Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 55.8%

  • No

    Votes: 61 44.2%
  • Total voters
    138
Jump to new
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/man-hospitalized-after-boyfriends-fist-gets-stuck-in-his-anus/
 
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
What would we expect from a bunch of foreigners with no respect for local customs.:rolleyes:

We need to vote some dinky die Australian citizens into parliament for a change.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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).

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?
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/cult...-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171101-gzd7lq.html
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

...
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...


That's not representative democracy, it's anarchism (mob rule) and does not work.
 
wayneL said:
Bullshyte.

Likewise, I should never ne able to force someone to do business with me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
No. Two reasons.
  1. Because they actually do pay tax.
  2. Because they don't pretend to rule the world by proxy.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

basilio
Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
457
finicky
finicky
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Knobby22
Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
916
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Finding the truth vs. "The Rule of Law"
10 11 12
Replies
239
Views
16K
JohnDe
JohnDe
basilio
A truly Christian school...!
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
cynic
cynic
Top