I am!
Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
My contribution to the Tuesday Funnies thread
They should have had “MAYBE” on the form, next to “NO” and “YES”.
For those undecided.
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
I wonder how it would go down if how about we don’t just vote NO but ask for people of different colour and race not being allowed to marry either
You see, I have no particular problem with people voting NO,
What i do have a problem with is people that try and rationalise their decision as being based in anything other than a simply homophobic context.
Cymek said:
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
I wonder how it would go down if how about we don’t just vote NO but ask for people of different colour and race not being allowed to marry either
Seemed like Roger Corbett was leaning into that idea last night.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/prominent-businessman-roger-corbett-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-in-a-bizarre-interview/news-story/0da6359ee0bfc554ae8d8630356569c8
dv said:
Cymek said:
Bubblecar said:Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
I wonder how it would go down if how about we don’t just vote NO but ask for people of different colour and race not being allowed to marry either
Seemed like Roger Corbett was leaning into that idea last night.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/prominent-businessman-roger-corbett-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-in-a-bizarre-interview/news-story/0da6359ee0bfc554ae8d8630356569c8
Damn. Did he need an excuse for woolworths to lose more business?
sarahs mum said:
dv said:
Cymek said:I wonder how it would go down if how about we don’t just vote NO but ask for people of different colour and race not being allowed to marry either
Seemed like Roger Corbett was leaning into that idea last night.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/prominent-businessman-roger-corbett-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-in-a-bizarre-interview/news-story/0da6359ee0bfc554ae8d8630356569c8
Damn. Did he need an excuse for woolworths to lose more business?
So who so far has had to fight for equal rights, women, native people, people of colour and now gay people, the later many people would ashamed of today
Cymek said:
sarahs mum said:
dv said:Seemed like Roger Corbett was leaning into that idea last night.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/prominent-businessman-roger-corbett-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-in-a-bizarre-interview/news-story/0da6359ee0bfc554ae8d8630356569c8
Damn. Did he need an excuse for woolworths to lose more business?
So who so far has had to fight for equal rights, women, native people, people of colour and now gay people, the later many people would ashamed of today
Saying NO is one thing. Linking the debate to racist stuff…is another.
sarahs mum said:
Cymek said:
sarahs mum said:Damn. Did he need an excuse for woolworths to lose more business?
So who so far has had to fight for equal rights, women, native people, people of colour and now gay people, the later many people would ashamed of today
Saying NO is one thing. Linking the debate to racist stuff…is another.
I’m curious about where he was going with that.
sarahs mum said:
Cymek said:
sarahs mum said:Damn. Did he need an excuse for woolworths to lose more business?
So who so far has had to fight for equal rights, women, native people, people of colour and now gay people, the later many people would ashamed of today
Saying NO is one thing. Linking the debate to racist stuff…is another.
I was thinking it’s along the same lines though, I mean how was not allowing people who weren’t white to get married to whom they wanted justified, was the old religion card trotted out like it is with gay marriage as a disguise because you are really just a homophobe or racist.
Think I’ll just scrawl some cock and balls 2X on my form. From that the ABS should be able to devine that I’m against the process but for the proposition.
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
Ian said:
Think I’ll just scrawl some cock and balls 2X on my form.
Self portrait hey.
Ian said:
Think I’ll just scrawl some cock and balls 2X on my form. From that the ABS should be able to devine that I’m against the process but for the proposition.
I scrawled a penis and a vagina, from that the ABS should be able to figure out Im single and would like a woman partner, they will then send me an application for a girlfriend form which is big at over 100 pages of questions which I will fill out and send back to them.
The_observer said:
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
Ian said:
Hahahahaha!
Think I’ll just scrawl some cock and balls 2X on my form. From that the ABS should be able to devine that I’m against the process but for the proposition.
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
Bubblecar said:Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
So set all that aside and consider the issue on its merits.
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
Bubblecar said:Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
The vote is over a basic human rights issue,
sadly there will be people who will vote no to human rights,
most will vote yes I think.
my issue is not whether to vote yes or no but whether I should bother voting at all…
dv said:
Tamb said:
The_observer said:There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
So set all that aside and consider the issue on its merits.
The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
Tamb said:
dv said:
Tamb said:I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
So set all that aside and consider the issue on its merits.
The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
well SS parenting is already law of the land… the vote however, is about SS marriage, so it seems clear to vote yes…
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:
dv said:So set all that aside and consider the issue on its merits.
The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
well SS parenting is already law of the land… the vote however, is about SS marriage, so it seems clear to vote yes…
SSparenting is already a law. I didn’t know that. I still don’t agree with it & think there will be a lot more of it after SSM is legalised.
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tamb said:
The_observer said:There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
The vote is over a basic human rights issue,
sadly there will be people who will vote no to human rights,
most will vote yes I think.
Yep, basic human rights.
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:
dv said:So set all that aside and consider the issue on its merits.
The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
well SS parenting is already law of the land… the vote however, is about SS marriage, so it seems clear to vote yes…
Families come in all shapes and form, SSP is just another version, neither good nor bad, just is
Tamb said:
The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
Well SSparenting is already a reality and won’t be affected by this ballot.
Maybe the vote should be if people should have any sex at all, a unanimous no vote should fix climate change.
Tamb said:
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
well SS parenting is already law of the land… the vote however, is about SS marriage, so it seems clear to vote yes…
SSparenting is already a law. I didn’t know that. I still don’t agree with it & think there will be a lot more of it after SSM is legalised.
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Do you know any children raised in gay families?
I do.
They haven’t grown horns and tails. They’re just like other families with kids
Tamb said:
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:The merits are about equal.
I’m for SSM but against SSparenting.
well SS parenting is already law of the land… the vote however, is about SS marriage, so it seems clear to vote yes…
SSparenting is already a law. I didn’t know that. I still don’t agree with it & think there will be a lot more of it after SSM is legalised.
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Many, many same sex couples that have children. The children are happy, healthy and loved and in deed I would suspect that as they grow up many will also have a productive relationships with their biological parents (as is the case for many woman that choose to use reproductive services to have children alone).
On the other hand, there are also many same sex couples that because of the way the law is written are unable to have the same rights (generally in terms of next of kin type decisions) as hetro couples and that I think is fundamentally discriminatory.
Tamb said:
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Including the right to have parents who are married?
furious said:
- I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
my issue is not whether to vote yes or no but whether I should bother voting at all…
If it’s any help the SSM lobby was calling for people to abstain, but I suspect the morons have backtracked on that act of idiocy.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the vote should be if people should have any sex at all, a unanimous no vote should fix climate change.
I like what I see.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the vote should be if people should have any sex at all, a unanimous no vote should fix climate change.
I don’t understand
AwesomeO said:
furious said:
- I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
my issue is not whether to vote yes or no but whether I should bother voting at all…
If it’s any help the SSM lobby was calling for people to abstain, but I suspect the morons have backtracked on that act of idiocy.
Such hateful words.
dv said:
Tamb said:
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Including the right to have parents who are married?
Mum & Dad.
Fixed
kii said:
AwesomeO said:
furious said:
- I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
my issue is not whether to vote yes or no but whether I should bother voting at all…
If it’s any help the SSM lobby was calling for people to abstain, but I suspect the morons have backtracked on that act of idiocy.
Such hateful words.
I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
Tamb said:
kii said:
AwesomeO said:If it’s any help the SSM lobby was calling for people to abstain, but I suspect the morons have backtracked on that act of idiocy.
Such hateful words.
I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
For the record, there were a couple of people calling for abstention, Michael Kirby among them.
It’s false to say “the SSM lobby” was ever calling on people to abstain. They YES campaign rolled straight into action as soon as it was announced the ballot was going ahead.
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
Bubblecar said:Psychopath votes NO….surprise surpise.
There’s an example for one reason I’ll vote no.
I really don’t know which way to vote. There seems to be equal parts reason & hysteria on both sides.
Don’t bother with the “both sides”. Think it out for yourself.
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
what about The Donald, is it hateful to call him a moron?
dv said:
Tamb said:
kii said:Such hateful words.
I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
For the record, there were a couple of people calling for abstention, Michael Kirby among them.
It’s false to say “the SSM lobby” was ever calling on people to abstain. They YES campaign rolled straight into action as soon as it was announced the ballot was going ahead.
I hope you noted that Michael Kirby changed his mind a couple of days later and urged people to participate.
dv said:
Tamb said:
kii said:Such hateful words.
I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
For the record, there were a couple of people calling for abstention, Michael Kirby among them.
It’s false to say “the SSM lobby” was ever calling on people to abstain. They YES campaign rolled straight into action as soon as it was announced the ballot was going ahead.
As it’s a non-binding survey the whole exercise is ridiculous except that it might give the pollies an indication on how to act to garner more votes in the next election.
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
Bwahahahahahahahaha, this? Coming from you? Bwahahahahaha.
AwesomeO said:
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
Bwahahahahahahahaha, this? Coming from you? Bwahahahahaha.
Hateful in the new meaning of the word i.e. Mildly disapprove.
Tamb said:
it is non-binding… but unless the YES vote gets up, there won’t even be any legislation put forward in this term.
dv said:
Tamb said:I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
For the record, there were a couple of people calling for abstention, Michael Kirby among them.
It’s false to say “the SSM lobby” was ever calling on people to abstain. They YES campaign rolled straight into action as soon as it was announced the ballot was going ahead.
As it’s a non-binding survey the whole exercise is ridiculous except that it might give the pollies an indication on how to act to garner more votes in the next election.
Tamb said:
dv said:
Tamb said:I don’t think hateful.
It does seem silly to call on people to abstain from something they have agitated for quite strongly.
For the record, there were a couple of people calling for abstention, Michael Kirby among them.
It’s false to say “the SSM lobby” was ever calling on people to abstain. They YES campaign rolled straight into action as soon as it was announced the ballot was going ahead.
As it’s a non-binding survey the whole exercise is ridiculous except that it might give the pollies an indication on how to act to garner more votes in the next election.
It’s an exercise so that Malcolm has some moral strength in getting his own party to comply, the other efforts stymied by greens and labor. Of course they could have just not bothered, or voted no like Labor and none of the outraged would have said boo.
You can leave it up to Labor of course, but that depends on how vital they consider seats in the western suburbs. It’s fine to wish things are different and have a go at taking your bat and ball home when things don’t go your way, but none the less, this is the politics we have and you jaunt need to hold your nose and be pragmatic about it.
AwesomeO said:
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
Bwahahahahahahahaha, this? Coming from you? Bwahahahahaha.
yes. ironic
diddly-squat said:
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
what about The Donald, is it hateful to call him a moron?
No, I call him the orange dumpster fire.
Using his “pet name”, The Donald, is an insult to all the people he and his supports are hurting.
kii said:
diddly-squat said:
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
what about The Donald, is it hateful to call him a moron?
No, I call him the orange dumpster fire.
Using his “pet name”, The Donald, is an insult to all the people he and his supports are hurting.
is Trump hurt anything like Antifa hurt?
I mean Trump isn’t a terrorist, & he doesn’t club & assult people he disagrees with.
AwesomeO said:
kii said:
Calling people morons..that is hateful…but, whatever.
Bwahahahahahahahaha, this? Coming from you? Bwahahahahaha.
Poor curve….
Hahahahaha………
The_observer said:
kii said:
diddly-squat said:what about The Donald, is it hateful to call him a moron?
No, I call him the orange dumpster fire.
Using his “pet name”, The Donald, is an insult to all the people he and his supports are hurting.
is Trump hurt anything like Antifa hurt?
I mean Trump isn’t a terrorist, & he doesn’t club & assult people he disagrees with.
He could get them to rain fire down on Charlie if he wanted to
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/wheres-the-biff-free-speech-has-won-every-round-in-the-marriage-equality-debate
Where’s the biff? Free speech has won every round in the marriage equality debate
However they dress up their worries in the rhetoric of freedom, the great complaint of the naysayers is having to campaign at all. A faith that once faced lions is indignant about being challenged.“We’re under assault,” cries Cory Bernardi but offers no proof of rough treatment. Sure, the contest has been a bit too willing at times but where’s the biff? Where are the martyrs? Who has actually been silenced?
Free speech has won every round that matters in this contest.
Yet the Catholic archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, lists at number two on his scare sheet of “5 reasons I will be voting no”: “People’s right to speak freely is endangered if they can be dragged before anti-discrimination tribunals, fined or fired for speaking in favour of real marriage.”
Put to one side Fisher’s legal right to fire anyone he employs who speaks in favour of equal marriage, what’s he talking about here?
One Christian at IBM and another at Macquarie University have both been targeted by a zealous yes warrior who reckons they should be dismissed because their advocacy for traditional marriage is at odds with the ethos of their employers. So have they lost their jobs? No and nor should they.
The result? A good win for free speech.
Julian Porteous, archbishop of Hobart, faced an anti-discrimination tribunal last year when another yes zealot Martine Delaney complained a church booklet on marriage was insulting and offensive to gay men and women and the children they raise.
Was Porteous dragged? Hardly. Handcuffed? No. He had a couple of conciliation sessions with Delaney who then withdrew her complaint in May last year. The church won
Yet every campaigner for no cites the Hobart case as an outrage against liberty. Porteous speaks darkly of issues left unanswered by the Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner, “In particular the ability of the church to freely express its view on marriage.”
But Your Grace, you won. Hands down. The church’s freedom to distribute your pamphlet Don’t Mess with Marriage is now beyond question across Australia.
—-
Those unhappy mothers in those television ads afraid their boys will be put into frocks and endure lessons on gender fluidity don’t remind viewers that the church campaign – backed heavily by News Corp – killed the federal Safe Schools program.
The last federal money runs out in October. It won’t be renewed this side of a Labor victory at the polls.
I don’t call that a victory for free speech, but who can deny it was a smashing victory for the hardliners of the faith. It’s their biggest win in the perpetual syllabus wars since they lost on evolution.
Depicting such victories as defeats is strategy 101: always claim to be the underdog. But there is something else going on here: a sense that the real offence to religious liberty is having to go into battle to defend it. Win or lose, the hardliners resent the contest. It shouldn’t be necessary. And it shouldn’t be so hard.
Church leaders have been complaining for years about finding themselves driven from the public square. They love that phrase. It’s so first century. Well they are in the square now and finding it uncomfortable.
They feel the rules are skewed against them. In a way they’re right. What works in the pulpit doesn’t work in the square.
—-
Personally I wouldn’t want to be part of any religion that claims god is against some subset of people, GFYG
Nay. Mark Aye. Aye..everytime.
The_observer said:
dv said:
Tamb said:
There is talk of basic human rights but children have basic rights also.
Including the right to have parents who are married?
Mum & Dad.
Fixed
An issue is that same sex couples have been allowed to raise kids for years but they apparenty don’t have the right to marry.
Cymek said:
Personally I wouldn’t want to be part of any religion that claims god is against some subset of people, GFYG
I think that is on the part of nutjobs. I do think the religions themselves cannot be blamed for such BS.
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Personally I wouldn’t want to be part of any religion that claims god is against some subset of people, GFYG
I think that is on the part of nutjobs. I do think the religions themselves cannot be blamed for such BS.
Eh?
It’s written in their holy book.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
Personally I wouldn’t want to be part of any religion that claims god is against some subset of people, GFYG
I think that is on the part of nutjobs. I do think the religions themselves cannot be blamed for such BS.
Eh?
It’s written in their holy book.
What is?
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:I think that is on the part of nutjobs. I do think the religions themselves cannot be blamed for such BS.
Eh?
It’s written in their holy book.
What is?
Homosexuality is bad.
Really bad.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Eh?
It’s written in their holy book.
What is?
Homosexuality is bad.
Really bad.
Which Holy Book?
Chilling out after hard day
Elvis_Rieu said:
Chilling out after hard day
If he asked me to marry him I could easily form the word NO.
roughbarked said:
Elvis_Rieu said:
Chilling out after hard day
If he asked me to marry him I could easily form the word NO.
ha ha boom tish RB
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:What is?
Homosexuality is bad.
Really bad.
Which Holy Book?
The original Holy Book of the dominant religion in this country.
Elvis_Rieu said:
Chilling out after hard day
Looks like John C Reillys down and out twin brother.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Homosexuality is bad.
Really bad.
Which Holy Book?
The original Holy Book of the dominant religion in this country.
Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Which Holy Book?
The original Holy Book of the dominant religion in this country.
Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:The original Holy Book of the dominant religion in this country.
Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
Well, I’ve never seen it written.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
Well, I’ve never seen it written.
You’d better go and have a look then:
https://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html
ChrispenEvan said:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Wasn’t too fond of Leviticus. Wasn’t he the one who said beware of the serpent lurking within the wine?
ChrispenEvan said:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Hey Leviticus come over here, look at this genetic evidence for sexual diversity, want to you think?
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:The original Holy Book of the dominant religion in this country.
Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
“For a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination”
In fairness though, it is rare for a man to have vaginal sex with another man.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
“For a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination”
In fairness though, it is rare for a man to have vaginal sex with another man.
Well at least not a complete man?
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Chapter and verse? I know that bestiality is mentioned.
Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
“For a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination”
In fairness though, it is rare for a man to have vaginal sex with another man.
To me, that seems a little literalist, but to a biblical literalist presumably it is a point that needs careful consideration and debate.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Someone quotes it somewhere on the Internet every 5 ms or so. It can’t be that hard to find.
I have no idea what the chapter and verse is, but it’s quite explicit and the penalty is death.
“For a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination”
In fairness though, it is rare for a man to have vaginal sex with another man.
To me, that seems a little literalist, but to a biblical literalist presumably it is a point that needs careful consideration and debate.
I don’t know if I want to go there.
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
I’m not a bully. I’m also not abnormal.
Woodie said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
I’m not a bully. I’m also not abnormal.
I can also agree that I am neither.
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
I’m not afraid of the bullies, Mr O.
“Subjecting groups to the judgement of their fellow citizens on the basis of their sexuality is bullying, of the most insidious and damaging kind.”
Woodie said:
The_observer said:
I am!Don’t be afraid of the bullies.
They vote yes, for Antifa.
😊
I’m not afraid of the bullies, Mr O.
“Subjecting groups to the judgement of their fellow citizens on the basis of their sexuality is bullying, of the most insidious and damaging kind.”
There is no such thing as the big bad wolf.
I’m forcasting the vote to be 60 – 40 in favour of the NOs
In the interests of a “robust” debate (I now note it has moved from “respectful” to “robust”).
Can’t have the nay sayers saying their debate is being harrassed, harangued and shut down, and dominated by the bully yay sayers.
OK………. Your turn.