Gay Marriage

[sptrawler]

Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred. And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.

Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.

You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.

Sums her and Labor up beautifully, F you get out of my way, and by the way what about equality.

Beautiful, just beautiful, personifies the whole issue.

Great post.logique

 

[Macquack]

Sums her and Labor up beautifully, F you get out of my way, and by the way what about equality.

Beautiful, just beautiful, personifies the whole issue.

Great post.logique

What a beat up.

Hockey says "Hello Penny". Wong replies "Hello". What is wrong with that?

You guys and Andrew Bolt are pathetic.

 

[sptrawler]

What a beat up.

Hockey says "Hello Penny". Wong replies "Hello". What is wrong with that?

You guys and Andrew Bolt are pathetic.

You didn't notice how long Hockey stood there, in a passive pose?

You didn't notice the persona of Penny, get the FF out of my way?

You really must be passive aggressive, it seems to be the new norm, but I don't think people are accepting it.

My apologies if you are Penny's partner, it is only my personal assessment, of the video content I viewed.

I in no way wish to influence any other person, in their assessment of the said video, and I am completely impartial when it comes to gay marriage and in no way wish to be sued for my comments.

 

[Macquack]

You didn't notice how long Hockey stood there, in a passive pose?

You didn't notice the persona of Penny, get the FF out of my way?

You have got absolutely NOTHING, and you need to toughen up if you get so easily scared by a lesbian senator walking through a doorway.

If she said "Hello Joe you fat c", you might have had something to work with.

 

[sptrawler]

You have got absolutely NOTHING, and you need to toughen up if you get so easily scared by a lesbian senator walking through a doorway.

If she said "Hello Joe you fat c", you might have had something to work with.

No need to get your knickers in a knot, it was what it was, you can make of it what you want.

It just looked to me as though she was thinking " get out of my way you fat c", she didn't actually say anything.

But a picture can say a thousand words.

Just because you want to excuse bad manners, doesn't mean we all have to.

 

[banco]

Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.

 

[SirRumpole]

Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.

Who would they be ?

 

[SirRumpole]

No need to get your knickers in a knot, it was what it was, you can make of it what you want.

It just looked to me as though she was thinking " get out of my way you fat c", she didn't actually say anything.

But a picture can say a thousand words.

Just because you want to excuse bad manners, doesn't mean we all have to.

People with too much time on their hands methinks

 

[sptrawler]

People with too much time on their hands methinks

Fully agree, lol, obviously some have skin in the outcome.

 

[noco]

I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.

If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/

 

[Value Collector]

Discrimination, is discrimination, you can't it tailor to suit you personal circumstances, or sexual preferences.

You can't just say its not discrimination because, it doesn't affect you, or isn't in line with your arguement.lol

If you can't see a difference between setting qualification rules for something like retirement based on age, and setting qualification rules based on race or sexuality, you are either just being silly or you are genuinely stupid.

 

[Value Collector]

The Constitution says nothing about Gay Marriage, otherwise the laws would have been challenged already.

International "Conventions" ? Well we have self government so we don't have to take any notice of those.

And you neatly sidestepped my point which is that someone has to vote to change the Marriage Act, it's a question of whether you think that the politicians know better than the people on this issue.

I wasn't specifically talking about gay marriage, I was just saying that politicians do not have an open slate to make what ever laws they want.

 

[sptrawler]

If you can't see a difference between setting qualification rules for something like retirement based on age, and setting qualification rules based on race or sexuality, you are either just being silly or you are genuinely stupid.

I wasn't setting qualification rules on retirement, I was setting qualification rules on access to entitlements.

If you can't see the difference, you are either being silly or being genuinely stupid.

But then again it doesn't support your argument, so feel free to making a baseless conclusion.

By the way isn't you statement of discrimination on race and sexuality, a personal bent on the phrase, race and sex( i.e male or female/)

By the way, you seem to flapping around, like a chook. Don't mean to be rude, but read through the posts and replies.

People joining the thread have to have some idea of context, when reading the post.IMO

By the way the post refered to was 1634 on the previous page, for anyone that is interested, which I doubt.lol

 

[Value Collector]

I wasn't setting qualification rules on retirement, I was setting qualification rules on access to entitlements.

If you can't see the difference, you are either being silly or being genuinely stupid.

But then again it doesn't support your argument, so feel free to making a baseless conclusion.

By the way isn't you statement of discrimination on race and sexuality, a personal bent on the phrase, race and sex( i.e male or female/)

By the way, you seem to flapping around, like a chook. Don't mean to be rude, but read through the posts and replies.

People joining the thread have to have some idea of context, when reading the post.IMO

By the way the post refered to was 1634 on the previous page, for anyone that is interested, which I doubt.lol

I said that the majority doesn't have the right to deny basic human rights to minorities.

You then made a comment saying stuff about the aged pension and discrimination based on age qualification etc, I was just pointing out that it is not the same.

There are good reasons why we need to have age limits for retirement entitlements, there is no good reason who we should deny retire entitlements to someone simply because they are black, female, gay or a Mormon.

By the way isn't you statement of discrimination on race and sexuality, a personal bent on the phrase, race and sex( i.e male or female/)

Sexuality and sex are different things,

But I believe the government should not be denying rights to anyone based on either of them.

 

[Tink]

I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.

If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/

+1

The majority of Australians oppose the destruction of marriage, and a referendum or plebiscite is what people have been asking for, so good on them for listening to us.


For millennia we simply enjoyed marriage and family, and no one ever questioned these tremendous social goods, nor even dreamed of redefining them out of existence. But we live in bizarre times, where we now actually have to defend marriage and family against their many frenzied attackers.

So we have now had around 16 different bills introduced in Australia to gut the institution of marriage of its very heart. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman becoming husband and a wife, with the possibility of becoming a father and a mother.

That is what marriage is all about. It is a vital social institution which has existed long before the state even recognised it, to provide the best environment for any children conceived through the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is a pro-children institution which keeps spouses connected to each other and parents to their children.

That is what marriage is, and that is what marriage does.

Thus far all the anti-marriage bills have been defeated, yet the activists neither eat nor sleep it seems. They are engaged in a war of attrition, seeking to wear down the other side by the constant bombardment of parliament with frivolous and time-wasting bills.

Instead of concentrating on the really vital issues of the day, the Labor party is again wasting our time with fake marriage.

 

[Tisme]

Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred. And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.

Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.

You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.

Yes I had a flashback of Howard meets Latham.

Maybe Penny would do better doing the job she was elected for rather than spending her time social engineering and grooming new rainbow members and advocates at taxpayers expense.

 

[Tisme]

I said that the majority doesn't have the right to deny basic human rights to minorities.

You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).

The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.

Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.

 

[Tisme]

I agree with Tony Abbott that the people should decide...Not politicians or activity groups should be allowed to decide to change the laws in this case.

/

Finally you agree with something Rumpole has been advocating for the last half decade or more

 

[SirRumpole]

Finally you agree with something Rumpole has been advocating for the last half decade or more

He'll change his mind now.

 

[Tisme]

Will be interesting to see if the two closeted gay men on the front bench cross the floor.

If I was to go on mannerisms and looks I'd say there was a more than two:

MT, PD, HG, JF, MK, NS ?

Is Penny Wong's partner on the Lib front bench?