous very quickly if people get stroppy about a few  religious people exercising their rights.


----------



## satanoperca (10 April 2018)

"The whole thing can get ridiculous very quickly if people get stroppy about a few religious people exercising their rights."

That is exactly the point, why should people of religion have the right to discriminate anymore than anyone else in society, because god gave them the right.

Your arguments and Tisme's are so last decade. Move with the times and do something constructive with your energy.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Your arguments and Tisme's are so last decade. Move with the times and do something constructive with your energy.




Tell that to the militant gays who want the rest of us to bend to their will . (Not literally obviously).


----------



## bellenuit (10 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so what if the celebrant had a full book when the gay couple turned up, and the celebrant just said "sorry I don't have the time" ? Is (s)he going to be dragged through the courts to prove that they didn't discriminate ? What if the celebrant was gay and turned away a straight couple on the same grounds ?
> 
> The whole thing can get ridiculous very quickly if people get stroppy about a few  religious people exercising their rights.




I think all couples are aware that they may not get the date they want, whether it be for the ceremony (church or civil) or subsequent reception. Gay couples like any other couple will try and fit in with what's available. No one is going to drag the celebrant through the courts if they are completely booked up. But if particular celebrants persistently refuse to marry gay couples, even if they are available to do it, then complaints are going to happen and they may and should lose their license.

It only gets ridiculous when people who are licensed to do a job refuse to do it. You are completely mistaken about their rights. They have a right not to marry gay people, but do not have a right to assume a position that requires non-discrimination against gays and then discriminate.

You have got it all backwards. Instead of the gay couple looking for another celebrant, the celebrant should be looking for another job if they are unwilling to do it impartially. That way no one is discriminated against.



> What if the celebrant was gay and turned away a straight couple on the same grounds ?




They should also lose their license.


----------



## wayneL (11 April 2018)

I always wondered how totalitarian regimes got themselves into power via a democratic process. 

Now I know.  It seems plenty of people prepared to cheaply hand away their liberty for one or another ideology.


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Not quite correct. They were promised protection for religious ceremonies and events only and that is the case. There is no compulsion on them to marry gays under the rites of the Christian or other churches. However, marriage is also a civil ceremony and if religious celebrants want to maintain their ability to also act as civil celebrants, then they cannot refuse to do civil marriages based on their religious beliefs. They can simply forego (resign or whatever is the process) their right to perform civil marriages and continue to perform religious marriages according to the dictates of their church. That is not persecution.





Wanna make a bet. WE are talkng pre vote here. 

I'm wondering how many celebrants who were promised a grandfather clause would protect them, but hasn't?

People's jobs and civil service should not be defined by the sexual desires of a minuscule % of the population. They should not be "persecuted" at all .... SSM was touted as not hurting anyone, a kind of benign activity that not only  righted wrongs of USA black slavery, women's suffrage, and any other absurdity, but recognised sympathy mascots could marry.


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> I just tell people i don't want to work for to go $@€# themselves.
> 
> Call me a temperamentist if you like,  but I ride to work for a55holes.




And I presume it's because you feel it would be detrimental to your business model, profitability, employee satisfaction, differential advantage, etc ... you know, embracing capitalism in a capitalistic/mercantile country.

I assume you, like me don't put your company up as a poster boy for curing or adding to, the social malaise of a sick community...that is govt's role. You don't run a company that answers to the mob hysteria?


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> You mean like black people had seats on the back of the bus they could go to, they didn't have to mix with the white people up front.




You saying black people and homosexuals are one in the same?


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Your arguments and Tisme's are so last decade. Move with the times and do something constructive with your energy.




You mean so last >65000 years?  So many generations who got it totally wrong, a wonder we managed to get this far and into the singularity in the space of 10 years.

Kinda odd that social media seems to have a coalesced with with mass hypnosis.


----------



## bellenuit (11 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You saying black people and homosexuals are one in the same?




You can't even understand an analogy now?


----------



## bellenuit (11 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> People's jobs and civil service should not be defined by the sexual desires of a minuscule % of the population.




Everyone's job requires respect for the rights of others. Respecting others rights is not persecution.


----------



## wayneL (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Everyone's job requires respect for the rights of others. Respecting others rights is not persecution.



Even if it impinges on one's own rights?


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You mean so last >65000 years?  So many generations who got it totally wrong, a wonder we managed to get this far and into the singularity in the space of 10 years.
> 
> Kinda odd that social media seems to have a coalesced with with mass hypnosis.




Please provide me one religion that is over 20,000 year old that is still in existing today.

Your words are big, but I have found that those that need to use big words to provide prove their  opinion really have no substance to discuss in the first place.

Last I checked, people today still think the world is flat.

When religion can provide scientific evidence there is a god, then lets discuss the implications on regilion governing how people work and think in society.

Just take jesus for instance, if I was his boss, I would have fired him, turning up to work 2000 years late is just not acceptable.


----------



## grah33 (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> "The whole thing can get ridiculous very quickly if people get stroppy about a few religious people exercising their rights."
> 
> That is exactly the point, why should people of religion have the right to discriminate anymore than anyone else in society, because god gave them the right.
> 
> Your arguments and Tisme's are so last decade. Move with the times and do something constructive with your energy.




It's been a while since I was here...

Freedom of conscience relates to not forcing people to do things that make them feel GUILTY, or feel like they are doing something morally wrong, where they have to choose between right and wrong. E.g. A religious doctor doesn't have to perform an abortion (more extreme case) etc. Surely it makes sense to leave these people alone rather than discarding their employment? Do you have empathy for other people, or do you just care about your own needs?

Why does it matter so much to you, when you can still achieve your goals of marriage etc? Couldn't such minority groups just happily go about their lifestyles leaving religious people in their own miserable way of thinking (according to you)? But no, that's not enough , you have to go further.

No point in using the word discriminate if not everyone agrees it is in fact discrimination.


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Couldn't such minority groups just happily go about their lifestyles leaving religious people in their own miserable way of thinking (according to you)? But no, that's not enough , you have to go further.
> 
> No point in using the word discriminate if not everyone agrees it is in fact discrimination.




I love how people make shyte up, never said anyone who was religious was miserable. It is there choice, I will will always defend that, but not if it means they have the right to discriminate because of their faith.

But go ahead, defend the rights of people who believe in a god, it has been going on for centuries and my beliefs/opinion will not change that.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> I love how people make shyte up, never said anyone who was religious was miserable. .




The religious crowd thrive on the feeling that they are persecuted, they will turn any situation around and act like they are the ones being discriminated against.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Everyone's job requires respect for the rights of others. Respecting others rights is not persecution.




And what of the rights of those with conscientious objections?


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2018)

cynic said:


> And what of the rights of those with conscientious objections?




They have the same rights as everyone else, no one is refusing to serve them anywhere.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The religious crowd thrive on the feeling that they are persecuted, they will turn any situation around and act like they are the ones being discriminated against.




Oh that's a good one. Substitute "gay" for religious and it's exactly the same.


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

They gay crowd has been persecuted. 

Lets just take a look at that stupid and dumb statement :
In *1994*, the Commonwealth passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act *1994* – Section 4, legalising sexual activity between consenting adults (in private) throughout Australia. It wasn't until *1997* however when the law in Tasmania prohibiting gay male sexual conduct was repealed in Tasmania.

But if we step outside Australia and go to a Muslim country, DEATH.

Oh, and lets no forget, that if you do not believe, you are going to hell.

You old timers have to get over it, times have changed and we the people no longer have to answer directly to the Church but rather to the collective of society.

Which, when I checked, voted for Gay marriage.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> They have the same rights as everyone else, no one is refusing to serve them anywhere.



Not quite what I was asking!

Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!

This legislation doesn't appear to have reduced persecution, it has actually increased it many fold!


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

"Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!"

As that would be discrimination under the law. Cannot have religious zealots thinking they are above the law can we?

Hmmmm, thinks of the catholic church and rock spiders.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> "Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!"
> 
> As that would be discrimination under the law. Cannot have religious zealots thinking they are above the law can we?
> 
> Hmmmm, thinks of the catholic church and rock spiders.



That sounds dangerously like discrimination against others for holding a different personal ideology to your own!
In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

"In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!"

To not be polite "F---k off" spend more money to protect the Church, they should have thought about protecting the children first and not defending their $$$$. When they admit to their faults, I will protect religious freedoms.

Incursion, my arse, how about the right of 2 people to get married who love each other, oh no, it must meet the requirements of religious zealots to be approved.

Bad luck, people have voted, legislation has passed, deal with it.

And when the little green men/women/bisexual/transgender life forms come down from the skies, how will religion explain them? Did god create them as well.


----------



## bellenuit (11 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Unlike those seeking gay marriage, any celebrants with conscientious objections to facilitation of such, are being denied their right to absent themselves!




No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.

Lots of people in the community have objections to gay marriage but do not have the right to maintain their position if they refuse to provide a service to those entitled to it. Their choice is to relinquish their position if they conscientiously object to providing that service. That way they maintained their right to absent themselves while at the same time not infringing on the rights of those requiring the service to obtain that service. *No rights have been infringed, because the conscientious objector never had the right to discriminate in that position to begin with. They were always required to provide the service to those entitled to it.*

Does a doctor in a public hospital have the right to refuse to treat a patient because that patient is gay or is in a gay relationship. How about refusing them entry into a museum or allowing them to attend a tertiary education course. Everyone would (or at least should) regard such actions as abuse of the gay person's rights. 

How about JW's who do not agree with blood transfusion. Should they be entitled to hold a senior position in a medical establishment where they can dictate that blood transfusions should not be carried out on *any* patient. It is obvious that if they conscientiously object to the procedure, they should vacate that position. That way their right to absent themselves is preserved and the rights of the patients to receive the treatment is also preserved.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.




As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.

And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?

It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> "In light of this recent incursion on vital social freedoms, perhaps we now need another plebiscite, promptly followed with additional legislation, designed for reinstatement of protections for the rights of clergy and their brethren!"
> 
> To not be polite "F---k off" spend more money to protect the Church, they should have thought about protecting the children first and not defending their $$$$. When they admit to their faults, I will protect religious freedoms.



The past misconduct of particular institutions, is totally unrelated to the issue I am highlighting. 


> Incursion, my arse, how about the right of 2 people to get married who love each other, oh no, it must meet the requirements of religious zealots to be approved.



They always had that right!!! 

The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs. 

The homosexuals protesting against the exclusion of non heterosexual couplings, from that institution,were seemingly oblivious to the fact, that they were in effect, campaigning against their very own homosexuality!!

Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?


> Bad luck, people have voted, legislation has passed, deal with it.



Yes it is indeed bad luck, in ways that many are yet to realise!!!!


> And when the little green men/women/bisexual/transgender life forms come down from the skies, how will religion explain them? Did god create them as well.



Yet again,zero relevance to the issue here.


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

"The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs. "

Once again I am hearing the same old crap, it was like that in the past so it must be forever like that in the future.

And Homosexuals were asking be able to be married, and if that only belongs to the religious then by definition that is discrimination.

Again, the people of Australian have spoken, just accept it.

Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?

I strongly disagree with lots of people and their beliefs, it does not mean I discriminate against them.

All gay marriage has shown, that the church/religious institutions and their so called religious rights have been protected for to long and people, yes the community wants change and they got it.

About time society made changes and this whole thread proves without doubt, we are moving forward in a positive and constructive manner - finally.

The heretics can no longer be persecuted because of their beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh that's a good one. Substitute "gay" for religious and it's exactly the same.



Except there is a big difference, gays are coming out of a period of real persecution, for a long time simply being gay came with a whole host of risks of social and physical punishment.

Where as for the longest time being “religious” or starting a sentence with  the words “as a Christian” gave you all sorts of unearned respect and priviage in the mind of society.

Also gays just want equal rights, not additional rights, religious folk are coming from a place of privilege and are crying not because they are actually being descriminated against, but because they are losing their power to discriminate against others, see the difference.

Eg. If I tell you to stop hitting me with a stick, I am not persecuting you, I am trying to stop you persecuting me. 

I am not removing your stick, or telling you not to have a stick, just that you can’t use that stick to hit some one,


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.
> 
> And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?
> 
> It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.




I hardly think you would think it was ok for some one to refuse service based on race?

How is refusing gays service any different?


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> No they are not. They can relinquish their license as a civil marriage celebrant if they have objections to fulfilling the role required of them.



And instead of changing the marriage act, gay people could simply have married somebody of the opposite gender!

It somehow seems to escape the attention of many, that gay people were never discriminated against under the former marriage act. Just like everybody else of legal age, homosexuals were always permitted to marry somebody of the opposite gender! There was no discrimination because they were never actually excluded! It's just that they didn't want marriage under it's former definition because it didn't suit them!

So now this "purportedly beneficent" change threatens to disrupt the long established careers of many whom happily assumed their roles under the former definition.

Please remind me, how exactly, is all this conducive to a more cohesive and inclusive society, when the needs of many are trampled for the benefit of... 
...who exactly?!! 


> Lots of people in the community have objections to gay marriage but do not have the right to maintain their position if they refuse to provide a service to those entitled to it. Their choice is to relinquish their position if they conscientiously object to providing that service. That way they maintained their right to absent themselves while at the same time not infringing on the rights of those requiring the service to obtain that service. *No rights have been infringed, because the conscientious objector never had the right to discriminate in that position to begin with. They were always required to provide the service to those entitled to it.*
> 
> Does a doctor in a public hospital have the right to refuse to treat a patient because that patient is gay or is in a gay relationship. How about refusing them entry into a museum or allowing them to attend a tertiary education course. Everyone would (or at least should) regard such actions as abuse of the gay person's rights.
> 
> How about JW's who do not agree with blood transfusion. Should they be entitled to hold a senior position in a medical establishment where they can dictate that blood transfusions should not be carried out on *any* patient. It is obvious that if they conscientiously object to the procedure, they should vacate that position. That way their right to absent themselves is preserved and the rights of the patients to receive the treatment is also preserved.




What the FTSE do life saving medical practices have to do with marriage?!!!

(It's starting to sound like somebody is desperately trying to avoid acknowledgement of one or more important distinctions!)


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> "The problem was that marriage, according to it's true definition, didn't accommodate their needs. "
> 
> Once again I am hearing the same old crap, it was like that in the past so it must be forever like that in the future.
> 
> And Homosexuals were asking be able to be married, and if that only belongs to the religious then by definition that is discrimination.



Errmmm ... The homosexuals weren't asking for the right to be married, because they always had that right. They were asking to redefine the definition of marriage!!
The aforesaid is is an important distinction that seems to be repeatedly ignored in this discussion.


> Again, the people of Australian have spoken, just accept it.



Yes I do accept the right of the populace to make their own mistakes. However, I object to being compelled to join them in their crusade, and would dearly like to see those whom support the campaign for increased discrimination and its accompanied losses of liberty, start taking responsibility for their errors, rather than merely deflecting the blame onto others.


> Anyway, getting back to the true issue here, how about the right of someone with strong ideological disagreement, having their right of non participation protected?
> 
> I strongly disagree with lots of people and their beliefs, it does not mean I discriminate against them.



Are you sure about that?
There seems to be some strongly discriminatory sentiments permeating your postings to this thread, like the following:


> All gay marriage has shown, that the church/religious institutions and their so called religious rights have been protected for to long and people, yes the community wants change and they got it.



You forgot to end that paragraph by saying "So there!!!!"


> About time society made changes and this whole thread proves without doubt, we are moving forward in a positive and constructive manner - finally.



Last time I checked, society was composed of an entire populace, a large percentage of whom have now been redefined as social pariahs, and appears to be becoming increasingly divided as a result!
If increased division is constructive,  then I am gravely fearful of the destination to which "we are moving forward"!


> The heretics can no longer be persecuted because of their beliefs.



On the contrary, heretics are still being persecuted, it's just that heresy (along with the heretics) has/have been redefined by the advent of a new religion!
It is curious how it came to be, that a person claiming non discriminatory behaviour, somehow failed to notice this occurrence!


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I hardly think you would think it was ok for some one to refuse service based on race?




A lot of things aren't right, but they are not against the law either.

As you said before previously, if people advertise that they don't serve xyz then they have a right to do that, but if they say they are open to everyone and then refuse to serve them then they have broken the law.


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Your words are big, but I have found that those that need to use big words to provide prove their  opinion really have no substance to discuss in the first place.




You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!

Now I realise you weren't actually playing obtuse and yet you still have an even vote on matters importance...sheeeeet! NURSE!


----------



## grah33 (11 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> I love how people make shyte up, never said anyone who was religious was miserable. It is there choice, I will will always defend that, but not if it means they have the right to discriminate because of their faith.
> 
> But go ahead, defend the rights of people who believe in a god, it has been going on for centuries and my beliefs/opinion will not change that.





Again u used the word discriminate ( in an immoral sense of the word), which isn't helpful to the discussion (we're going around in circles). It's not a known or written fact that it is about discrimination (only a belief/opinion ), nor does the No side here see it that way. So what can we do ? You have a belief in you that it's about discrimination, while others have an equally strong belief that it isn't. Does it now still make sense to compel them to obey? Better to split it both ways.

Discrimination usually goes together with dislike and some malice. Sure the gay community does experience that, but the people presenting their views  here (No side) don't seem to show these sentiments toward the gay community.


----------



## Tisme (11 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As has been said many times before, if a cake shop won't cook a wedding cake for gays, there are plenty of other cake shops around.
> 
> And why would gays want to be married by someone who obviously dislikes their practices when they can go to someone more friendly ?
> 
> It seems an excuse to be vindictive to people they don't like and force them to do something they don't want to do.




Forced marriage is now acceptable so long as SSM is involved.

Also a poser: if a hetero couple objected to a gay celebrant would they be dragged through the ringer too?


----------



## satanoperca (11 April 2018)

WayneL, you were right, I was trolling or I would prefer went fishing, took some time but finally got the big 7 pound trout I was after, and he does n't even realise he caught himself.

"You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!"

There are those big words, hope it makes up for the other parts of you body that might be small.

Thanks Tisme, taken many months, but a fisherman knows when the bag limit is reached and goes home with a happy smile on his face.

Thanks for providing that smile.


----------



## cynic (11 April 2018)

When advocation of antidisestablishmentarianism is met with accusations of sesquipedalian behaviour, how might one formulate a singularly appropriate and commensurate response?


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> WayneL, you were right, I was trolling or I would prefer went fishing, took some time but finally got the big 7 pound trout I was after, and he does n't even realise he caught himself.
> 
> "You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!"
> 
> ...




Now we can see how devilishly clever you are, a veritable Professor Moriarty, perhaps you can explain to us all why there is no change between your supposed trolling vernacular and usual style?  You'll have to forgive my mumbling because your hook is supposedly stuck firm in my cheek.

I'm not good at back peddling on a fixed wheel 28", but at least I can get some reverse momentum. That skill seems to elude you, but once again I'm sure that's just part of the grab bag of party tricks at your wily disposal.

really fuc7#n lame


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

cynic said:


> When advocation of antidisestablishmentarianism is met with accusations of sesquipedalian behaviour, how might one formulate a singularly appropriate and commensurate response?




I'm pretty sure our monosyllabic resident rainbow fisherman would suggest abbreviations? .


----------



## grah33 (12 April 2018)

cynic said:


> When advocation of antidisestablishmentarianism is met with accusations of sesquipedalian behaviour, how might one formulate a singularly appropriate and commensurate response?



oh man... hilarious these posts can be...can u and tisme and wayne give us all some tips on how to write complicated?


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> oh man... hilarious these posts can be...can u and tisme and wayne give us all some tips on how to write complicated?




Let's start at pre school level. First step is to post like our self professed troll :

step 1: Language translator http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/ali-g-translator.asp

Boomshakalaka


----------



## wayneL (12 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> WayneL, you were right, I was trolling or I would prefer went fishing, took some time but finally got the big 7 pound trout I was after, and he does n't even realise he caught himself.
> 
> "You really admitting to using ignorance of the English language as a yardstick for quantitative and qualitative merit ?!"
> 
> ...



Unwarrranted self-congratulation is so classless.


----------



## grah33 (12 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Let's start at pre school level. First step is to post like our self professed troll :
> 
> step 1: Language translator http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/ali-g-translator.asp
> 
> Boomshakalaka



*Fanks bruva.  *


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> A lot of things aren't right, but they are not against the law either.




Refusing service due to race or sexuality is against the law


> As you said before previously, if people advertise that they don't serve xyz then they have a right to do that,




I said they should start a club, rather than a business open to the public. if they are trading as a business, its against the law for them to refuse service.

But I doubt they would openly advertise their bigotry, which creates a situation of them appearing to be a business open to the public, except when gays do come in to order a cake they get refused service without any prior warnings, leading to awkwardness and humiliation.



> but if they say they are open to everyone and then refuse to serve them then they have broken the law.




 it's against the Law to refuse service based on sexuality when trading as a business in Australia.

https://www.business.gov.au/info/pl...ess/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service


> A hotel refuses to accept a room booking for a same-sex couple because gay relationships make them feel uncomfortable.
> You’re correct if you think these businesses could be breaching anti-discrimination law. This is because the business is refusing service based on an attribute covered by anti-discrimination law: age, sexual orientation, race, and disability.
> 
> .


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I said they should start a club,




Churches are clubs.


----------



## satanoperca (12 April 2018)

"Churches are clubs." Bulls--t, they are a business.

Don't know of to many clubs that can support this :
Cardinal Pell “the “Cardinal of luxury’’, claiming he last year spent half a million euros ($720,000) in six months setting up his new office after the Pope appointed him to reform Vatican finances.

Keep trying to defend the indefensible, it is rather amusing.

An a big thanks to WayneL for your compliment, it means a lot to me as I strive to be classless, as I am just a humble person, leading a humble life, a man of the people, who does not discriminate and only judges those that judge and class other and has no need or aspiration to be classy.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Churches are clubs.



yes, whats your point?

No one is saying a priest or any church should have to do same sex marriages if its against their club rules, we are talking about those operating in the free market as businesses.


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> yes, whats your point?
> 
> No one is saying a priest or any church should have to do same sex marriages if its against their club rules, we are talking about those operating in the free market as businesses.




Are JPs a business?


----------



## wayneL (12 April 2018)

Jesus Im getting acquired ocular dropsy from all the eyerolling.

Must. 
Not. 
Feed. 
The. 
Trolls.


----------



## satanoperca (12 April 2018)

Tisme, it amazes me how hard this is for you to comprehend.

You cannot discriminate against someones sexual preference, regardless of your own beliefs. Just like you cannot discriminate against colour, race or religion.

This is the law, why cannot you accept it?

Guessing, because it goes against your beliefs which we ingrain in your as a child. Well stiff sh--t.

You should be focusing your energy and intelligence towards where discrimination is prevalent in the wider community and not focused on protecting the so called rights and freedoms of religion.

But that would require strength, easy to pick on the minority.

And thanks for the compliment, I do like going fishing in my rainbow costume, I find I get more bites


----------



## satanoperca (12 April 2018)

wayneL said:


> Jesus Im getting acquired ocular dropsy from all the eyerolling.
> 
> Must.
> Not.
> ...




Everyone requires food, but maybe your culinary skills just aren't up to it.

The trolls are hungry, please feed them.


----------



## wayneL (12 April 2018)

Satan,  people discriminate on all sorts of bases,  including the ones mentioned. 

Even government and business do it when hiring in the name of diversity. I posit these laws are selectively applied,  which makes them all the more poisonous. 

Viva la revolucian


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Are JPs a business?




A JP must follow the JP code of conduct.

The very first rule is that they must not unreasonably refuse service to anyone, and must treat all persons seeking services with dignity and respect.

http://www.jp.nsw.gov.au/Documents/jpcodeofconduct.pdf

A JP has to remain impartial, they aren’t there to provide judgement over a contract or document, just to act as a witness, as long as the contract is legal, they need to witnesses it, other wise they will have to forfeit their role as a jp


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> A JP must follow the JP code of conduct.
> 
> The very first rule is that they must not unreasonably refuse service to anyone, and must treat all persons seeking services with dignity and respect.
> 
> ...




So it's not a business, not an enterprise, but the question I'm obviously putting is are they compelled to witness a wedding if asked by SSM, or as is the case with normal people in any matter they can refuse?


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> So it's not a business, not an enterprise, but the question I'm obviously putting is are they compelled to witness a wedding if asked by SSM, or as is the case with normal people in any matter they can refuse?




Silly question really. Of course they can refuse just as normal people in any matter can refuse. But that doesn't mean there aren't or shouldn't be any consequences, just as normal people who refuse in any matter may suffer consequences.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Silly question really. Of course they can refuse just as normal people in any matter can refuse. But that doesn't mean there aren't or shouldn't be any consequences, just as normal people who refuse in any matter may suffer consequences.




One thing I can't brag about is being silly in the context you are inferring.

And you find it satisfactory that individuals are subject at best to Dickensian rules, but in reality draconian laws? All the work of e,g, the labour movement ridding itself of the yolk of peasant oppression, only to be depreciated and handed back to to the powerful few ...well done on promoting social and legal devolution at the expense of those who value freedom of association, speech, opinion and human error.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> So it's not a business, not an enterprise, but the question I'm obviously putting is are they compelled to witness a wedding if asked by SSM, or as is the case with normal people in any matter they can refuse?




I would say yes, But they aren't compelled to be a JP, when you are a JP you should put Australian Law ahead of your religious law when it comes to army out your JP duty, other wise you probably shouldn't be a JP to begin with.

item 1.1 and 4.4 in the code of conduct I linked definitely makes it sound like they can't refuse service.

If a document is lawful under the law, and the government requires a JP to sign it, the JP must carry out their duties, otherwise they breach the code of conduct and may lose their right to JP status.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Silly question really. Of course they can refuse just as normal people in any matter can refuse. But that doesn't mean there aren't or shouldn't be any consequences, just as normal people who refuse in any matter may suffer consequences.




refusing would breach item 1.1 and 4.4 in the code of conduct I linked, and I am pretty sure would result in them losing JP status, But thats their choice isn't it. If they put religious Ideas before the Australian Law, they shouldn't be a JP in the first place.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I would say yes, But they aren't compelled to be a JP, when you are a JP you should put Australian Law ahead of your religious law when it comes to army out your JP duty, other wise you probably shouldn't be a JP to begin with.
> 
> item 1.1 and 4.4 in the code of conduct I linked definitely makes it sound like they can't refuse service.
> 
> If a document is lawful under the law, and the government requires a JP to sign it, the JP must carry out their duties, otherwise they breach the code of conduct and may lose their right to JP status.




That's just arguing that legislation is always right, in this case retrospective. Grandfather clauses were promised as part of the marketing campaign by the incumbent PM, but he betrayed that assurance in face of his segmentation voter strategy at the 11th hour.

Fooling most of the people some of the time is as old as Moses, but it doesn't mean it should not be railed against. The 80/20 always comes into play when the public acquiesce,  the few more determined correct the errors...I am one of those 20% and not ashamed to admit it. IMO there's something weak about people who lay down misere in face of majority lost civil rights.

A glaring example of simpletons in play has been highlighted over the last few days on this very forum. You can't tell me you get a feeling of validation from that?


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> One thing I can't brag about is being silly in the context you are inferring.
> 
> And you find it satisfactory that individuals are subject at best to Dickensian rules, but in reality draconian laws? All the work of e,g, the labour movement ridding itself of the yolk of peasant oppression, only to be depreciated and handed back to to the powerful few ...well done on promoting social and legal devolution at the expense of those who value freedom of association, speech, opinion and human error.




Dickensian rules! Being required to fulfil the terms of your employment or the position you hold? What hyperbolic nonsense. Considering a JP is a volunteer position that in generally unpaid, then it is not like having the position taken away from you means you end up in the poor house.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Dickensian rules! Being required to fulfil the terms of your employment or the position you hold? What hyperbolic nonsense. Considering a JP is a volunteer position that in generally unpaid, then it is not like having the position taken away from you means you end up in the poor house.




Insults aside, you are answering your own discord and agreeing with my contention.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> That's just arguing that legislation is always right, in this case retrospective. Grandfather clauses were promised as part of the marketing campaign by the incumbent PM, but he betrayed that assurance in face of his segmentation voter strategy at the 11th hour.
> 
> Fooling most of the people some of the time is as old as Moses, but it doesn't mean it should not be railed against. The 80/20 always comes into play when the public acquiesce,  the few more determined correct the errors...I am one of those 20% and not ashamed to admit it. IMO there's something weak about people who lay down misere in face of majority lost civil rights.
> 
> A glaring example of simpletons in play has been highlighted over the last few days on this very forum. You can't tell me you get a feeling of validation from that?




What does any of that have to do with JPs carrying out their duties.

The code of conduct was around before same sex marriage, JPs have always been required to carry out their duties regardless of their personal views.

eg, A JP can not refuse to witness a liquor license regardless of their views on alcohol, they aren't there to judge the contract, just witness the signatures, They aren't even required to read the contracts they witness, just check the ID of the people signing and witness it.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> What does any of that have to do with JPs carrying out their duties.
> 
> The code of conduct was around before same sex marriage, JPs have always been required to carry out their duties regardless of their personal views.
> 
> eg, A JP can not refuse to witness a liquor license regardless of their views on alcohol, they aren't there to judge the contract, just witness the signatures, They aren't even required to read the contracts they witness, just check the ID of the people signing and witness it.




They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.

If you read my posts properly, without getting pent up,  that is the crux of my question ... in effect are they compelled to justify not being available for matters between gay people? Simplistically for people like bas, are there two sets of rules for SSM and TM?

Inquiring minds need to know.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.
> 
> .




This is the oath JPs have taken,

“... *I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will*.”

Refusing to witness a same sex marriage breaches multiple parts of that oath.

eg, 

*I will do right to all manner of people, *(refusing to do your duty because of the peoples sexuality)
*
after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales *(refusing to witness a lawful contract)


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> They could and still do choose to be available or refuse, if you have ever tried to get a JP on your terms you would know this.
> 
> .




This is the oath they have taken,

“... *I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will*.”

Refusing to witness a same sex marriage breaches multiple parts of that oath.

eg,

*I will do right to all manner of people, *(refusing to do your duty because of the peoples sexuality)
*
after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales *(refusing to witness a lawful contract)


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> This is the oath JPs have taken,
> 
> “... *I will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will*.”
> 
> ...




That's not what I was driving at. Of course they have to demonstrate even handedness, but will they be exposed to undue scrutiny and justification if they were to refuse a task that they deemed did not meet the relevant criteria. 

Will they have to answer to various HRC and Racial vilification jurisdictions ... you betcha they will and the role of JP integrity will disappear to make way for gratuitous appeasement ..... it's a give.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> That's not what I was driving at. Of course they have to demonstrate even handedness, but will they be exposed to undue scrutiny and justification if they were to refuse a task that they deemed did not meet the relevant criteria.
> 
> Will they have to answer to various HRC and Racial vilification jurisdictions ... you betcha they will and the role of JP integrity will disappear to make way for gratuitous appeasement ..... it's a give.



If they are breaching their code of conduct yes.

Basically they can't refuse anyone,


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If they are breaching their code of conduct yes.
> 
> Basically they can't refuse anyone,




JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Insults aside, you are answering your own discord and agreeing with my contention.




I think you have your knickers in a twist with that statement.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.



have you read their code of conduct?


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> JPs in QLD can use judgement if there is a concern.




Nope, I just looked it up for you.

Item 3 and 14 the *Queensland *Jp code of conduct is,
*
14. JPs and Cdecs shall administer the law as it stands, with no right to decline to act because of personally held views about particular legislation.


3. JPs and Cdecs shall not act with bias, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, malice and ill will. They shall pursue the principles of equity and social justice as consistent criteria in all their dealings with the community.

*


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> have you read their code of conduct?




Sure have.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, I just looked it up for you.
> 
> Item 3 and 14 the *Queensland *Jp code of conduct is,
> *
> ...




Read the code again in the context of this conversation


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I think you have your knickers in a twist with that statement.




I don't think so, as a matter of fact I no I don't.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Read the code again in the context of this conversation



Read item 14 again in context of this conversation, it’s very clear.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Read item 14 again in context of this conversation, it’s very clear.




We're getting nowhere on this so lets just see how our predictions unravel over time.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

Conventional marriage rates declined by ~16% in the 20 years ending 2016. 

All things considered, if marriage was a corporation, would you take a short position or a put option ?


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

Still out poof bashing Tisme ?  Can't stand the thought that  gay people who love each other can in 2018  be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.

Just poisonous rubbish repeated and regurgited as nauseam.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Still out poof bashing Tisme ?  Can't stand the thought that  gay people who love each other can in 2018  be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.
> 
> Just poisonous rubbish repeated and regurgited as nauseam.




I have already explained that like Wayne, I am very friendly with many gays I socialise with. I also maintain that people like yourself do not have a personal relationship with with them so you ride a **** horse in an attempt to square the ledger and give you street cred. If you did you wouldn't be trying to pidgeon hole them behind your protective shield.

Two weeks ago I was in New Farm at a party.  At least six of the ~20 crowd were bent,  we did cigars, we did Tassie made scotch we laughed we swapped tales, argued about politics and PC and there was no elephants in the room.  In between these shows we do lunch. What do you bring to the table ... cooptive newspaper articles, ghosts of whiney past students, heresay, razor blades...?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Still out poof bashing Tisme ? Can't stand the thought that gay people who love each other can in 2018 be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.




As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.




Un-Naturalism?  given that same sex coupling seems to be a natural phenomenon observed in multiple species, I don't think un-natural is a good term, especially because the people that claim they oppose it due to it being "un-natural" don't seem to care to oppose the many other un-natural things humans are doing that are demonstrably more damaging and harmful to ourselves other species and the environment.

Unless you are living I the forest eating leaves and termites, please don't try and appeal to "natural" arguments.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Un-Naturalism?  given that same sex coupling seems to be a natural phenomenon observed in multiple species, I don't think un-natural is a good term, especially because the people that claim they oppose it due to it being "un-natural" don't seem to care to oppose the many other un-natural things humans are doing that are demonstrably more damaging and harmful to ourselves other species and the environment.
> 
> Unless you are living I the forest eating leaves and termites, please don't try and appeal to "natural" arguments.




It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct. 

That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.




Rumpy I don't recall it it being compulsory to be gay ? I believe the argument is about live and let live ?

Throwing in the line of "un-naturalism" probably needs qualification. The natural world isn't binary. There is a wide range of sexual behaviours across all species including  people.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> Rumpy I don't recall it it being compulsory to be gay ? I believe the argument is about live and let live ?
> 
> Throwing in the line of "un-naturalism" probably needs qualification. The natural world isn't binary. There is a wide range of sexual behaviours across all species including  people.




My point was bas, that just because a slim majority of people voted for gay marriage doesn't mean that opposing voices must cease.

The Liberal party has a  one seat majority, so we should all shut up and not criticise them ?


----------



## basilio (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> My point was bas, that just because a slim majority of people voted for gay marriage doesn't mean that opposing voices must cease.
> 
> The Liberal party has a  one seat majority, so we should all shut up and not criticise them ?




I believe that is a false analogy Rumpy. The analysis and criticism of any political party is an ongoing process. As a community we are trying to get policies and practices that work best for the majority of people.

The conversation about gay marriage  went to issues of fairness.  How fair was it to disallow a marriage between two consenting adults (who wern't related...).

Obviously 50 years ago society would never stand such a conversation. In fact homesexuals would be jailed or beaten up just for being homesexual. Along the way we  collectively came to the realisation that while we might not be gay ourselves *we didn't need to fear or despise men/women who were attracted to the same sex. *So it's just acceptance without judgement.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

basilio said:


> The conversation about gay marriage went to issues of fairness. How fair was it to disallow a marriage between two consenting adults (who wern't related...).




I was an advocate of the plebiscite and I accept the result. 

I don't really care if two consenting adults get married  although I think it devalues the true purpose of marriage which is to provide a secure environment for children.

I can't agree with gay parenting, this was an issue that was decided by politicians with no electoral consultation and should be reviewed.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct.
> 
> That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?



I have explained it before.

A low percentage of gays in a population is perfectly evolutionary stable, and has some possible benefits to group survival.

eg, tribe wouldn't suffer negative effects from having 1 or 2 gays around, however a family with an extra gay uncle hanging around helping protect and raise his nephews and nieces will have big benefits.

The nieces and nephews are carrying the same genes as the gay uncle (or lesbian aunty), but their chances of survival are increased by him/her being around, So even though he didn't breed himself, his/her genes will be passed on at a higher rate than a family without his additional support.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> eg, tribe wouldn't suffer negative effects from having 1 or 2 gays around, however a family with an extra gay uncle hanging around helping protect and raise his nephews and nieces will have big benefits.




No more beneficial than a straight uncle or aunt.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No more beneficial than a straight uncle or aunt.




A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.

However the family with two biological parents and a close gay uncle or aunt with none of their own children may end up with 50% more parenting power surrounding them, giving them an advantage over the status quo.

For evolution to pass a gene along, it just has to be not a negative, and a gay genes existing at say 2% of the population, isn't a significant disadvantage to the group, but may be a slight advantage to those families close to the gay member, who are probably sharing his or her genes, so the level will be maintained by the evolutionary process, not punished by it.

---------------

Consider worker bees, a whole hive is maintained by one breeding female, but all the workers who don't breed them selves are still helping the queen breed more effectively, even those 99.99% of the hive are completely Asexual, it forms an advantage evolutionarily speaking.

if 99.99% of bees can be asexual, surely having 2 % of humans as gay wouldn't hurt us, and may even helped their biological family survive.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.




So the kids of both families would have cousins to play with and not be house-maided by a childless aunt or uncle.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I was an advocate of the plebiscite and I accept the result.




That doesn't mean the bleeding heart guilty should not be held accountable for the mess they have seeded.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So the kids of both families would have cousins to play with and not be house-maided by a childless aunt or uncle.



So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?



Has evolutionary biology arrived at a confident conclusion regarding the underlying cause for the emergence of homosexuality?


----------



## Tisme (15 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.
> 
> However the family with two biological parents and a close gay uncle or aunt with none of their own children may end up with 50% more parenting power surrounding them, giving them an advantage over the status quo.
> 
> ...





There is no basis for genes in the argument.... totally unproven supposition they are a credible excuse.


----------



## Tisme (15 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct.
> 
> That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?




Recent findings tend to prove Freud actually got something right when he postulated homosexuality was correlated with narcissism and low self esteem.... something the old timers used to observe when young boys were brought up in homes with (e.g. puritanical) old maid aunts ruling the agenda.


----------



## noirua (28 April 2018)

After this check persons would have a sex branded on their thumb. Before any marriage is allowed a thorough thumb check should be made.


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2018)

The baker won 7-2 ruling. Religious and moral win for the ethically correct.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?




I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.




How do you know? things are more complex than that, I don't think you have all the information you would need to make that claim, its been preserved by evolution for a reason, I don't think you can rule out possible benefits of having a small percentage of gay people among the population.


----------



## satanoperca (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.




As homosexuality does exist, along with bisexuality and everything either side.

Can you explain how homosexuality makes you personally worse off?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Can you explain how homosexuality makes you personally worse off?




Because there is a small screeching group continually demanding attention for their "needs" which takes the minds of the politicians off the job of making life better for everyone.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Because there is a small screeching group continually demanding attention for their "needs" which takes the minds of the politicians off the job of making life better for everyone.




Thats only because this group has been denied and rejected for so long, and there is a screeching group that wants to continue to deny them, for example the same sex marriage thing only took so long to resolve because of the nay sayers, If those screeching prudes who were against same sex marriage didn't exist, the whole process would have happened faster, perhaps in the 1980's or 1990's.



> there is a small screeching group continually demanding attention for their "needs" which takes the minds of the politicians off the job of making life better for everyone




you could say that you are describing the religious folk here, that want to slow the process down.


----------



## Tisme (8 June 2018)

About time freedom of choice was applied to the real victims of the madness that has diseased the world.

http://www.ntd.tv/2018/06/06/suprem...er-who-refused-to-make-same-sex-wedding-cake/



> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
> 
> In a 7-2 decision handed down on Monday, June 4, the justices set aside a Colorado court’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips.
> 
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2018)

Good scam on the gay scene.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/scammer-blackmailed-engaged-man-met-gay-dating-app-124319249.html


----------



## sptrawler (10 September 2018)

basilio said:


> It's just respect for others and allowing people to live their lives without trying to poison the atmosphere around them.




Yes basilio, it is all good now, everything is settling down and people can just get on with their lives. lol

https://www.couriermail.com.au/life...s/news-story/5d81f35c8cc8ba3667ee8056409ff0f9

We are becoming a weird society.
Thankfully the kids will just get on with their lives, while some just have to get their 15 minutes of fame, who knows?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Yes basilio, it is all good now, everything is settling down and people can just get on with their lives. lol
> 
> https://www.couriermail.com.au/life...s/news-story/5d81f35c8cc8ba3667ee8056409ff0f9
> 
> ...




Confused people raising even more confused children.

It won't end well.


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Confused people raising even more confused children.
> 
> It won't end well.




For who? Mental illness and blind faith is the new normal; ~60% of the nation testified to that (they should be made to foot the future bill and wear the consequences of their actions)


----------



## PZ99 (11 September 2018)

I can't blame people for being confused, so for their benefit... What exactly does a heterosexual couple changing their gender have anything to do with legalised same sex marriage ???


----------



## basilio (11 September 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I can't blame people for being confused, so for their benefit... What exactly does a heterosexual couple changing their gender have anything to do with legalised same sex marriage ???




Careful here.. You might start to sound logical. That wouldn't do would it ?


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I can't blame people for being confused, so for their benefit... What exactly does a heterosexual couple changing their gender have anything to do with legalised same sex marriage ???




At some stage they will be same sex?


----------



## PZ99 (11 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> At some stage they will be same sex?



Can't see how that changes anything. They're not gay - let alone married as such.

The confusing bit is this... the woman started her gender changing process in 2011. Which is 3 years prior to SSM being legal in that country - and 7 years prior to it being legal in this country.

The connection with that and SSM here seems to fail the pub test


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Can't see how that changes anything. They're not gay - let alone married as such.
> 
> The confusing bit is this... the woman started her gender changing process in 2011. Which is 3 years prior to SSM being legal in that country - and 7 years prior to it being legal in this country.
> 
> The connection with that and SSM here seems to fail the pub test





Is it really a gender change or just changing the curtains?  Who was the first male conversion to have a naturally conceived baby and who is the first female to get her own child making penile erection .... basic stuff that comes with gender.... that's a pub test.


----------



## PZ99 (11 September 2018)

Changing genders, whether by curtains or cut 'n' pastes doesn't happen in a pub.

Homosexuals getting legally married can and does.


----------

