Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Good idea.

I did today.

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thought of that earlier and didn’t bother but it is the perfect counterfoil.

I’d say that the best reason to vote yes would be to get this stuff over with. I am aware that there are so many important issues that are not being given attention because of this so called survey. Which really isn’t worthy of doing anything else with.

roughbarked said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thought of that earlier and didn’t bother but it is the perfect counterfoil.

I’d say that the best reason to vote yes would be to get this stuff over with.

No, the best reason is that you believe in equality. if it is just a chore to you then …

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thought of that earlier and didn’t bother but it is the perfect counterfoil.

I’d say that the best reason to vote yes would be to get this stuff over with.

No, the best reason is that you believe in equality. if it is just a chore to you then …

my point is that we have had Equality shoved down backwards without ever considering equity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Good idea.

I did today.

Me too.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Good idea.

I did today.

Me too.

I posted the ones with the wrong address and mine too.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Thought of that earlier and didn’t bother but it is the perfect counterfoil.

I’d say that the best reason to vote yes would be to get this stuff over with.

No, the best reason is that you believe in equality. if it is just a chore to you then …

my point is that we have had Equality shoved down backwards without ever considering equity.

equity in what?

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

No, the best reason is that you believe in equality. if it is just a chore to you then …

my point is that we have had Equality shoved down backwards without ever considering equity.

equity in what?

I’m sure you know the word.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

my point is that we have had Equality shoved down backwards without ever considering equity.

equity in what?

I’m sure you know the word.

Ahhh, so you just used that word without thinking of the context and now you are playing your usual game.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

equity in what?

I’m sure you know the word.

Ahhh, so you just used that word without thinking of the context and now you are playing your usual game.

No.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

I’m sure you know the word.

Ahhh, so you just used that word without thinking of the context and now you are playing your usual game.

No.

well then, explain yourself.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Ahhh, so you just used that word without thinking of the context and now you are playing your usual game.

No.

well then, explain yourself.

if the asset is equality?

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

No.

well then, explain yourself.

if the asset is equality?

don’t ask me questions, answer what i have asked.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

bit like threatening an atheist with hell.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well then, explain yourself.

if the asset is equality?

don’t ask me questions, answer what i have asked.

Equity is the value of an asset less the value of all liabilities on that asset?

But I am sure you are aware of that.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

They can take God out of any constitution.

And swearing on the bible, if any courts still do that.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

if the asset is equality?

don’t ask me questions, answer what i have asked.

Equity is the value of an asset less the value of all liabilities on that asset?

But I am sure you are aware of that.

yes, and what has that to do with SSM?

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

They can take God out of any constitution.

And swearing on the bible, if any courts still do that.

usually get a choice.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

don’t ask me questions, answer what i have asked.

Equity is the value of an asset less the value of all liabilities on that asset?

But I am sure you are aware of that.

yes, and what has that to do with SSM?

To be fair, you should know.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

They can take God out of any constitution.

And swearing on the bible, if any courts still do that.

usually get a choice.

In some courts they don’t even bother asking.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Equity is the value of an asset less the value of all liabilities on that asset?

But I am sure you are aware of that.

yes, and what has that to do with SSM?

To be fair, you should know.

No, you tell me.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Equity is the value of an asset less the value of all liabilities on that asset?

But I am sure you are aware of that.

yes, and what has that to do with SSM?

To be fair, you should know.

Gawd you talk a lot of crap. What on Earth are you going on about?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yes, and what has that to do with SSM?

To be fair, you should know.

No, you tell me.

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

To be fair, you should know.

No, you tell me.

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

so how is that different from marriage “equality”?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

No, you tell me.

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

so how is that different from marriage “equality”?

I am reasonably sure that marriage is about equity. The issue of equality is probably a misplaced misnomer.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

so how is that different from marriage “equality”?

I am reasonably sure that marriage is about equity. The issue of equality is probably a misplaced misnomer.

No.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so how is that different from marriage “equality”?

I am reasonably sure that marriage is about equity. The issue of equality is probably a misplaced misnomer.

No.

Do you still want me to pull your chain? Do you realise how many times you have said no in a yes thread?

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

I am reasonably sure that marriage is about equity. The issue of equality is probably a misplaced misnomer.

No.

Do you still want me to pull your chain? Do you realise how many times you have said no in a yes thread?

Why would you even want to do that? Have you such a puerile sense of humour?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

No.

Do you still want me to pull your chain? Do you realise how many times you have said no in a yes thread?

Why would you even want to do that? Have you such a puerile sense of humour?

Well, it could be said that you do.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Do you still want me to pull your chain? Do you realise how many times you have said no in a yes thread?

Why would you even want to do that? Have you such a puerile sense of humour?

Well, it could be said that you do.

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

maybe’e refers to something like this

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

although i suggest that generally the whole equity vs equity debate is usually just a way of detracting from the important issues

SCIENCE said:

maybe’e refers to something like this

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

although i suggest that generally the whole equity vs equity debate is usually just a way of detracting from the important issues

Which are the basis of equity, which comes down in actuality, to our share. Yours and mine.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Why would you even want to do that? Have you such a puerile sense of humour?

Well, it could be said that you do.

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

When nobody bothers, does that not irk you?

SCIENCE said:

maybe’e refers to something like this

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

although i suggest that generally the whole equity vs equity debate is usually just a way of detracting from the important issues

yes, and in this discussion on ssm, equality is the goal rather than equity.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Well, it could be said that you do.

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

When nobody bothers, does that not irk you?

not at all.

i talk crap all the time

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe’e refers to something like this

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

although i suggest that generally the whole equity vs equity debate is usually just a way of detracting from the important issues

yes, and in this discussion on ssm, equality is the goal rather than equity.

it would seem so and I am no one to argue anybody’s singular perspective on this. However it is within this space capsule that we all have equity. However you view the issue.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

When nobody bothers, does that not irk you?

not at all.

I then have to ask you. what evidence have you?

SCIENCE said:

i talk crap all the time

seriously?

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

When nobody bothers, does that not irk you?

not at all.

I then have to ask you. what evidence have you?

Fallen asleep, have you?

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thanks, ruby.

I was going to do the same but fell asleep.

kii said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thanks, ruby.

I was going to do the same but fell asleep.

I said a similar thing but at the time, I was on my way to work, so no time to bother.

I have personally wished this issue over for decades.

It is of no consequence to me so it is really a no brainer. That our nation’s leaders have put us to these straights is as much an abomination as Leveticus’ words.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Why would you even want to do that? Have you such a puerile sense of humour?

Well, it could be said that you do.

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

Jaysus, you’re full of it.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Well, it could be said that you do.

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

Jaysus, you’re full of it.

you don’t count.

roughbarked said:

kii said:

ruby said:

Just so view by time isn’t filled with a one sided message, how about you move the debate to this thread…

Thanks, ruby.

I was going to do the same but fell asleep.

I said a similar thing but at the time, I was on my way to work, so no time to bother.

I have personally wished this issue over for decades.

It is of no consequence to me so it is really a no brainer. That our nation’s leaders have put us to these straights is as much an abomination as Leveticus’ words.

However., A marriage has only a small part in relation to any sexuality. We are adults and we all know this.
If you don’t then they should raise rather than lower the age of consent.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

when people tell me I am talking crap as much as they tell you that, then i might go along. but they don’t.

Jaysus, you’re full of it.

you don’t count.

as if..

roughbarked said:

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

SSM is about equality. Not equity in dividing up a piece of pie, where I get some and you get some. Where to give a piece of pie to someone that didn’t have any, means someone else has to part with a piece of their pie. We are talking equality here, not equity.

SCIENCE said:

i talk crap all the time

Surely not all the time.

Robots rights now !!

We need safe spaces at all robot factories to teach new robots about bipolar transistors and for robots to be able to load up data to their hard drives from other robots

Robots are dying because they can’t do this

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

i talk crap all the time

Surely not all the time.

it is thus that we are all faced with this dilemma.

wookiemeister said:

Robots rights now !!

We need safe spaces at all robot factories to teach new robots about bipolar transistors and for robots to be able to load up data to their hard drives from other robots

Robots are dying because they can’t do this

I put it to you that they have claimed squatters rights and your claims ae rendered as proapgandist rubbish.,

wookiemeister said:

Robots rights now !!

We need safe spaces at all robot factories to teach new robots about bipolar transistors and for robots to be able to load up data to their hard drives from other robots

Robots are dying because they can’t do this

Vote yes to allow robots to marry, their feelings are just as important.

Wont anyone think of the robots.

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

To quote Falk: Equity is about fairness. Jim Falk and his colleagues put it this way:

“Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that there are some things which people should have, that there are basic needs that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.” (Falk et al. 1993, p. 2)

SSM is about equality. Not equity in dividing up a piece of pie, where I get some and you get some. Where to give a piece of pie to someone that didn’t have any, means someone else has to part with a piece of their pie. We are talking equality here, not equity.

You have had equality since you were allowed to come out.
Marriage is about equity and that is why it is an issue.

Its a non event the vote hasnt been conducted in any proper manner and no one knows who is voting – the australian electoral system at its finest. Men have fought and died so elections can be rigged. My philosophy is you should be able to marry whatever you want. Our civilisation has been losing the plot for a while so what does it matter??

roughbarked said:

You have had equality since you were allowed to come out.

When was I allowed to come out?

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

You have had equality since you were allowed to come out.

When was I allowed to come out?

wookiemeister said:

Its a non event the vote hasnt been conducted in any proper manner and no one knows who is voting – the australian electoral system at its finest. Men have fought and died so elections can be rigged. My philosophy is you should be able to marry whatever you want. Our civilisation has been losing the plot for a while so what does it matter??

It matters a lot to so many. It is reprehensible that we have had to go to such lengths in this day of awareness of all that has gone before us.

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

You have had equality since you were allowed to come out.

When was I allowed to come out?

When was I?

You shouldn’t play here. There was a time in the past I’m sure you don’t want to revisit.

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

ChrispenEvan said:

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

We, the nasty pieces of the world do need to know.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

We, the nasty pieces of the world do need to know.

Look mate. I am an adult. Like any of you. I do not need to provide evidence of how this all came about. You simply should be aware of the fact.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

you are a nasty piece of work with your ignorance roughie.

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

However, the question was directed at Boris.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

I’m not going to ask questions, other than plis explain?

I do mean where and how and why.

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

—-

Yes, Dave was quite confronted when you sidled up to him at the end of the night.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

However, the question was directed at Boris.

We know what equality is. Same sex couples have been traising children for quite a while. Equity is about what these echildren deserve.

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I imagine you would have an easier time conversing with us humans if you didn’t try to make use of your own homespun definitions to commonly used words.

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

—-

Yes, Dave was quite confronted when you sidled up to him at the end of the night.

:) he played that well.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

Well, I have spent more time without sexual contact than with it. As I am sure have most of you.

Sexuality or sexual consent hasn’t been a big issue unless it is with minors for quite a while in our society.

It is as I have said of little consequence to me since there has been so little of it in my daily routines. It is true however that I have noticed trends.

—-

Yes, Dave was quite confronted when you sidled up to him at the end of the night.

:) he played that well.

—-

Well he got your message. Why did you think he was gay?

Of little consequence. may seem as if it doesn’t matter but there is always a little to consider.

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

—-

Yes, Dave was quite confronted when you sidled up to him at the end of the night.

:) he played that well.

—-

Well he got your message. Why did you think he was gay?

I didn’t.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

:) he played that well.

—-

Well he got your message. Why did you think he was gay?

I didn’t.

—-

Well why did you want to get so close to him?

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

roughbarked said:

:) he played that well.

—-

Well he got your message. Why did you think he was gay?

I didn’t.

What we perceive is subjective. There is no person able to project this onto any of us.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

Interesting. Islam likes to see the gays pushed off the building.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

Interesting. Islam likes to see the gays pushed off the building.

As long as they ae maried first.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

The word God is only used twice in the Constitution…

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

• WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania…

I probably don’t know as much about this as I probably should but: I understand that at federation the NT was included as part of SA and the ACT didn’t exist, but why no WA?

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

The word God is only used twice in the Constitution…

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Still good.

Nevermind…

“Western Australia was not specifically mentioned in the preamble as its support was given too late for the document to be redrafted.”

furious said:

• WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania…

I probably don’t know as much about this as I probably should but: I understand that at federation the NT was included as part of SA and the ACT didn’t exist, but why no WA?

Western what now??

In all seriously though… it’s because the the Western Australian referendum was not held until three weeks after the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act became the law of the land here in Oz…

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I voted yes, I’d like to see the far religious right pushed right out of the building.

One of the crazies of Facebook said they were no because next they’ll want to take God out of the constitution.

I said ‘ That will take a referendum…but I’m good with that.’

The word God is only used twice in the Constitution…

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

Fixed

furious said:

• WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania…

I probably don’t know as much about this as I probably should but: I understand that at federation the NT was included as part of SA and the ACT didn’t exist, but why no WA?

Yeah, forgot WA.. easy enough…..

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Still good.

I don’t disagree… but unless the whole document is rewritten, it aint gonna happen…

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Still good.

I’m reminded of the bloke who said to the magistrate “As God is my judge, I am innocent.”
The beak replied “He’s not. I am. Guilty.”

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

Fixed

The first time is in the Introduction..

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Australia and under the Constitution hereby established:

the second time is in the Oath that is defined in the Schedule

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the People of Australia according to law.

Fixed again

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Defacto relationships are not blessed by religion nevertheless they have all the other legal rappings of a marriage. To my mind this whole thing is silly and divisive.

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

So what about the right wing fascist gay lobby?

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

The real reason you and the others are voting No is to limit peoples rights.

Legal Marriage should apply to everyone.

Marriage is not owned by religion.

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

Brownie points with god probably

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

The real reason you and the others are voting No is to limit peoples rights.

Legal Marriage should apply to everyone.

Marriage is not owned by religion.

They are more into real estate and foreskins

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

Oh dear…… There goes your concept of nastiness being one sided, Mr Stan.

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

The real reason you and the others are voting No is to limit peoples rights.

Legal Marriage should apply to everyone.

Marriage is not owned by religion.

Whats someone who wants to limit other peoples rights?

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Says who, I imagine all sorts of marriages have existed down the ages and will into the future.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

However, they can and do raise chilldren. The law needs to recognise this.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Says who, I imagine all sorts of marriages have existed down the ages and will into the future.

Says the law & the law of nature.

Don’t like it? Too bad.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters.

No more nastiness than there would be if they were voting NO to allowing inter-racial marriages, heterosexual marriages etc.

Seeking to deny certain groups of people equal rights for no defensible reason is an attack on those people’s humanity, not a “respectful disagreement”.

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

However, they can and do raise chilldren. The law needs to recognise this.

The law already does.

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Have you checked the Great Defender Of Marriage (Rev Fred Nile) and his marriage? I doubt those two will be creating any life soon.

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Have you checked the Great Defender Of Marriage (Rev Fred Nile) and his marriage? I doubt those two will be creating any life soon.

Of course you’re talking tripe.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Says who, I imagine all sorts of marriages have existed down the ages and will into the future.

Says the law & the law of nature.

Don’t like it? Too bad.

The law can and is changed and nature doesn’t care less

>law of nature

Ja mein Gruppenführer, blood and soil, race and family.

Sieg heil!

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Until 2004 marriage was a legal term that describes the loving union of two people.

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

According to law in Australia, that was not until 2004. And this debate is about the Marriage Act. Read that again. The Marriage Act. A change to the Marriage Act only. There is nothing the Marriage Act about who can/can’t create life.

It is the naysayers that have bought religion and schools and whatever diversionary arguments into the current debate.

The_observer said:

The law already does.

It does not recognise this to and equal extent.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Until 2004 marriage was a legal term that describes the loving union of two people.

The church like marriage between and man and women as yes they can produce children which is more sheeple for them to exploit, gays can’t as easily have children so the church can’t manipulate them as easily

Cymek said:

The church like marriage between and man and women as yes they can produce children which is more sheeple for them to exploit, gays can’t as easily have children so the church can’t manipulate them as easily

What insidious ideology prompted you to have children?

Bubblecar said:

>law of nature

Ja mein Gruppenführer, blood and soil, race and family.

Sieg heil!

Oh yeh fatso, all the NO voters are nazis

LOL NO NO NO NO NO

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

Oh dear…… There goes your concept of nastiness being one sided, Mr Stan.

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

sarahs mum said:

I like coriander.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>law of nature

Ja mein Gruppenführer, blood and soil, race and family.

Sieg heil!

Oh yeh fatso, all the NO voters are nazis

LOL NO NO NO NO NO

Nazis limit peoples rights.

Dictators also seek to limit peoples rights.

People far right and far left seek to limit peoples rights.

Religious people seek to limit peoples rights.

Politicians seek to limit peoples rights, even our own politicians here in Australia.

If people seek to limit others rights, what are they? Legal criminals of some kind.

Dictators of some description? People with shithouse ethics.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Until 2004 marriage was a legal term that describes the loving union of two people.

Vanstone was on the news the other night banging on about how she’ll be voting YES because it’s the right thing to do and I was there like, that’s a bit rich given you were part of the government that created this problem in the first place…

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

The church like marriage between and man and women as yes they can produce children which is more sheeple for them to exploit, gays can’t as easily have children so the church can’t manipulate them as easily

What insidious ideology prompted you to have children?

None, but religion encourages large families as its more people for that religion, if you can’t have children you aren’t as worthy to them.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

There is no attempt or request to change the rights (or wrongs) of churches in this debate. The debate is purely about the Marriage Act. And it should and needs to be kept at that. The law. Faith religion and churches are not legislated for or against in the Marriage Act. Churches have always, and will continue to be able to do so, refuse to marry whomever they wish. Just because they don’t like you, or in the case of the Catholic Church, if you are divorced. No go. No marriage. Nowhere in the world has there been legislation passed that force churches to marry same sex couples. Some idealogues have argued for it, but NONE have legislated for it. What is happening in those countries is that some churches are embracing same sex marriage of their own accord, as is ALSO being done in Australia.

You will note the recent Church in Ballarat which refused to marry a hetero couple, after the the church saw a YES support on the bride to be Facebook Page. You’ll also note the NO side going on about religious freedoms. You’ll also note the NO side did not take this up and a “we’ll be forced to marry them or anyone else” if marriage equality goes ahead, because the naysayers know that marriage within the church will not change. It is the “slippery slope” fear and doubt diversionary tactic that is commonly used on the conservative side of politics. You’ll note the nay sayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

There is no attempt or request to change the rights (or wrongs) of churches in this debate. The debate is purely about the Marriage Act. And it should and needs to be kept at that. The law. Faith religion and churches are not legislated for or against in the Marriage Act. Churches have always, and will continue to be able to do so, refuse to marry whomever they wish. Just because they don’t like you, or in the case of the Catholic Church, if you are divorced. No go. No marriage. Nowhere in the world has there been legislation passed that force churches to marry same sex couples. Some idealogues have argued for it, but NONE have legislated for it. What is happening in those countries is that some churches are embracing same sex marriage of their own accord, as is ALSO being done in Australia.

You will note the recent Church in Ballarat which refused to marry a hetero couple, after the the church saw a YES support on the bride to be Facebook Page. You’ll also note the NO side going on about religious freedoms. You’ll also note the NO side did not take this up and a “we’ll be forced to marry them or anyone else” if marriage equality goes ahead, because the naysayers know that marriage within the church will not change. It is the “slippery slope” fear and doubt diversionary tactic that is commonly used on the conservative side of politics. You’ll note the nay sayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.

Does freedom include the right to continue a tradition or law that persecutes or marginalises people that’s what a lot of people seem to think it should allow. Laws and tradition change as society develops, change is a universal truth

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

Yeah but it takes a gentle touch..

Cymek said:

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

There is no attempt or request to change the rights (or wrongs) of churches in this debate. The debate is purely about the Marriage Act. And it should and needs to be kept at that. The law. Faith religion and churches are not legislated for or against in the Marriage Act. Churches have always, and will continue to be able to do so, refuse to marry whomever they wish. Just because they don’t like you, or in the case of the Catholic Church, if you are divorced. No go. No marriage. Nowhere in the world has there been legislation passed that force churches to marry same sex couples. Some idealogues have argued for it, but NONE have legislated for it. What is happening in those countries is that some churches are embracing same sex marriage of their own accord, as is ALSO being done in Australia.

You will note the recent Church in Ballarat which refused to marry a hetero couple, after the the church saw a YES support on the bride to be Facebook Page. You’ll also note the NO side going on about religious freedoms. You’ll also note the NO side did not take this up and a “we’ll be forced to marry them or anyone else” if marriage equality goes ahead, because the naysayers know that marriage within the church will not change. It is the “slippery slope” fear and doubt diversionary tactic that is commonly used on the conservative side of politics. You’ll note the nay sayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.

Does freedom include the right to continue a tradition or law that persecutes or marginalises people that’s what a lot of people seem to think it should allow. Laws and tradition change as society develops, change is a universal truth

There are already very stark exceptions in the anti-discrimination law that allow churches and church run institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion, religious belief or religious teachings.

These laws will remain in place and will not change.

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

stan101 said:

What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

Yes, the left – gay lobby are ugly intolerant facists. That’s my main reason for voting NO.

Oh dear…… There goes your concept of nastiness being one sided, Mr Stan.

Please tell me where I stated that the nastiness was one sided? I’m rather disappointed in your post, Woodie.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

Me too. Pity it bolts to seed here.

Ian said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

Yeah but it takes a gentle touch..

Not necessarily. A shedload of fresh chopped coriander, flat leaf parsley and dill can form the basis of a fine salad to accompany smoked ocean trout etc.

Woodie said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

it’s just like the backlash against black empowerment in the RSA.

As I see it, too-bad-so-sad suckers… you probably shouldn’t have acted like a bunch of ignorant twats in the first place.

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Until 2004 marriage was a legal term that describes the loving union of two people.

Vanstone was on the news the other night banging on about how she’ll be voting YES because it’s the right thing to do and I was there like, that’s a bit rich given you were part of the government that created this problem in the first place…

The government didn’t create any problem.

How many gay people got married prior to then? None

They couldn’t have if they tried.

SSM is just a new whinge created by the left.

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

No, marriage is a word to describe a union between two people of opposite sex. Two people that can create life. Two men, or two women cannot creat life.

Until 2004 marriage was a legal term that describes the loving union of two people.

Vanstone was on the news the other night banging on about how she’ll be voting YES because it’s the right thing to do and I was there like, that’s a bit rich given you were part of the government that created this problem in the first place…

The government didn’t create any problem.

How many gay people got married prior to then? None

They couldn’t have if they tried.

SSM is just a new whinge created by the left.

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

The church like marriage between and man and women as yes they can produce children which is more sheeple for them to exploit, gays can’t as easily have children so the church can’t manipulate them as easily

What insidious ideology prompted you to have children?

None, but religion encourages large families as its more people for that religion, if you can’t have children you aren’t as worthy to them.

I’m going to sign you up for re-Neducation.

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

There is no attempt or request to change the rights (or wrongs) of churches in this debate. The debate is purely about the Marriage Act. And it should and needs to be kept at that. The law. Faith religion and churches are not legislated for or against in the Marriage Act. Churches have always, and will continue to be able to do so, refuse to marry whomever they wish. Just because they don’t like you, or in the case of the Catholic Church, if you are divorced. No go. No marriage. Nowhere in the world has there been legislation passed that force churches to marry same sex couples. Some idealogues have argued for it, but NONE have legislated for it. What is happening in those countries is that some churches are embracing same sex marriage of their own accord, as is ALSO being done in Australia.

You will note the recent Church in Ballarat which refused to marry a hetero couple, after the the church saw a YES support on the bride to be Facebook Page. You’ll also note the NO side going on about religious freedoms. You’ll also note the NO side did not take this up and a “we’ll be forced to marry them or anyone else” if marriage equality goes ahead, because the naysayers know that marriage within the church will not change. It is the “slippery slope” fear and doubt diversionary tactic that is commonly used on the conservative side of politics. You’ll note the naysayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.

“You’ll note the naysayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.”

That’s quite wicked scaremongering.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

How about cilantro?

Michael V said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

Me too. Pity it bolts to seed here.

I prefer the root for flavour these days.. Great in a stock.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

How about cilantro?

And sorell. Will no one think of the sorell?

stan101 said:

Please tell me where I stated that the nastiness was one sided? I’m rather disappointed in your post, Woodie.

“What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.”

Hmmmmm…. then I’m not to sure what this was meant to say, Mr Stan.

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the vote is Yes

Will the Law apply a blanket approach to all churches or will some churches be allowed to stay traditional (no SSM) while other churches allow SSM?

There is no attempt or request to change the rights (or wrongs) of churches in this debate. The debate is purely about the Marriage Act. And it should and needs to be kept at that. The law. Faith religion and churches are not legislated for or against in the Marriage Act. Churches have always, and will continue to be able to do so, refuse to marry whomever they wish. Just because they don’t like you, or in the case of the Catholic Church, if you are divorced. No go. No marriage. Nowhere in the world has there been legislation passed that force churches to marry same sex couples. Some idealogues have argued for it, but NONE have legislated for it. What is happening in those countries is that some churches are embracing same sex marriage of their own accord, as is ALSO being done in Australia.

You will note the recent Church in Ballarat which refused to marry a hetero couple, after the the church saw a YES support on the bride to be Facebook Page. You’ll also note the NO side going on about religious freedoms. You’ll also note the NO side did not take this up and a “we’ll be forced to marry them or anyone else” if marriage equality goes ahead, because the naysayers know that marriage within the church will not change. It is the “slippery slope” fear and doubt diversionary tactic that is commonly used on the conservative side of politics. You’ll note the naysayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.

“You’ll note the naysayers are trying to bring schools into the debate as well.”

That’s quite wicked scaremongering.

By the “Vote No” mob, I mean.

I did date a coriander supertaster. I thought she might be nuts or something.

If everyone is honest who will be affected detrimentally if gay people can get married, no one I can think of.
The argument against it is just silly if you look at logically, some line in a book says its wrong and you can’t even be sure the original text even said this or it was added in later by some bigot

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

How about cilantro?

We’ll have none of that USAsian herb in Australia, thanks.

Woodie said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

So it revenge you are chasing along with equality… You’ve been marginalized for too long, so now you are happy to have those who made errors in the past and continue to make errors to now be marginalized on their rights in democracy.

Thank you for backing up an aspect of my argument.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I like coriander.

Same, coriander’s great.

How about cilantro?

I loved her in The Agony and the Ecstasy

Tamb said:

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Non-binding either way.

In a way, I’ve got less respect for the people who make these stupid childish arguments than those who just say “Marriage equality will mean more people will think it is okay to be gay, and gays go to hell” or “Die faggots!”. Sure, they’re all arseholes but at least the second set is direct about it.

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Same, coriander’s great.

How about cilantro?

We’ll have none of that USAsian herb in Australia, thanks.

*cries *

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

I imagine the ALP will still take SSM legalisation to the next election . It’s their policy now.

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

So it revenge you are chasing along with equality… You’ve been marginalized for too long, so now you are happy to have those who made errors in the past and continue to make errors to now be marginalized on their rights in democracy.

Thank you for backing up an aspect of my argument.

Saying it has been lopsided for too long, Mr Stan, does not mean or even imply “revenge”. Means and implies that it needs to change and stop being lopsided.

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, I really don’t give a toss if people that oppose SSM feel discriminated against or marginalised – It’s been too lopsided the other way for far too long…

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

So it revenge you are chasing along with equality… You’ve been marginalized for too long, so now you are happy to have those who made errors in the past and continue to make errors to now be marginalized on their rights in democracy.

Thank you for backing up an aspect of my argument.

Good grief, no person I know is marking Yes on the survey for revenge.

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

It’s only a non-binding survey people.

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Non-binding either way.

Yes = non binding. No guarantee marriage equality will happen.
No = binding. Guaranteed marriage equality will NOT happen.

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Woodie said:

Ummmm…. non-binding only if it is YES. Binding if it is NO.

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

I still reckon if NO gets up, Turnbull is done as PM, and his replacement will be from the Right.

Woodie said:

stan101 said:

Please tell me where I stated that the nastiness was one sided? I’m rather disappointed in your post, Woodie.

“What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.”

Hmmmmm…. then I’m not to sure what this was meant to say, Mr Stan.

It means exactly what I wrote. I stated the Yes vote were marginalised. Where did I say that it was only the yes voters being asses? It is a given that if the Yes voters were maginalised they have been treated ugly in the past…

You are putting words in my mouth by stating it is one sided and frankly that is a tactic that I am disgusted in by the Yes. I expect it from the No brigade because it is a given simply by them saying no.

I expected that people arguing for equality would take the higher ground. But i seems you personally, at least from your posts in this thread want equality when it suits you and bloody vengeance for humanities past discretion – which I find far from anything close to being equality.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

Get stabbed in the back by the next leader of the libs

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

Get stabbed in the back by the next leader of the libs

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Bubblecar said:

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

I think that’s pretty “binding” if the vote is NO, Parpyone.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

I still reckon if NO gets up, Turnbull is done as PM, and his replacement will be from the Right.

A new leader from the right will mean oblivion at the next election. Sticking with Turnbull they will lose anyway but save some of the furniture.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

By the sound of things, he’ll be tabling legislation that may turn out to be too compromised to be approved by the Opposition and supporters of marriage equality.

But Labor have said they’ll pass marriage equality legislation in their next government regardless of the survey results.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Non-binding either way.

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

He will allow a “private members” bill. ie. Legislation NOT introduced by the government. but by an “independent” . The content of this bill that may be allowed, is, as yet, unknown.

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Didn’t some of the more Christian fundamentalist states do it as well

>and bloody vengeance for humanities past discretion

I have not seen Woodie calling for “bloody vengeance” for anything.

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

I can’t wait to see the poll redults.

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Turnbull has said that if NO gets up, his party will not table legislation and will go into the next election opposed to marriage equality.

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

Get stabbed in the back by the next leader of the libs

So the survey is really about who will be the PM.

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Australia is afflicted with many particularly poor quality politicians.

Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

Exactly. What will he do if the survey shows Yes?

Get stabbed in the back by the next leader of the libs

So the survey is really about who will be the PM.

yea, that’s it. herpaderp.

Bubblecar said:

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Australia is afflicted with many particularly poor quality politicians.

Oh how true. However most of them are in opposition.

Cymek said:

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Didn’t some of the more Christian fundamentalist states do it as well

Well the whole country has now.

dv said:

Cymek said:

kii said:

I still have trouble understanding how New Mexico made marriage equality legal with relatively little fanfare, and Australia’s government is making a dog’s breakfast out of something so straightforward.

Didn’t some of the more Christian fundamentalist states do it as well

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Didn’t some of the more Christian fundamentalist states do it as well

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

stan101 said:

Please tell me where I stated that the nastiness was one sided? I’m rather disappointed in your post, Woodie.

“What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.”

Hmmmmm…. then I’m not to sure what this was meant to say, Mr Stan.

It means exactly what I wrote. I stated the Yes vote were marginalised. Where did I say that it was only the yes voters being asses? It is a given that if the Yes voters were maginalised they have been treated ugly in the past…

You are putting words in my mouth by stating it is one sided and frankly that is a tactic that I am disgusted in by the Yes. I expect it from the No brigade because it is a given simply by them saying no.

I expected that people arguing for equality would take the higher ground. But i seems you personally, at least from your posts in this thread want equality when it suits you and bloody vengeance for humanities past discretion – which I find far from anything close to being equality.

I will point out nastiness where nastiness occurs. That of course, does not mean that nastiness is returned by further nastiness. I’m not going to get into and argument about who said tit for tat and who’s nastier to whom.

ruby said:

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

45 years for me Mr Diddly. 45 years too lopsided for too long.

So it revenge you are chasing along with equality… You’ve been marginalized for too long, so now you are happy to have those who made errors in the past and continue to make errors to now be marginalized on their rights in democracy.

Thank you for backing up an aspect of my argument.

Good grief, no person I know is marking Yes on the survey for revenge.

I concede revenge is the wrong word here. So Ruby, please tell me, are you okay with the responses from the Yes vote shouting down the democratic right of the no voters? Are you okay with the nastiness by very vocal Yes voters? Do you see some hypocrisy in how some very vocal Yes factions are attempting to deny No voters a voice?

I feel that if you are fighting for equality in a democratic society, it must be equality for all. it can’t be pick and choose.

Now I will state again. I do not agree with the no voters on the reasons why they vote no. But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

I look forward to your thoughts on it.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

What rubbish.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

IMO anyone who is “Ashamed to be Australian” should emigrate to North Korea.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

Absolutely my son and I were thinking in decades to come I wonder if people will be ashamed we voted No if that’s what happens.
Aren’t we a nation of she’ll be right mate and no worries cobba

Woodie said:

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

“What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.”

Hmmmmm…. then I’m not to sure what this was meant to say, Mr Stan.

It means exactly what I wrote. I stated the Yes vote were marginalised. Where did I say that it was only the yes voters being asses? It is a given that if the Yes voters were maginalised they have been treated ugly in the past…

You are putting words in my mouth by stating it is one sided and frankly that is a tactic that I am disgusted in by the Yes. I expect it from the No brigade because it is a given simply by them saying no.

I expected that people arguing for equality would take the higher ground. But i seems you personally, at least from your posts in this thread want equality when it suits you and bloody vengeance for humanities past discretion – which I find far from anything close to being equality.

I will point out nastiness where nastiness occurs. That of course, does not mean that nastiness is returned by further nastiness. I’m not going to get into and argument about who said tit for tat and who’s nastier to whom.

I’ll take that as a “ Okay Stan, I admit I jumped the gun and accused you of one sidedness when you never stated it.”

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

IMO anyone who is “Ashamed to be Australian” should emigrate to North Korea.

I’ll buy you the ticket fatso

Bubblecar said:

By the sound of things, he’ll be tabling legislation that may turn out to be too compromised to be approved by the Opposition and supporters of marriage equality.

I fear that may be the case, Parpyone. Then it’ll be all Labor’s fault again. And if it’s not proper, then I will support a delay until it can be proper.

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

If the NO vote prevails it will have nasty consequences for Australia’s international reputation. We’ll be seen as a backward bullshit nation full of bigots and bastards.

And a huge chunk of the population will become “Ashamed to be Australian” for generations to come.

IMO anyone who is “Ashamed to be Australian” should emigrate to North Korea.

I’ll buy you the ticket fatso

fatso?? Moi??

Bubblecar said:

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

It’s very distressing to watch from afar.

Bubblecar said:

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

They did it in Ireland of course & nobody was having a big girly hissy fit about it then.

Argentina
Colombia
Mexico
Uruguay
Brazil
Taiwan
South Africa
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Iceland
Sweden
Malta
Luxembourg
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Canada
USA

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

stan101 said:

It means exactly what I wrote. I stated the Yes vote were marginalised. Where did I say that it was only the yes voters being asses? It is a given that if the Yes voters were maginalised they have been treated ugly in the past…

You are putting words in my mouth by stating it is one sided and frankly that is a tactic that I am disgusted in by the Yes. I expect it from the No brigade because it is a given simply by them saying no.

I expected that people arguing for equality would take the higher ground. But i seems you personally, at least from your posts in this thread want equality when it suits you and bloody vengeance for humanities past discretion – which I find far from anything close to being equality.

I will point out nastiness where nastiness occurs. That of course, does not mean that nastiness is returned by further nastiness. I’m not going to get into and argument about who said tit for tat and who’s nastier to whom.

I’ll take that as a “ Okay Stan, I admit I jumped the gun and accused you of one sidedness when you never stated it.”

You seem to want to hold the Yes side more to account than the No side IMHO.

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

IMO anyone who is “Ashamed to be Australian” should emigrate to North Korea.

I’ll buy you the ticket fatso

fatso?? Moi??

No, not you.

kii said:

Bubblecar said:

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

It’s very distressing to watch from afar.

Really? Have you sort councilling?

Lol

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

I’ll buy you the ticket fatso

fatso?? Moi??

No, not you.

Oh thank you. I’m relieved.

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

fatso?? Moi??

No, not you.

Oh thank you. I’m relieved.

You’re just ugly.

• Argentina
  Colombia
  etc…

Is there any significance to the order of that list?

roughbarked said:

Defacto relationships are not blessed by religion nevertheless they have all the other legal rappings of a marriage. To my mind this whole thing is silly and divisive.

But they don’t.

Same sex de-facto relationships do not have the same legal rappings as a marriage. That’s the problem.

dv said:

Argentina
Colombia
Mexico
Uruguay
Brazil
Taiwan
South Africa
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Iceland
Sweden
Malta
Luxembourg
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Canada
USA

I’m guessing that’s a l I st of countriesvthat recognise gay wedding bliss?

What if they also had the death penality?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

No, not you.

Oh thank you. I’m relieved.

You’re just ugly.

My mirror tells me that daily.

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Oh thank you. I’m relieved.

You’re just ugly.

My mirror tells me that daily.

Come on now, I’m sure you’re very shagadelic, baby, yeh

Witty Rejoinder said:

stan101 said:

Woodie said:

I will point out nastiness where nastiness occurs. That of course, does not mean that nastiness is returned by further nastiness. I’m not going to get into and argument about who said tit for tat and who’s nastier to whom.

I’ll take that as a “ Okay Stan, I admit I jumped the gun and accused you of one sidedness when you never stated it.”

You seem to want to hold the Yes side more to account than the No side IMHO.

I suppoose that can be seen and I thought I previously explained why.

The No vote by their very alliance with saying no are against the equality being persued. It is therefore logical to expect them to be okay with exceptions to rules of democracy and rights and equality… I expect nothing less of them.

However, the yes vote is actively pushing for equality of rights. To my way of thinking equality means equal rights on all matters, not just on this aspect which happens to be SSM. To have Yes voters actively berating, antagonizing and marginalizing no votors is in my eyes extremely hypocritical.

To me, those Yes voters are saying “I want my rights on this matter and to hell with democracy and other equal rights…I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on as long as I get mine now on this matter.”

So yes, if you think I am holding the Yes vote to higher account, you are right.

kii said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

How about cilantro?

We’ll have none of that USAsian herb in Australia, thanks.

*cries *

There, there. Stop crying. You can use coriander here.

stan101 said:

ruby said:

stan101 said:

So it revenge you are chasing along with equality… You’ve been marginalized for too long, so now you are happy to have those who made errors in the past and continue to make errors to now be marginalized on their rights in democracy.

Thank you for backing up an aspect of my argument.

Good grief, no person I know is marking Yes on the survey for revenge.

I concede revenge is the wrong word here. So Ruby, please tell me, are you okay with the responses from the Yes vote shouting down the democratic right of the no voters? Are you okay with the nastiness by very vocal Yes voters? Do you see some hypocrisy in how some very vocal Yes factions are attempting to deny No voters a voice?

I feel that if you are fighting for equality in a democratic society, it must be equality for all. it can’t be pick and choose.

Now I will state again. I do not agree with the no voters on the reasons why they vote no. But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

I look forward to your thoughts on it.

I’m glad you said you thought revenge is the wrong word. Goodness knows I have seen enough violence and hatred meted out in my lifetime to people who didn’t deserve on iota of it, and still I don’t see it being returned. Perhaps some No people are afraid of some of their own behavior being returned? But I have not seen anything like that being expressed.

Of course the No side has a right to vote (though it is NOT a vote), and they have a right to express their opinions on why. But you seem to be saying when the Yes people do so, they are ‘shouting down the No voters’. You appear to be saying that any opinion expressed by the Yes side is ‘nastiness’.

You seem to be saying that the Yes people need to shut up and listen to the No side, without giving their side. Is this what you are saying?

stan101 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

stan101 said:

I’ll take that as a “ Okay Stan, I admit I jumped the gun and accused you of one sidedness when you never stated it.”

You seem to want to hold the Yes side more to account than the No side IMHO.

I suppoose that can be seen and I thought I previously explained why.

The No vote by their very alliance with saying no are against the equality being persued. It is therefore logical to expect them to be okay with exceptions to rules of democracy and rights and equality… I expect nothing less of them.

However, the yes vote is actively pushing for equality of rights. To my way of thinking equality means equal rights on all matters, not just on this aspect which happens to be SSM. To have Yes voters actively berating, antagonizing and marginalizing no votors is in my eyes extremely hypocritical.

To me, those Yes voters are saying “I want my rights on this matter and to hell with democracy and other equal rights…I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on as long as I get mine now on this matter.”

So yes, if you think I am holding the Yes vote to higher account, you are right.

So you’re problem is some on the yes side are hypocrites while all on the no side are. I think you now know what your vote should be.

stan101 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

stan101 said:

I’ll take that as a “ Okay Stan, I admit I jumped the gun and accused you of one sidedness when you never stated it.”

You seem to want to hold the Yes side more to account than the No side IMHO.

I suppoose that can be seen and I thought I previously explained why.

The No vote by their very alliance with saying no are against the equality being persued. It is therefore logical to expect them to be okay with exceptions to rules of democracy and rights and equality… I expect nothing less of them.

However, the yes vote is actively pushing for equality of rights. To my way of thinking equality means equal rights on all matters, not just on this aspect which happens to be SSM. To have Yes voters actively berating, antagonizing and marginalizing no votors is in my eyes extremely hypocritical.

To me, those Yes voters are saying “I want my rights on this matter and to hell with democracy and other equal rights…I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on as long as I get mine now on this matter.”

So yes, if you think I am holding the Yes vote to higher account, you are right.

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’re just ugly.

My mirror tells me that daily.

Come on now, I’m sure you’re very shagadelic, baby, yeh

About as shagadelic as Austin Powers.

>I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on

Marriage equality extends rights to all, it doesn’t “tread on” anyone else’s rights.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Didn’t some of the more Christian fundamentalist states do it as well

Well the whole country has now.

If this doesn’t get made law it says a lot about how un-progressive and intolerant we are

I also think that too, Mr Mek. The quality of a society is determined by how that society treats it’s marginalised, downtrodden, minorities, and those that have less that what others do. You know, it amazing how the “haves” will continually tell the “have nots” they have too much. For some reason, it’s always the “have nots” that are always being told they have to do with less.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

You’ll need to get a second eye to recognise it lovey

ruby said:

stan101 said:

ruby said:

Good grief, no person I know is marking Yes on the survey for revenge.

I concede revenge is the wrong word here. So Ruby, please tell me, are you okay with the responses from the Yes vote shouting down the democratic right of the no voters? Are you okay with the nastiness by very vocal Yes voters? Do you see some hypocrisy in how some very vocal Yes factions are attempting to deny No voters a voice?

I feel that if you are fighting for equality in a democratic society, it must be equality for all. it can’t be pick and choose.

Now I will state again. I do not agree with the no voters on the reasons why they vote no. But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

I look forward to your thoughts on it.

I’m glad you said you thought revenge is the wrong word. Goodness knows I have seen enough violence and hatred meted out in my lifetime to people who didn’t deserve on iota of it, and still I don’t see it being returned. Perhaps some No people are afraid of some of their own behavior being returned? But I have not seen anything like that being expressed.

Of course the No side has a right to vote (though it is NOT a vote), and they have a right to express their opinions on why. But you seem to be saying when the Yes people do so, they are ‘shouting down the No voters’. You appear to be saying that any opinion expressed by the Yes side is ‘nastiness’.

You seem to be saying that the Yes people need to shut up and listen to the No side, without giving their side. Is this what you are saying?

Ruby, I don’t indend for you to think that I want the Yes vote to shut up. I want them to take the higher ground. Have you not seen the ugliness factions in the yes vote have placed on some gay people who are openly choosing to vote no?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-sydney-universitys-gaymarriage-thugs-attacking-no-students/news-story/74efaf3374cc1445c795bcc521d30a34

This link is the sort of thing I am talking about… And yes I know this may include journalist licence and all other caveats associated with it. but of the videos I have seen and the news reports I have read there is a lot of hate in the Yes vocal factions…

I’m not n=mentioning the No because by voting know they are showing they don’t care about equality… I expect them to no act in a measured and equality styled view.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Defacto relationships are not blessed by religion nevertheless they have all the other legal rappings of a marriage. To my mind this whole thing is silly and divisive.

But they don’t.

Same sex de-facto relationships do not have the same legal rappings as a marriage. That’s the problem.

which is something along the line of each same sex partner has less rights than siblings who are related to the other partner

in other words the families of each same sex partner have more rights than the same sex partner

something like that

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

For example, people who strongly object to a couple being refused a wedding in a particular church (which is obviously very objectionable), support the right of protestors to prevent no supporters voicing their opinion, and do not object to no supporters being sacked because of their opinion (which are also obviously objectionable things).

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

They did it in Ireland of course & nobody was having a big girly hissy fit about it then.

It was bi-partisan, both sides of politics supported.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

You’ll need to get a second eye to recognise it lovey

Your a lousy observer, observer.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stan101 said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You seem to want to hold the Yes side more to account than the No side IMHO.

I suppoose that can be seen and I thought I previously explained why.

The No vote by their very alliance with saying no are against the equality being persued. It is therefore logical to expect them to be okay with exceptions to rules of democracy and rights and equality… I expect nothing less of them.

However, the yes vote is actively pushing for equality of rights. To my way of thinking equality means equal rights on all matters, not just on this aspect which happens to be SSM. To have Yes voters actively berating, antagonizing and marginalizing no votors is in my eyes extremely hypocritical.

To me, those Yes voters are saying “I want my rights on this matter and to hell with democracy and other equal rights…I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on as long as I get mine now on this matter.”

So yes, if you think I am holding the Yes vote to higher account, you are right.

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

Rev, I’m not saying the hypocrisy from Noers is less than Yessers.. I don’t think I have written that and if that is what you have gained from what i wrote it was not intended and I failed.

I am not bringing the noers into consideration because I expect nothing better from them. By voting no they are admitting they do not want equality. From that I conclude the think they deserve something that other don’t. That in my eyes is ugly.

However, if you are fighting for something, surely you should be adhering to the principals of what it is you are fighting for? Or is it a case of wanting euqlaity for all – when it suits? If that is the case, then a yes = a no.

stan101 said:

Please excuse my ignorance but I am really unsure on what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters are actually asking for in the greater debate.

Being out of the country for some time and only reading print news mainly, all I tend to see is when someone votes “yes” they are good people and acting on their democratic right to vote (or whatever this ballot is).

When reading of people who choose ‘no’, they apparently don’t have that democratic freedom and seem to be persecuted or at least ridiculed for their view. What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Now, I get same sex people want the right to have a partner that is legally recognized as such. What I don’t get is the nastiness pressed onto the ‘no’ voters. So the marginalised Yes voters who are rightly demanding equality now feel it is okay to marginalize and denounce no voters who wish to use their democratic right (rightly or wrongly)… This is all very ugly.

I think a whole lot of this issue could have been elevated if team Yes had acknowledged that the religious types see the term ‘marriage’ as a female – male union. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that for a considerable amount of time that has been the meaning. Anyone wanting to argue semantics should look up the definition of the word ‘gay’ from a dictionary from 60 years ago.

I believe that by not pushing for the word marriage and choosing a different word, but requiring all associated rights that come with a male – female union, the Yes voters could have sidestepped a whole bunch of potential issues with people of strong religious beliefs. The Yes voters could have handled this better.

Just my thoughts – I understand this is vitally important to some people but I just wish this is over and done with, equality prevails and we can stop categorizing ourselves so much and get on with just being human.

The vast majority of people respect their fellow citizens right to have a different view.
I mean the very vast majority.
There are a small few from both sides who don’t.
I mean a very small few.
These few, these unhappy few are the ones that make the news, the ones that sell papers and get the headlines.

The_observer said:

What if they also had the death penality?

North Korea is a republic, so is Syria, Iran and Iraq. Shit….. we don’t want a republic either.

Bubblecar said:

>But I strongly believe they should have their right to vote how they choose no matter how ignorant, hurtful, hateful, ideological or whatever their reasons are.

So you don’t think that ignorance and hate need to be called out for what they are?

Very strange.

As for a “right to vote”, we don’t normally regard the civil rights of this or that group as a matter to be auctioned off to public opinion.

How would you like your value as a human being to be determined by popular vote?

Is this debate really about the value of gays as humans, or them gaining the same legal rights as married (M & F) couples?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

For example, people who strongly object to a couple being refused a wedding in a particular church (which is obviously very objectionable), support the right of protestors to prevent no supporters voicing their opinion, and do not object to no supporters being sacked because of their opinion (which are also obviously objectionable things).

No-one’s stopping NO supporters voicing their opinions. What we objected to was the government instituting a “national debate” and “vote” which had the effect of handing a megaphone to homophobes and demanding that we treat their hateful views with “respect”.

This “survey” is causing a huge amount of stress to LGBT+ people who now once again are in the position of having to defend our value as human beings, in the face of attacks by bigots whose views we thought had finally become socially unacceptable.

As for that woman who was sacked, she was a contractor whose views on a range of subjects were clearly unacceptable given the nature of the business she was working for.

Nothing changes the fact that the no voters are seeking to limit the rights of others.

Do the no voters have the right to abuse others people rights?

Strange laws, these laws wouldn’t be corrupted by religious politicians would they?

stan101 said:

However, if you are fighting for something, surely you should be adhering to the principals of what it is you are fighting for? Or is it a case of wanting euqlaity for all – when it suits? If that is the case, then a yes = a no.

Yes, I certainly agree with that, especially when not following that principle is counter-productive with the very people who may change the outcome (those undecided).

However the reality is that there will always be some hypocritical activity and speech from both sides of any debate, and it seems counter-productive to me to focus on that, rather than the rights and wrongs of the question itself.

Peak Warming Man said:

The vast majority of people respect their fellow citizens right to have a different view.
I mean the very vast majority.
There are a small few from both sides who don’t.
I mean a very small few.
These few, these unhappy few are the ones that make the news, the ones that sell papers and get the headlines.

Generally I’d be agreeing with you on these points, but the sheer numbers coming out in protest of the no votes seem to be a fair sized minority.. And I have nothing to back this up of course… But there are reports of noers aggressively being shut down on campuses as one example. And I understand that campus populations are a minor minority of the whole nations’ population.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nothing changes the fact that the no voters are seeking to limit the rights of others.

Do the no voters have the right to abuse others people rights?

Strange laws, these laws wouldn’t be corrupted by religious politicians would they?

You could also say that nothing changes the fact that yes voters are seeking to impose their will on others. Hot helpful either way.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

For example, people who strongly object to a couple being refused a wedding in a particular church (which is obviously very objectionable), support the right of protestors to prevent no supporters voicing their opinion, and do not object to no supporters being sacked because of their opinion (which are also obviously objectionable things).

No-one’s stopping NO supporters voicing their opinions.

Care to try again on that one?

stan101 said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

For example, people who strongly object to a couple being refused a wedding in a particular church (which is obviously very objectionable), support the right of protestors to prevent no supporters voicing their opinion, and do not object to no supporters being sacked because of their opinion (which are also obviously objectionable things).

No-one’s stopping NO supporters voicing their opinions.

Care to try again on that one?

Can you give an example?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

What hypocrisy have you seen on the YES side?

For example, people who strongly object to a couple being refused a wedding in a particular church (which is obviously very objectionable), support the right of protestors to prevent no supporters voicing their opinion, and do not object to no supporters being sacked because of their opinion (which are also obviously objectionable things).

No-one’s stopping NO supporters voicing their opinions. What we objected to was the government instituting a “national debate” and “vote” which had the effect of handing a megaphone to homophobes and demanding that we treat their hateful views with “respect”.

That’s not true. There are reported cases of groups taking physical action to stop No supporters voicing their opinion.

Bubblecar said:

This “survey” is causing a huge amount of stress to LGBT+ people who now once again are in the position of having to defend our value as human beings, in the face of attacks by bigots whose views we thought had finally become socially unacceptable.

That doesn’t justify hypocrisy, especially when it is counter-productive.

Bubblecar said:

As for that woman who was sacked, she was a contractor whose views on a range of subjects were clearly unacceptable given the nature of the business she was working for.

There has been more than one case reported. The particulars of a particular case are not the point. You asked for examples of hypocrisy and I gave you some.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stan101 said:

However, if you are fighting for something, surely you should be adhering to the principals of what it is you are fighting for? Or is it a case of wanting euqlaity for all – when it suits? If that is the case, then a yes = a no.

However the reality is that there will always be some hypocritical activity and speech from both sides of any debate, and it seems counter-productive to me to focus on that, rather than the rights and wrongs of the question itself.

And fair enough, too. But as you said there may be a lot of undecideders out there.

But I concede. I’ve regurgitated my thoughts enough by replying to responses.

Bubblecar said:

stan101 said:

Bubblecar said:

No-one’s stopping NO supporters voicing their opinions.

Care to try again on that one?

Can you give an example?

Bloody hell, do you live under a rock?

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s not true. There are reported cases of groups taking physical action to stop No supporters voicing their opinion.

Bubblecar said:

This “survey” is causing a huge amount of stress to LGBT+ people who now once again are in the position of having to defend our value as human beings, in the face of attacks by bigots whose views we thought had finally become socially unacceptable.

That doesn’t justify hypocrisy, especially when it is counter-productive.

Bubblecar said:

As for that woman who was sacked, she was a contractor whose views on a range of subjects were clearly unacceptable given the nature of the business she was working for.

There has been more than one case reported. The particulars of a particular case are not the point. You asked for examples of hypocrisy and I gave you some.

Bear in mind the Murdoch Press is pulling out all the stops in its traditional “War Against Poofters”.

Isolated and trivial incidents of over-reactions by YES supporters will be given headline treatment and endless self-righteous opinion pieces from his pack of Nazi columnists.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nothing changes the fact that the no voters are seeking to limit the rights of others.

Do the no voters have the right to abuse others people rights?

Strange laws, these laws wouldn’t be corrupted by religious politicians would they?

You could also say that nothing changes the fact that yes voters are seeking to impose their will on others. Hot helpful either way.

I can’t imagine it directly benefits them though and its just asking for equal rights.
As usual it seems the truth get distorted by lies from people on both sides which is probably what they want.

stan101 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

stan101 said:

I suppoose that can be seen and I thought I previously explained why.

The No vote by their very alliance with saying no are against the equality being persued. It is therefore logical to expect them to be okay with exceptions to rules of democracy and rights and equality… I expect nothing less of them.

However, the yes vote is actively pushing for equality of rights. To my way of thinking equality means equal rights on all matters, not just on this aspect which happens to be SSM. To have Yes voters actively berating, antagonizing and marginalizing no votors is in my eyes extremely hypocritical.

To me, those Yes voters are saying “I want my rights on this matter and to hell with democracy and other equal rights…I have been treated wrongly for too long and I don’t care what other rights I step and trod on as long as I get mine now on this matter.”

So yes, if you think I am holding the Yes vote to higher account, you are right.

I think it can’t be denied that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on both sides, which is certainly counter-productive.

I still don’t know why you would think hypocrisy from Yessers worse than hypocrisy from Noers though.

Rev, I’m not saying the hypocrisy from Noers is less than Yessers.. I don’t think I have written that and if that is what you have gained from what i wrote it was not intended and I failed.

I am not bringing the noers into consideration because I expect nothing better from them. By voting no they are admitting they do not want equality. From that I conclude the think they deserve something that other don’t. That in my eyes is ugly.

However, if you are fighting for something, surely you should be adhering to the principals of what it is you are fighting for? Or is it a case of wanting euqlaity for all – when it suits? If that is the case, then a yes = a no.

Some people get so passionate about some things that they can become singlemindedly stupid about stuff.

Latest YouGov polls

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/09/20/yougov-fifty-acres-labor-35-coalition-34-greens-11-one-nation-9/

• Support for same-sex marriage was at at 59%, with 33% opposed. Eighty per cent rated themselves likely participants in the postal survey compared with 13% for unlikely, but there are no breakdowns for the yes and no camps.

• Sixty-six per cent favoured the proposition that “Australia should move towards more alternative energy source (e.g. wind or solar)” over an alternative, that “Australia should continue to use coal-fired power stations”.

• Forty-three per cent of respondents thought it likely a country would be attacked with a nuclear weapon during their lifetime, compared with 44% for unlikely.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

If politicians cannot accept basic human rights, then they should get out of parliament.

If people want to minimize the rights of others. They are committing a heinous act.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

I suppose the best thing is to assess each argument on its merits

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

The issue that I will say no more on being the hypocrisy issue.

I’m happy to discuss ad-infinitum why religious freedom demands that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

LOL

:)

:)

:)

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

I suppose the best thing is to assess each argument on its merits

I’m sure we can all agree on that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

The issue that I will say no more on being the hypocrisy issue.

I’m happy to discuss ad-infinitum why religious freedom demands that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Religious freedom also includes freedom from religion

Tau.Neutrino said:

If politicians cannot accept basic human rights, then they should get out of parliament.

If people want to minimize the rights of others. They are committing a heinous act.

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights. You must tone down your dogmatic attitude to everything.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

Sorry, i refuse to move to the left.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

The issue that I will say no more on being the hypocrisy issue.

I’m happy to discuss ad-infinitum why religious freedom demands that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Religious freedom also includes freedom from religion

Exactly.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If politicians cannot accept basic human rights, then they should get out of parliament.

If people want to minimize the rights of others. They are committing a heinous act.

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights. You must tone down your dogmatic attitude to everything.

You go first pf. You can start with your ridiculously dogmatic view that human caused climate change will be catastrophic.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If politicians cannot accept basic human rights, then they should get out of parliament.

If people want to minimize the rights of others. They are committing a heinous act.

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights. You must tone down your dogmatic attitude to everything.

You go first pf. You can start with your ridiculously dogmatic view that human caused climate change will be catastrophic.

That’s not my view Observer, it is the view of the scientists that study the subject.

The_observer said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

Sorry, i refuse to move to the left.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar – but as I said to stan, I think it is counter-productive to focus on the hypocrisy of either side, as can be ascertained by reviewing one’s own reaction to what is posted here and elsewhere.

So I’ll say no more on the issue.

Division Required, ring the bells for 2 months.
The Nose will pass to the right of the chair, the Eyes will pass to the left of the chair.
I appoint The Observer teller for the Eyes and Bubblecar teller for the Nose.

The issue that I will say no more on being the hypocrisy issue.

I’m happy to discuss ad-infinitum why religious freedom demands that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I’m happy to discuss human rights, a very human construct.
How and who defines one, a committee?
The Declaration of Independence said they were inaliable, I tend to disagree at present.
Lincoln was a great orator and he spoke well and he had this to say.

“Mr. Lincoln had steeped himself in the history of the Founding. He understood both its politics and its purpose. And he worried that its meaning had been lost on a generation that associated it only with fireworks and celebrations. In the summer of 1858 Mr. Lincoln told a crowd at Lewiston, Illinois: “Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflict with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated in our charter of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the revolution. Think nothing of me — take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever — but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles.”

So they shot him.

• 

Funny, that is the exact same thing that I thought…

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

I wouldn’t know.

PermeateFree said:

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights.

Except that whilst adults have the right to choose to join a group that imposes restrictions on their activities, they do not have the right to impose those restrictions on other people who have not chosen to join that group.

So no, the yes voters are not minimising their rights. They are not even reducing them a little bit.

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

at least not on a first date….

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

I think I may have seen that movie…

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

I remember sitting in a pub once and there was a dog on the footpath licking it’s dick.
One bloke said “I wish I could do that”
And the old bloke sitting beside him said “you’ll probably have to pat him first”

Peak Warming Man said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

I remember sitting in a pub once and there was a dog on the footpath licking it’s dick.
One bloke said “I wish I could do that”
And the old bloke sitting beside him said “you’ll probably have to pat him first”

and people say my jokes are old.

• And the old bloke sitting beside him said “you’ll probably have to pat him first”

You make a lot of jokes about intimate relations with animals…

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

At least gays don’t lick their own arseholes and then lick you on the face.

I remember sitting in a pub once and there was a dog on the footpath licking it’s dick.
One bloke said “I wish I could do that”
And the old bloke sitting beside him said “you’ll probably have to pat him first”

and people say my jokes are old.

no.. they say you are old…

they say the jokes are unfunny…

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

Yes, I’m giving Labor no points for this.

Reacted equals rejected. And despite some apologism, it’s not actually ancient history.

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

Yes, I’m giving Labor no points for this.

are you saying the ALP should have just agreed to the plebiscite?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights. You must tone down your dogmatic attitude to everything.

You go first pf. You can start with your ridiculously dogmatic view that human caused climate change will be catastrophic.

That’s not my view Observer, it is the view of the scientists that study the subject.

no, its the view of a minority of them.

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

I could be rude and call Skunky the right-wing Boris.

:-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

I could be rude and call Skunky the right-wing Boris.

:-)

yeah, but i don’t hide the fact I am a leftie. in fact I am proud to be on this side of politics.

:-)

I think it’s fair to say that both the LNP and the ALP are terrified at the thought of alienating the vocal religious right..

So it’s much easier to do nothing, as the people who are alienated by either party doing nothing are not going to change their vote because of it

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

Yes, I’m giving Labor no points for this.

are you saying the ALP should have just agreed to the plebiscite?

I’m saying they should have brought in marriage equality during the six year period when they were in power.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

Pretty sure the only political views I have posted previous to this have been on asylum seekers. If you have any thing else you are thinking of I am happy to engage.

I have previously stated that there is a cigarettes paper worth of difference between both parties, but the outrage is pretty well one way. Maybe I read the Guardian too much.

I think the Lins should have supported the local car industry for instance, but I don’t forget like some that Mitsubishi left under Labor. I consider the dollars spent of th automotive industry to have great bangs for bucks value in jobs and supporting other industries.

So what were you thinking of?

ChrispenEvan said:

people who are voting No are worse than people who don’t like dogs.

I say make human to dog marriages legal.

Stop infringing on the rights of others, including dog lovers.

You a dog lover, aren’t you, crispy, wink wink…..growllllllllllll baby, yeh

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Yes, I’m giving Labor no points for this.

are you saying the ALP should have just agreed to the plebiscite?

I’m saying they should have brought in marriage equality during the six year period when they were in power.

Yup. Progressives, money and mouth and all that. Of course they have some diffulties with some marginal seats and funding and votes from some very catholic members leading unions. FIrst dog doesn’t do reality of political process.

AwesomeO said:

So what were you thinking of?

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

Labor are laughing like drains, when it was in their power they voted no, opposed a plebiscite so now we have this rock show and despite Bubblecars confidence no guarantee at all they will legalise SSM in the face of a no vote. The reasons why they previously voted no, and those members remain the same, forget the outrage of clowns like Penny Wong, she is in opposition now, it is expected.

I voted yes, gonna be hilarious if the Libs legislate something that Labor reacted. It’s like the whole asylum seeker debate, labor can do what it likes and its base says fuck all, Libs in no way approach the fucking over of asylum seekers that Labor has legislated but you wouldn’t know it of you got your political news from First Dog.

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

Malcolm’s in the middle.
Sometimes when I’m driving I flick over to 4BC/2GB I hear the hate for Turnbull writ large.
The likes of Ray Hadley, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt et al hate him with a passion.
His political survival is predicated on this vote, if it goes down he’s toast.
I hope people don’t vote on this one on politics rather than principle but no doubt some will.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

So what were you thinking of?

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

If you’re going to play the role of devils advocate on a far left forum like this, then it’s natural that you’re going to look right

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You know that if you had at least once advanced an opinion that was critical of the Coalition people might start to consider your posts in some way objective.

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

I could be rude and call Skunky the right-wing Boris.

:-)

Be rude all you like, on the surveys I come out as pretty central. Small government, individual responsibility, liberal on drugs and sex, strong on borders, strong on conservation. Hell I will even consider tariffs, which is not a neocon thing at all.

I get complexity, pragmatism and reality.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau, what you fail to appreciate is some people who hold views, do so on what is important to them and consequently they consider the yes voters are minimising their rights.

Except that whilst adults have the right to choose to join a group that imposes restrictions on their activities, they do not have the right to impose those restrictions on other people who have not chosen to join that group.

So no, the yes voters are not minimising their rights. They are not even reducing them a little bit.

It is not a question about joining a group, but holding views based on your background and education and therefore they have every right to vote no on that basis. It is not denying others anything, but only their opinion based on what they regard as the truth, therefore these people with opposing views are acting against their belief’s.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

You go first pf. You can start with your ridiculously dogmatic view that human caused climate change will be catastrophic.

That’s not my view Observer, it is the view of the scientists that study the subject.

no, its the view of a minority of them.

:))))

In fairness I’ve heard Curve criticise both parties.

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, yeah. Been thinking that for ages. so much for being in the middle.

I could be rude and call Skunky the right-wing Boris.

:-)

Be rude all you like, on the surveys I come out as pretty central. Small government, individual responsibility, liberal on drugs and sex, strong on borders, strong on conservation. Hell I will even consider tariffs, which is not a neocon thing at all.

I get complexity, pragmatism and reality.

That’s all well and good but my point still stands. Criticise the right side of politics for once. You never know it might grow on you.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

So what were you thinking of?

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

I think the drug testing for unemployed wasters is a waste of time and money. How’s that. Of course if thise forum was in any way not very leftist there would be an opportunity to engage in more nuanced detail. But when it is mostly conservatives suck then you go with what you got.

Dropbear said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

So what were you thinking of?

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

If you’re going to play the role of devils advocate on a far left forum like this, then it’s natural that you’re going to look right

DV’s far left rhetoric is only a small part of this forum.

Honestly ‘far left’ is an exaggeration IMO.

Far too much politics is left camp vs right camp as it is… Instead of argument vs argument.

However arguing principles can be difficult when neither side of the spectrum seem to have any

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

If you’re going to play the role of devils advocate on a far left forum like this, then it’s natural that you’re going to look right

DV’s far left rhetoric is only a small part of this forum.

Honestly ‘far left’ is an exaggeration IMO.

As you’re at least pretty much firmly in the left camp, that’s not a fair or accurate observation IMO.

Dropbear said:

Far too much politics is left camp vs right camp as it is… Instead of argument vs argument.

In parliament that’s certainly true.

Here, I am happy to assume good faith: that everyone here is calling it as they see it, personally.

Still.. I’m flirting on that side of the fence these days.. but at least I’m at peace with myself. And I still get equally eye-rolly at the far far left nonsense as I do with Abbott and his gang..

If only everyone could be more like me, I guess is what I’m saying

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I cannot recall you ever criticising the Coalition. Maybe you see it as your role to refute the opinions of the lefties but by not criticising the other side you lose any semblance of objectivity.

If you’re going to play the role of devils advocate on a far left forum like this, then it’s natural that you’re going to look right

DV’s far left rhetoric is only a small part of this forum.

Honestly ‘far left’ is an exaggeration IMO.

DV analyses things in great detail and again, in fairness, he does criticise the left when he thinks it’s appropriate.
And again in fairness to Bubblecar he has criticised the left for their cuddling up to Islam.