Think about what the alternative conclusion means – this constant suggestion that if Yes loses it will be because of various undesirable incidents or the rhetoric used. It means that in a situation where the country votes to continue to deprive gay people of equality, we will have found a way to blame gay people for that.

Every time anybody who wants a Yes result does anything deemed unacceptable (or actually unacceptable) – interrupting meetings, calling opponents “bigots”, starting misguided petitions, sometimes just being overly eager to criticise the other side – there is an immediate round of cries from commentators and journalists: “This is how to lose the vote!” “If the Yes side loses, incidents like this will be why.” Or the softer version: “This is not how to persuade people.”

The first is that the same simplification is not really happening to the No side. There’s plenty of criticism of the arguments Lyle Shelton et al are running, yes. But when yet another aggressively homophobic flyer is distributed, or a Yes campaigner is assaulted, where are the crowds of talking heads saying this is how the No campaign will lose? Saying the No campaign will never persuade middle Australia with violence, or intolerant language?

This is, arguably, a fair point. But the contrast here is important. The No side is constantly individualised. The Yes side is smoothed into one mass.

Or to put it another way: LGBTQI people only really deserve these rights if they ask nicely.

From: https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/sean-kelly/2017/22/2017/1506062412/not-horse-race

Didn’t want to talk here until after election day.

Divorce of homosexual couples would become more expensive and have a delay of at least a year. It was hard enough for miss m to escape from a homosexual relationship that was four-way abusive (physical, verbal, emotional and financial) without the added burden of arranging a divorce.

Woodie said:

Think about what the alternative conclusion means – this constant suggestion that if Yes loses it will be because of various undesirable incidents or the rhetoric used. It means that in a situation where the country votes to continue to deprive gay people of equality, we will have found a way to blame gay people for that.

Every time anybody who wants a Yes result does anything deemed unacceptable (or actually unacceptable) – interrupting meetings, calling opponents “bigots”, starting misguided petitions, sometimes just being overly eager to criticise the other side – there is an immediate round of cries from commentators and journalists: “This is how to lose the vote!” “If the Yes side loses, incidents like this will be why.” Or the softer version: “This is not how to persuade people.”

The first is that the same simplification is not really happening to the No side. There’s plenty of criticism of the arguments Lyle Shelton et al are running, yes. But when yet another aggressively homophobic flyer is distributed, or a Yes campaigner is assaulted, where are the crowds of talking heads saying this is how the No campaign will lose? Saying the No campaign will never persuade middle Australia with violence, or intolerant language?

This is, arguably, a fair point. But the contrast here is important. The No side is constantly individualised. The Yes side is smoothed into one mass.

Or to put it another way: LGBTQI people only really deserve these rights if they ask nicely.

From: https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/sean-kelly/2017/22/2017/1506062412/not-horse-race

Hi Woodie. First I’d like to say I have enormous admiration for the way you keep your cool in the face of extreme provocation here.

Having said that, I think it is reasonable to discuss the best tactics for getting a yes vote, without equating that with blaming the Yes side if it ends up as a no.

I’m not sure it is true that the no side is individualised more than the yes side, but anyway I think we should continue to criticise individuals or groups who use violence or seek to suppress expression of opinion outside the bounds of the law, from whichever side they come.

>there is an immediate round of cries from commentators and journalists: “This is how to lose the vote!”

I suspect most of those commentators and journalists are working for NO, whatever they may claim.

They’re hoping for a NO victory AND they’re hoping to perversely blame it on YES.

But this certainly won’t be the conclusion of the rest of the world. If NO wins, it’ll be because Australia is full of bigots and bastards.

So those expecting a NO victory had better get used to being an international pariah. And get used to vast numbers of Aussies saying they’re Ashamed To Be Australian.

But at this stage, I don’t think a NO victory is a serious proposition.

Woodie said:

Or to put it another way: LGBTQI people only really deserve these rights if they ask nicely.

No, but I would expect the Yes side to debate using the very spirit of equlity they are seeking. The Yes vote have fallen into the trap of plying dirty with the No side and it looks ugly and hypocritical.

It should be simple enough to show up prominent no voters such as Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi by systematically walking undecided voters through No’s frankly ridiculous arguments with grace and confidence.

But there is a vocal faction of the yes side who in my opinion is doing your cause no good whatsoever. It is just dumb retorts from Yes by trying to play to No’s tactics.

Sad but true. I would have thought the very people wanting equality would use more level, measured, succinct and fact based arguments wrapped up in dialog that resonated with the undecided and no voters. What I see is ugliness.

Woodie said:

Think about what the alternative conclusion means – this constant suggestion that if Yes loses it will be because of various undesirable incidents or the rhetoric used. It means that in a situation where the country votes to continue to deprive gay people of equality, we will have found a way to blame gay people for that.

No way will I blame gay people. I’ll blame the left, because thay have taken this issue hostage, & as usual, have been offensive, hostile & aggressive to everyone who disagrees, because the left sees the NO people as h aving their views based on religious grounds, or simply conservative views, & the left hates both.

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Think about what the alternative conclusion means – this constant suggestion that if Yes loses it will be because of various undesirable incidents or the rhetoric used. It means that in a situation where the country votes to continue to deprive gay people of equality, we will have found a way to blame gay people for that.

No way will I blame gay people. I’ll blame the left, because thay have taken this issue hostage, & as usual, have been offensive, hostile & aggressive to everyone who disagrees, because the left sees the NO people as h aving their views based on religious grounds, or simply conservative views, & the left hates both.

You’ll predictably blame everyone except Nazis like yourself.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Think about what the alternative conclusion means – this constant suggestion that if Yes loses it will be because of various undesirable incidents or the rhetoric used. It means that in a situation where the country votes to continue to deprive gay people of equality, we will have found a way to blame gay people for that.

No way will I blame gay people. I’ll blame the left, because thay have taken this issue hostage, & as usual, have been offensive, hostile & aggressive to everyone who disagrees, because the left sees the NO people as h aving their views based on religious grounds, or simply conservative views, & the left hates both.

You’ll predictably blame everyone except Nazis like yourself.

See the thing is bubbles, you repeatedly call me a NAZI, & I find that as offensive as being call a paedophile. Offensive because I’m no more a paedophile than I am a NAZI. You on the otherhand most likely do target little boys, & as such you are a paedophile.

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

It took two days, but the Australian Christian Lobby did lodge a complaint with the ABC. At issue was Joe O’Brien’s line of questioning on the breakfast show News Mornings.

The lobby’s managing director, Lyle Shelton, had been invited to debate same-sex marriage with City of Sydney councillor Christine Forster. Almost immediately, he pulled the conversation to “children being taught radical LGBTI sex education”.

The “bias” of which Shelton later complained related to O’Brien asking whether there was “inconsistency” and “hypocrisy” in Shelton cheering a queer athlete such as Ian Thorpe, while at the same time arguing against his ability to marry.

“I haven’t encountered much balance on this issue since the debate began … but this particular line of questioning is probably among the most bizarre that I’ve heard,” Shelton said afterwards. “It does worry me that this mindset exists on the other side of the debate that even wants to take away the freedom of those who will always support marriage between a man and woman to even enjoy their sport.”

Three days later, Shelton had recovered from his concern and was on ABC News Breakfast to warn, again, of the perils of “radical LGBTIQ sex education”.

Shelton is experiencing a renaissance at the ABC. The reason for this is simple. It is not that he is a persuasive or even reasonable commentator: it is that the ABC is forced to have him, and people like him, on air. That is one of the reasons behind the push for a postal survey and attendant national debate in the first instance.

There is serious disagreement inside the broadcaster about this. Some believe the ABC should take a stand and refuse to put to air views that would be ordinarily rejected or would be regarded as possibly injurious to vulnerable sections of the community. Others believe there is an obligation to report both sides of the debate on equality, no matter how specious or cruel. They argue that the ABC charter mandates this.

The ABC’s editorial director, Alan Sunderland, said the broadcaster had been “very conscious from the start of the debate to ensure, in providing a forum for genuine public discussion and for all views to be raised from an appropriate diversity of perspectives, we do not unwittingly become an outlet for hate speech, discrimination or unnecessary offence”.
“I in no way think that gay people should be in any way discriminated a bit. But it is different. You can’t say everyone will be white or everyone will be black. That’s not the case.”

He said that “in covering any sensitive or controversial issue, there is a risk of causing offence” but that the ABC had “covered the debate comprehensively and appropriately”.

ABC editorial policy manager Mark Maley reminded staff in August: while the ABC “should not be seen to condone or encourage prejudice and discrimination”, the broadcaster has an obligation to see “all perspectives are given a fair hearing and treated with respect”.

One ABC worker told The Saturday Paper the directive rankled, not because it meant staff couldn’t express their views on marriage equality but because it implied they couldn’t be professional about the issue. “People think he’s right: that presenters have to be seen as impartial. What didn’t go down well was the way he worded it,” the worker said. “Senior staff said, ‘Fuck off, you don’t need to tell us that, we’ve been doing this for 20 years.’ ”

But how far that professionalism can stretch when things get hateful is another matter. When one side of a “debate” is arguing to deny a historically persecuted minority equal rights, the ABC is virtually bound to promote misleading, hateful and dangerous points of view. Proven false claims about homosexuality leading to bestiality and incest, deliberate conflations of the postal survey with other issues such as Safe Schools, and fearmongering that darkly hints at homosexuals as secret child molesters are not only presented as on a par with reasoned, relevant arguments about equality and discrimination – they must be presented, if the “No” side is to feel fairly treated.

Shelton has seized this moment with both hands, running arguments not just against same-sex marriage but against gender non-conformity and same-sex adoption. Since the campaign began, Shelton has been everywhere.

On SBS’s The Feed, Shelton stood by an earlier description of children of same-sex couples as “the new Stolen Generation”, earning nonplussed looks from his two Indigenous interviewers. A day earlier, he told BuzzFeed News that parents should have the right to send their children to conversion therapy, a widely discredited pseudoscience purporting to “cure” homosexuality. In a televised speech at the National Press Club, Shelton spent time on one of his favourite talking points: that same-sex marriage will see politically correct gender ideologies forced on vulnerable schoolchildren via programs such as Safe Schools. “If gender is taken out of marriage,” Shelton warned, “I don’t think we’ll have any opportunity to stop these programs.”

All things being equal, the national broadcaster might be a little more circumspect about giving someone with such fringe views so much airtime. But things are not equal. Shelton is the public face of one side of a public debate, and therefore he and his views must be given a hearing.

He is not the only one to take advantage of the ABC’s commitment to balance while crying silence. The “No” case is also exploiting the ABC’s cumbersome complaints process to cow presenters. Internal ABC documents reveal that most complaints received by the broadcaster in recent weeks have come from “No” campaign supporters aggrieved about perceived “bias” from programs and presenters “failing to give a voice to those on the ‘No’ side”. There seems little evidence of this, but it will tie those presenters and programs in weeks if not months of paperwork. Sometimes it is easier just to put the call to air.

Shelton is the most urbane face the “No” campaign can muster. While he regularly uses his media appearances to insult, degrade and belittle queer people, he does so with what could generously be described as civility. He does not use homophobic epithets, or openly threaten queer presenters or guests. He delivers his abuse in calm, measured tones, and puts his name to the things he says.

Behind the scenes at the ABC, things are very different. ABC workers have told The Saturday Paper the postal survey has inspired an avalanche of homophobic abuse from the public: radio call-ins, emails, text messages. For every Shelton presenting a mild, genial front to the “No” campaign, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of others emboldened to announce their hatred of queer people in any way they can.

“There are people who call again and again and again, every day, trying to find a different way to say the same horrible things”, one ABC worker said. “Just plain, unadulterated, unadorned homophobic ranters, using the goodwill of the ABC and the openness of its editorial policy and the charter to publicly express statements that were never part of public debate before.”

“Can I say one more thing?”

In talkback radio, few questions are more dreaded. ABC Radio Melbourne’s Jon Faine had just spent nearly three minutes chatting with Don in Keilor on his 774 Mornings program. Don called to voice his disapproval of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton for supporting the “Yes” campaign.

After interrupting Hilton several times and claiming the commissioner’s support for equal marriage was “disgusting”, Don had one more point to make. Seemingly feeling charitable, Faine let him go ahead, which led to this now-infamous exchange:

“Hitler had put all of those kinds of people in their own concentration camps. It’s one of the two good things he did.”

“Sorry?”

“I said Hitler had concentration camps for these gay people. One of the two good things he did. The other one was build the autobahn.”

Responding to this call for genocide, Faine reached for Godwin’s law. “There’s an old saying in public policy: when people invoke Nazism for or against an argument, you pretty much know you’ve lost.”

Lest listeners get the wrong idea, Don hastily assured Faine, who is Jewish, that he had “no qualm with you, Jon, not at all”. It was just the gay people he wants exterminated.

Faine and the ABC have since been heavily criticised over the segment: Faine for not immediately terminating the call and the ABC for choosing to post it online. But the incident neatly demonstrated the situation in which the ABC finds itself.

The obligation to give equal weight to two unequal sides has forced the ABC to air the ridiculous as well as the offensive. On 7.30 this week, presenter Leigh Sales prefaced an interview with former Fairfax chairman and Woolworths chief executive Roger Corbett by emphasising that it was part of an ongoing attempt “to bring you insights into both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns”. Before the Corbett interview, 7.30 had spoken with Alan Joyce, the openly gay chief executive of Qantas, and comedian Hannah Gadsby, who gave a confronting and touching account of growing up queer in rural Tasmania as the state conducted its debates over legalising homosexuality.

Exactly what viewers were supposed to gain from Corbett’s seven minutes on air is unclear. His key point was that marriage is “between a man and a woman”. He said this at least seven times. Corbett also said that “a black man and a white man are equal, but they’re clearly different” and that “a black man will never be a white man and vice versa”. He said business had no place in a debate like this, but conceded that if the issue was something like slavery perhaps business should take a stand.

Corbett said he believed there were clearly “merits” to arguments for and against same-sex marriage, but then ended: “In my view, it is the way we were created. It doesn’t mean – I in no way think that gay people should be in any way discriminated a bit. But it is different. You can’t say everyone will be white or everyone will be black. That’s not the case. The majority of the people in this community – the vast majority – are men and women who are married together in a union that is called marriage.”

Elsewhere at the ABC, staffers have noticed more than just a rise in the number of hateful messages: there has been a distinct shift towards organised abuse among homophobic, racist and anti-Muslim callers, who now make a game of trying to slip past the ABC’s screening processes and go public.

“They’re getting very good at getting under the radar and navigating the boundaries of what they can get away with and what they can’t”, one ABC worker said. “It’s strategic. They’re enjoying baiting people by shocking them, saying things they know are going to provoke a reaction.

“It’s like poking an ant’s nest. They love it. These people are rejoicing in being able to use the ABC to put out opinions and views that were never previously regarded as part of public discourse.”

Predictably, the abuse is affecting queer employees most. ABC staff in same-sex relationships are doubly constricted by the directive not to comment on the postal vote: they are targeted at work by homophobes, while being unable to publicly defend their lives, relationships and families for fear of breaching the charter and appearing “biased”.

“There are a number of high-profile television and radio presenters who are gay and lesbian. They’re expected to have this Teflon coating and take this stuff in their stride, even though it’s personally deeply hurtful”, the ABC worker said. “Some of my colleagues in same-sex relationships are being openly criticised for their life arrangements.”

Nothing illustrates the bind the ABC is in quite as vividly as that. In its efforts to live up to the demands of the charter, it’s forced to compromise the safety and dignity of its own staff. For a public broadcaster struggling to reconcile public debate with basic decency, Don from Keilor won’t go away when the postal vote’s over.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/09/23/how-the-no-case-abusing-the-abc/15060888005255

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

Big tough Nazi calling everyone a paedophile in his little squeaky voice, because he hates being called out for the racist, sexist, homophobic piece of Nazi shit that he really is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

I’ll put him back on IGNORE in a minute :)

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

You can be obsessed by me all you like. But its not much point to it if you have to make stuff up.

All you’re doing is showing your intolerance & hatred to someone who has a different view to you. And you don’t know why I voted NO, other than the lefts hijacking of the issue.

Nobodys following your lead, that has angered you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

Fuck off rev.

Bubblecar said:

Big tough Nazi calling everyone a paedophile in his little squeaky voice, because he hates being called out for the racist, sexist, homophobic piece of Nazi shit that he really is.

LOL bubbles. Keep it comming lovie

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

I’ll put him back on IGNORE in a minute :)

Sure you will

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

I’ll put him back on IGNORE in a minute :)

Sure you will

Just making it crystal clear to you that as far as I’m concerned, you can fuck off and die, slowly and painfully, as befits the Hitler-loving sack of shit that you really are.

:)

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

I’ll put him back on IGNORE in a minute :)

Sure you will

Just making it crystal clear to you that as far as I’m concerned, you can fuck off and die, slowly and painfully, as befits the Hitler-loving sack of shit that you really are.

:)

One of my son’s best mates is gay. Best friends since school. He’s a lovely young man. Has a great personality.

You may have tried to molest him at one time?

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Sure you will

Just making it crystal clear to you that as far as I’m concerned, you can fuck off and die, slowly and painfully, as befits the Hitler-loving sack of shit that you really are.

:)

One of my son’s best mates is gay. Best friends since school. He’s a lovely young man. Has a great personality.

You may have tried to molest him at one time?

That would presumably be your son whose mother is your unfortunate daughter.

Blood & soil, family & faith!

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Just making it crystal clear to you that as far as I’m concerned, you can fuck off and die, slowly and painfully, as befits the Hitler-loving sack of shit that you really are.

:)

One of my son’s best mates is gay. Best friends since school. He’s a lovely young man. Has a great personality.

You may have tried to molest him at one time?

That would presumably be your son whose mother is your unfortunate daughter.

Blood & soil, family & faith!

LOL, inventive lovie

Anyway the Nazi prick is back on IGNORE, and I apologise for letting him trash Woodie’s thread.

• 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.
—-

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

Bubblecar said:

Anyway the Nazi prick is back on IGNORE, and I apologise for letting him trash Woodie’s thread.

He would have done it anyway.

dv said:

• 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.
—-

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

I don’t care how it turns out. But I’ll LOL at one result just the same.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway the Nazi prick is back on IGNORE, and I apologise for letting him trash Woodie’s thread.

He would have done it anyway.

Oh, its a HATE CAMPAIGN.

LMFAO holidayers.

what’s ya dog doing today, observer

nice blues acoustic tune, for you observer

walking the dog, hans theessink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fd6cUYkJW8

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Why does The_observer hate the anti-fascists?

Because he identifies with the fascists. He pictures himself as one of the Brave White Men standing up for racial purity, masculine dominance, blood & soil, God & Fatherland.

He sees himself as one of the warriors fighting to rid our decadent culture of the homosexual perverts, the disgusting feminists and other enemies of the Natural Order.

His kind usually post in Stormfront but he likes trolling the “lefty filth” in forums like this. Makes him feel like a “street fighter”.

Up to you of course, but trolls just love that sort of response. It’s exactly what they want to see.

I’ll put him back on IGNORE in a minute :)

You do realise by your outlandish language, the middle ground voters have you on ignore too.

sarahs mum said:

The lobby’s managing director, Lyle Shelton, had been invited to debate same-sex marriage with City of Sydney councillor Christine Forster. Almost immediately, he pulled the conversation to “children being taught radical LGBTI sex education”.

the ABC is virtually bound to promote misleading, hateful and dangerous points of view. Proven false claims about homosexuality leading to bestiality and incest, deliberate conflations of the postal survey with other issues such as Safe Schools, and fearmongering that darkly hints at homosexuals as secret child molesters are not only presented as on a par with reasoned, relevant arguments about equality and discrimination – they must be presented, if the “No” side is to feel fairly treated.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/09/23/how-the-no-case-abusing-the-abc/15060888005255

Have a quick watch of this. Note the tactic of Mr Sukkar diverging straight to schools again, but also note the q

Q&A Audience member tells Liberal MP your no vote on SSM says my relationship isn’t worthy

sarahs mum said:

The lobby’s managing director, Lyle Shelton, had been invited to debate same-sex marriage with City of Sydney councillor Christine Forster. Almost immediately, he pulled the conversation to “children being taught radical LGBTI sex education”.

the ABC is virtually bound to promote misleading, hateful and dangerous points of view. Proven false claims about homosexuality leading to bestiality and incest, deliberate conflations of the postal survey with other issues such as Safe Schools, and fearmongering that darkly hints at homosexuals as secret child molesters are not only presented as on a par with reasoned, relevant arguments about equality and discrimination – they must be presented, if the “No” side is to feel fairly treated.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/09/23/how-the-no-case-abusing-the-abc/15060888005255

Have a quick watch of this. Note the tactic of Mr Sukkar diverging straight to schools again, but also note the q

Q&A Audience member tells Liberal MP your no vote on SSM says my relationship isn’t worthy

fixed….. ………………………. Have a quick watch of this. Note the tactic of Mr Sukkar diverging straight to schools again, but also note the question being asked.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hi Woodie. First I’d like to say I have enormous admiration for the way you keep your cool in the face of extreme provocation here.

Thank you Dodgy Rev. Your comments appreciated.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hi Woodie. First I’d like to say I have enormous admiration for the way you keep your cool in the face of extreme provocation here.

Thank you Dodgy Rev. Your comments appreciated.

Think you ought to use some pink bondage gear on Bublalacar, especially a ball in the mouth.

Woodie said:

Have a quick watch of this. Note the tactic of Mr Sukkar diverging straight to schools again, but also note the q

Q&A Audience member tells Liberal MP your no vote on SSM says my relationship isn’t worthy

Well well well…………………. The bit about off at a tangent about schools has been taken out since I last viewed it. Edited off the video. It was there, followed by an audience “groan” when he said it. I’m sure the first video at the top had Mr Sukkar responding directly after that young man’s question.

PermeateFree said:

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hi Woodie. First I’d like to say I have enormous admiration for the way you keep your cool in the face of extreme provocation here.

Thank you Dodgy Rev. Your comments appreciated.

Think you ought to use some pink bondage gear on Bublalacar, especially a ball in the mouth.

Nice to see the No side keeping things civil.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/same-sex-marriage-straight-lives-matter-rally-held-in-sydney/8977832

Christos. Organised by this upstanding citizen.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Woodie said:

Thank you Dodgy Rev. Your comments appreciated.

Think you ought to use some pink bondage gear on Bublalacar, especially a ball in the mouth.

Nice to see the No side keeping things civil.

They are as bad as each other, neither worth voting for.

Yes votes support human rights.

No votes diminish peoples rights.

It will be interesting to see the results.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes votes support human rights.

No votes diminish peoples rights.

It will be interesting to see the results.

And not voting at all, indicates you couldn’t care less either way.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes votes support human rights.

No votes diminish peoples rights.

It will be interesting to see the results.

I’m a little worried that Bubbles will hold me personally responsible if the NO vote wins the day.

cb88, get ready for an influx of emails

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you ought to use some pink bondage gear on Bublalacar, especially a ball in the mouth.

Nice to see the No side keeping things civil.

They are as bad as each other, neither worth voting for.

Its like rainbows v swastikas

Gays v the nazis, apparently?

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes votes support human rights.

No votes diminish peoples rights.

It will be interesting to see the results.

I’m a little worried that Bubbles will hold me personally responsible if the NO vote wins the day.

cb88, get ready for an influx of emails

He has probably already made a little woolen replica of you, and is now only waiting delivery of a large box of pins.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes votes support human rights.

No votes diminish peoples rights.

It will be interesting to see the results.

I’m a little worried that Bubbles will hold me personally responsible if the NO vote wins the day.

cb88, get ready for an influx of emails

He has probably already made a little woolen replica of you, and is now only waiting delivery of a large box of pins.

Acupuncture?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I’m a little worried that Bubbles will hold me personally responsible if the NO vote wins the day.

cb88, get ready for an influx of emails

He has probably already made a little woolen replica of you, and is now only waiting delivery of a large box of pins.

Acupuncture?

Don’t think they push the pins all the way in with Acupuncture.

sibeen said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/same-sex-marriage-straight-lives-matter-rally-held-in-sydney/8977832

Vote no? I see 20 people turned up.

Vote YES? This is more like it. :)

Woodie said:

sibeen said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/same-sex-marriage-straight-lives-matter-rally-held-in-sydney/8977832

Vote no? I see 20 people turned up.

Is that The_observer with the Lego wig & glasses? Where’s his swastika armband?

what’s with the red Aussie flag instead of the more usual blue?

Laughable that they’re using “rainbow” colours :)

“We need to wecwaim our wainbow fwom the naughty gays and wesbians!”

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

sibeen said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/same-sex-marriage-straight-lives-matter-rally-held-in-sydney/8977832

Vote no? I see 20 people turned up.

Is that The_observer with the Lego wig & glasses? Where’s his swastika armband?

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You back so soon, Nazi prick? I thought you said you had a wife to bash and some kiddies to rape.

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You seem to think paedophilia is quite prevalent on the forum.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You back so soon, Nazi prick? I thought you said you had a wife to bash and some kiddies to rape.

No, not my thing, you filthy child molester.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You seem to think paedophilia is quite prevalent on the forum.

It’s his stock standard response when the people he’s trolling start to frighten him. Curve copped it the other day.

party_pants said:

what’s with the red Aussie flag instead of the more usual blue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Red_Ensign

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You seem to think paedophilia is quite prevalent on the forum.

Yeh, like nazism

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You seem to think paedophilia is quite prevalent on the forum.

It’s his stock standard response when the people he’s trolling start to frighten him. Curve copped it the other day.

Trolling?

Do you have anyother comeback for NO voters than Nazi mr bubbles?

Andhows your boiled lolly supply?

PermeateFree said:

And not voting at all, indicates you couldn’t care less either way.

And I might point out that’s not the best when it comes to your fellow human beings.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

what’s with the red Aussie flag instead of the more usual blue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Red_Ensign

I know what it is, just wondering if there is any significance to using it instead of the normal flag. Something that went out of general use decades ago.

party_pants said:

what’s with the red Aussie flag instead of the more usual blue?

It’s the naval Red Ensign, Mr Panty Parts. You know for those that do a lot of naval gazing. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Red_Ensign

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

And not voting at all, indicates you couldn’t care less either way.

And I might point out that’s not the best when it comes to your fellow human beings.

Well looking at recent efforts, it makes me wonder if you lot qualify. You all seem to be very self-centered and couldn’t care less about anyone else. A pox on the lot of you.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Hey look, the child molester is back. Hi mr bubbles

You back so soon, Nazi prick? I thought you said you had a wife to bash and some kiddies to rape.

No, not my thing, you filthy child molester.

Mr O, Perhaps you may like to invite your son and his gay friend over for an afternoon and join you in some forum contributions on the debate? What say you? What do you think your son’s friend would think of you carrying on as you do?

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

You back so soon, Nazi prick? I thought you said you had a wife to bash and some kiddies to rape.

No, not my thing, you filthy child molester.

Mr O, Perhaps you may like to invite your son and his gay friend over for an afternoon and join you in some forum contributions on the debate? What say you? What do you think your son’s friend would think of you carrying on as you do?

I’m just responding to the hate speech directed towards me from mr bubbles. He started it woodie. Sorry I’m not gay.

PermeateFree said:

Well looking at recent efforts, it makes me wonder if you lot qualify. You all seem to be very self-centered and couldn’t care less about anyone else. A pox on the lot of you.

I care dearly about those that this affects, Mr Free. I haven’t yet asked of you how you feel this current debate on Marriage Equality directly affects you, and what impact equality at law with marriage will have on your life?

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

Well looking at recent efforts, it makes me wonder if you lot qualify. You all seem to be very self-centered and couldn’t care less about anyone else. A pox on the lot of you.

I care dearly about those that this affects, Mr Free. I haven’t yet asked of you how you feel this current debate on Marriage Equality directly affects you, and what impact equality at law with marriage will have on your life?

None what so ever, although I have past issues with some that has not endeared them to me. And now when I hear all this self-centered poor me, nobody loves me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me. I say you are not worth the effort.

PermeateFree said:

None what so ever, although I have past issues with some that has not endeared them to me. And now when I hear all this self-centered poor me, nobody loves me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me. I say you are not worth the effort.

Who are you hearing “all this self-centred poor me, nobody love me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me” from?

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

None what so ever, although I have past issues with some that has not endeared them to me. And now when I hear all this self-centered poor me, nobody loves me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me. I say you are not worth the effort.

Who are you hearing “all this self-centred poor me, nobody love me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me” from?

mr bubbles

you been picking fights observer, being mischievous?

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

None what so ever, although I have past issues with some that has not endeared them to me. And now when I hear all this self-centered poor me, nobody loves me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me. I say you are not worth the effort.

Who are you hearing “all this self-centred poor me, nobody love me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me” from?

All of you, it is just about all you ever say. That’s another problem with you two, you never read your own posts and permanently run around in circles yelling lalalala.

PermeateFree said:

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

None what so ever, although I have past issues with some that has not endeared them to me. And now when I hear all this self-centered poor me, nobody loves me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me. I say you are not worth the effort.

Who are you hearing “all this self-centred poor me, nobody love me and you will go to hell unless you vote for me” from?

All of you, it is just about all you ever say. That’s another problem with you two, you never read your own posts and permanently run around in circles yelling lalalala.

Good description pf. I didn’t actually know woodie was gay until today.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I just got an unsolicited text message from the Yes campaign. I hate unsolicited text messages…

furious said:

I just got an unsolicited text message from the Yes campaign. I hate unsolicited text messages…

That’s what you get when you surreptitiously use Grindr.

:-P

PermeateFree said:

All of you, it is just about all you ever say. That’s another problem with you two, you never read your own posts and permanently run around in circles yelling lalalala.

That is rather general, Mr Free? Who is “all of you”? Everyone in this forum? “You” as in a particular group? An individual? A group of individuals? Any names?

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

All of you, it is just about all you ever say. That’s another problem with you two, you never read your own posts and permanently run around in circles yelling lalalala.

That is rather general, Mr Free? Who is “all of you”? Everyone in this forum? “You” as in a particular group? An individual? A group of individuals? Any names?

Woodie said:

PermeateFree said:

All of you, it is just about all you ever say. That’s another problem with you two, you never read your own posts and permanently run around in circles yelling lalalala.

That is rather general, Mr Free? Who is “all of you”? Everyone in this forum? “You” as in a particular group? An individual? A group of individuals? Any names?

I think I have made my post clear and I’m not interested in the drama of your interpretation. Read it how you like and do your normal ignore everything that does not match stoic opinion of yourself.

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Women still do know have eq

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

It’s Time

It’s time for freedom, It’s time for moving, It’s time to begin, Yes It’s time

It’s time Australia, It’s time for moving, It’s time for proving, Yes It’s time

It’s time for all folk, It’s time for moving, It’s time to give, Yes It’s time

It’s time for children, It’s time to show them, Time to look ahead, Yes It’s time

Time for freedom, Time for moving, Time to be clear, Yes It’s time

Time Australia, Time for moving, It’s time for proving, Yes It’s time

Time for better, Come together, It’s time to move, Yes It’s time

Time to stand up, Time to shout it, Time, Time, Time, Yes It’s time

Time to move on, Time to stand up, time to say ‘yes’,
Yes It’s time

• Women still do know have eq

Shoot. The. Glass…

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Sage words.

Tau.Neutrino said:

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Women still do know have eq

sorry, I meant

Women still do not have equality in the workplace

We still have the Detention centers.

There is still too much domestic violence.

They are still sexual predators out there.

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Local pub still has Ladies Lounge written in frosted glass on the entrance.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Women still do know have eq

sorry, I meant

Women still do not have equality in the workplace

We still have the Detention centers.

There is still too much domestic violence.

They are still sexual predators out there.

and homeless people.

Aboriginal rights

Taxing the rich

Resource tax

North Korean threat

I need to remind myself that there are other problems out there.

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Thank you Skipper of Monkeys. :) HUGZ

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Women still do know have eq

sorry, I meant

Women still do not have equality in the workplace

We still have the Detention centers.

There is still too much domestic violence.

They are still sexual predators out there.

and homeless people.

Aboriginal rights

Taxing the rich

Resource tax

North Korean threat

I need to remind myself that there are other problems out there.

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Exactly.

AwesomeO said:

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Local pub still has Ladies Lounge written in frosted glass on the entrance.

One of the pubs in Coffs only had a male toilet on one side of the bar . Where as there were male and female toilets across the other side of the pub/ This dates back to those times because there was no need to have the ladies and gents on the side where the pub was gents only.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

monkey skipper said:

It wasn’t that long ago that woman could not be nurses if married, drink in the main bar, vote or bathe in the ocean after sunrise or before dusk . It wasn’t that long ago that we had to vote whether indigenous Australians should be made citizens and be part of the census of population in their own nation. It wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t have a fair go policy in workplaces and the list could grow.

It seems absurd that these basic rights were not available. As the Labor jingle stated all those years ago …“It’s time for a change”

Women still do know have eq

sorry, I meant

Women still do not have equality in the workplace

We still have the Detention centers.

There is still too much domestic violence.

They are still sexual predators out there.

You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.

The point is this. The absurdity is not about changing the legislation …. the future absurdity will be that the prejudice law was in place om the first instance. My examples above are recent and relevant as to when a law changes so do attitudes to those archaic views.

People can always have their own personal values and moral codes but the laws,regulations and legislation should be the benchmark of better and the best and improvements.

The previous laws before amendment sent the message and set the standard that women were not equal and that indigenous Australians were not equal and had no rights at all.

Improvement and growth is expected as humans continue to modernize and socially mature generationally speaking. Simply put when we have a better understanding then our laws should grow up with us by leading the way forward.

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

kii said:

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

shrugs

kii said:

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

KJW said:

kii said:

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

The_observer said:

KJW said:

kii said:

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

The issue I’ve kept raising is that two blokes or two sheilas can also raise a number of children.

Times change, society advances, things improve. Everyone benefits, even the stick-in-the-muds who score new things to moan about.

The_observer said:

KJW said:

kii said:

“You seem like a bright lad BUT have missed the point of course.”
================================

I think he’s in his 40s.
Also, IMO, that’s a bit of a condescending comment.

I could pick apart the points, but I really can’t be bothered.

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

>>>The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

It needed to be redefined for the paranoid religious politicians who cannot agree that its a human rights issue and think the concept of marriage belongs to religion.

Religious politicians are also in sexual diversity genetics denial.

Their ethics are terrible, their understanding of sexual diversity is terrible.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

KJW said:

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

The issue I’ve kept raising is that two blokes or two sheilas can also raise a number of children.

It must be surprising to Observer that adults can bring up children.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

KJW said:

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

>>>The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

It needed to be redefined for the paranoid religious politicians who cannot agree that its a human rights issue and think the concept of marriage belongs to religion.

Religious politicians are also in sexual diversity genetics denial.

Their ethics are terrible, their understanding of sexual diversity is terrible.

Now for the first race of the day………………………………………AND THEY’RE OFF!!!!

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

KJW said:

I agree. One point worth mentioning is that it was only as recent as 2004 that the Howard government changed to law to ensure that same sex marriages were not recognised. Prior to that, there was no definition of “marriage” in the Act.

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

>>>The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

It needed to be redefined for the paranoid religious politicians who cannot agree that its a human rights issue and think the concept of marriage belongs to religion.

Religious politicians are also in sexual diversity genetics denial.

Their ethics are terrible, their understanding of sexual diversity is terrible.

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

The issue I’ve kept raising is that two blokes or two sheilas can also raise a number of children.

It must be surprising to Observer that adults can bring up children.

May be it is a suprise to you that people don’t have to be married to raise children.

I bet it is a suprise that only a male & female can create life.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

The issue I’ve kept raising is that two blokes or two sheilas can also raise a number of children.

It must be surprising to Observer that adults can bring up children.

May be it is a suprise to you that people don’t have to be married to raise children.

I bet it is a suprise that only a male & female can create life.

You go and tell that to Jesus.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

It must be surprising to Observer that adults can bring up children.

May be it is a suprise to you that people don’t have to be married to raise children.

I bet it is a suprise that only a male & female can create life.

You go and tell that to Jesus.

Yair, right. He was the product of a sheila & a chook.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

May be it is a suprise to you that people don’t have to be married to raise children.

I bet it is a suprise that only a male & female can create life.

You go and tell that to Jesus.

Yair, right. He was the product of a sheila & a chook.

Two chooks & a jesus doesn’t constitute a last supper.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Another point worth mentioning is, prior Prime Minister to Howard, Paul Keating? stated “two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t constitute a family”.

The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

>>>The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

It needed to be redefined for the paranoid religious politicians who cannot agree that its a human rights issue and think the concept of marriage belongs to religion.

Religious politicians are also in sexual diversity genetics denial.

Their ethics are terrible, their understanding of sexual diversity is terrible.

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

You go and tell that to Jesus.

Yair, right. He was the product of a sheila & a chook.

Two chooks & a jesus doesn’t constitute a last supper.

KFC says they do.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>The definition of marriage at that time didn’t need defining.

It needed to be redefined for the paranoid religious politicians who cannot agree that its a human rights issue and think the concept of marriage belongs to religion.

Religious politicians are also in sexual diversity genetics denial.

Their ethics are terrible, their understanding of sexual diversity is terrible.

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nothing there concerning SSM

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

Yair, right. He was the product of a sheila & a chook.

Two chooks & a jesus doesn’t constitute a last supper.

KFC says they do.

Would that be the Communion Box Meal Deal ?

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nothing there concerning SSM

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Two chooks & a jesus doesn’t constitute a last supper.

KFC says they do.

Would that be the Communion Box Meal Deal ?

To get the discount you must say “Body of christ fowl.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nothing there concerning SSM

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Yes, depending what the law defines. SSM isn’t recogjised in our laws, as yet at least.

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Tamb said:

KFC says they do.

Would that be the Communion Box Meal Deal ?

To get the discount you must say “Body of christ fowl.

LOL

Observations

Some religions see sexual diversity as a sin

Science has proved and validated sexual diversity as genetic and epi-genetic, most homosexuals and bisexuals are born that way.

How can something natural be a sin?

Discrimination over nature is unethical and unnecessary.

Religious politicians have created a discriminatory and unethical law concerning marriage.

People want to dismiss human rights only to diminish the rights of others.

This whole matter was stated by religious politicians.

Its making a lot of people unhappy.

You “observer” are using this matter for trolling.

You are seeking to diminish the rights of others observer.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Keep up the good work, Mr N.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Observations

Some religions see sexual diversity as a sin

Science has proved and validated sexual diversity as genetic and epi-genetic, most homosexuals and bisexuals are born that way.

How can something natural be a sin?

Discrimination over nature is unethical and unnecessary.

Religious politicians have created a discriminatory and unethical law concerning marriage.

People want to dismiss human rights only to diminish the rights of others.

This whole matter was stated by religious politicians.

Its making a lot of people unhappy.

You “observer” are using this matter for trolling.

You are seeking to diminish the rights of others observer.

The world is grossly overpopulated so the more SSM the better.

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

You constantly dress SSM up as a human right.
But it doesn’t exist under any of the UNs rights conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Keep up the good work, Mr N.

Yeh, lacking evidence to back up facts is inconsequential to doing “good work”.

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I draw your attention to article 7

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

marriage is a law so there should not be any legal discrimination

the article on Marriage perhaps needs updating

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Keep up the good work, Mr N.

Yeh, lacking evidence to back up facts is inconsequential to doing “good work”.

Presenting evidence that says you were wrong, I think you meant to say.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Observations

Some religions see sexual diversity as a sin

Science has proved and validated sexual diversity as genetic and epi-genetic, most homosexuals and bisexuals are born that way.

How can something natural be a sin?

Discrimination over nature is unethical and unnecessary.

Religious politicians have created a discriminatory and unethical law concerning marriage.

People want to dismiss human rights only to diminish the rights of others.

This whole matter was stated by religious politicians.

Its making a lot of people unhappy.

You “observer” are using this matter for trolling.

You are seeking to diminish the rights of others observer.

The world is grossly overpopulated so the more SSM the better.

Not sure about that, as many homosexual couples want a child, of which there are many ways of achieving this.

ruby said:

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Keep up the good work, Mr N.

Yeh, lacking evidence to back up facts is inconsequential to doing “good work”.

Presenting evidence that says you were wrong, I think you meant to say.

Yeh whatever

Tau.Neutrino said:

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

IIRC, The UN Human Rights Commission and European Court of Human Rights have made no rulings on SSM per se. Their statement is that it is a matter for the representative states of both UN and European Union, however there is nothing in either charter that prohibits or prevents it.

Therefore both the UN and European Court did NOT vote NO.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Observations

Some religions see sexual diversity as a sin

Science has proved and validated sexual diversity as genetic and epi-genetic, most homosexuals and bisexuals are born that way.

How can something natural be a sin?

Discrimination over nature is unethical and unnecessary.

Religious politicians have created a discriminatory and unethical law concerning marriage.

People want to dismiss human rights only to diminish the rights of others.

This whole matter was stated by religious politicians.

Its making a lot of people unhappy.

You “observer” are using this matter for trolling.

You are seeking to diminish the rights of others observer.

The world is grossly overpopulated so the more SSM the better.

Not sure about that, as many homosexual couples want a child, of which there are many ways of achieving this.

A child. Yes.

After asserting that international law supported gay marriage, Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has been forced to concede that she was unaware of a contrary finding by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Professor Triggs made the concession under questioning during yesterday’s Senate estimates hearing after being informed about a 1999 ruling in which the UN committee explained that the right to marry did not extend to same-sex couples.

“I am not familiar with it, no,” Professor Triggs said.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

The world is grossly overpopulated so the more SSM the better.

Not sure about that, as many homosexual couples want a child, of which there are many ways of achieving this.

A child. Yes.

Would that be the norm in a married long term situation. There doesn’t seem to be any logic involved with this.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Not sure about that, as many homosexual couples want a child, of which there are many ways of achieving this.

A child. Yes.

Would that be the norm in a married long term situation. There doesn’t seem to be any logic involved with this.

Deciding to have children is never logical.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

A child. Yes.

Would that be the norm in a married long term situation. There doesn’t seem to be any logic involved with this.

Deciding to have children is never logical.

Which means anything can happen, even a baby boom.

The main trouble the No case faces is that all they’ve got is scaremongering, but it is near impossible to create a fear campaign around a change that is now the norm in the Western world. If, like Piers Akerman, you think that marriage equality will “destroy our culture” as he says, you have to explain why nothing like that happened in the 16 years since it became a reality in the Netherlands. It’s been more than a decade since it came in in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, but the culture of those places has not been destroyed, nor in New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Taiwan, Malta, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Malta, Portugal, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, France, Sweden and other countries that have made the change. Is there something especially fragile about Australian culture that it would be destroyed by these change? Perhaps Akerman is just not very patriotic, if he holds such a feeble view of our national character.

dv said:

The main trouble the No case faces is that all they’ve got is scaremongering, but it is near impossible to create a fear campaign around a change that is now the norm in the Western world. If, like Piers Akerman, you think that marriage equality will “destroy our culture” as he says, you have to explain why nothing like that happened in the 16 years since it became a reality in the Netherlands. It’s been more than a decade since it came in in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, but the culture of those places has not been destroyed, nor in New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Taiwan, Malta, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Malta, Portugal, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, France, Sweden and other countries that have made the change. Is there something especially fragile about Australian culture that it would be destroyed by these change? Perhaps Akerman is just not very patriotic, if he holds such a feeble view of our national character.

Too much science information diminishes religious scaremongering.

People have a better sense of basic logic and ethics which is a good sign.

dv said:

The main trouble the No case faces is that all they’ve got is scaremongering, but it is near impossible to create a fear campaign around a change that is now the norm in the Western world. If, like Piers Akerman, you think that marriage equality will “destroy our culture” as he says, you have to explain why nothing like that happened in the 16 years since it became a reality in the Netherlands. It’s been more than a decade since it came in in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, but the culture of those places has not been destroyed, nor in New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Taiwan, Malta, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Malta, Portugal, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, France, Sweden and other countries that have made the change. Is there something especially fragile about Australian culture that it would be destroyed by these change? Perhaps Akerman is just not very patriotic, if he holds such a feeble view of our national character.

You could say any argument is scaremongering to some extent, even you are implying we shall be left behind and lack something by not voting yes.

PermeateFree said:

You could say any argument is scaremongering to some extent

Not really. Some arguments are based on evidence, some aren’t.

The Public Transport Authority (PTA) knew a man was clinging to the outside of a moving Perth train on Saturday afternoon but did not ask the driver to stop, it has emerged.

A Main Roads employee spotted the 23-year-old man on the back of the Transperth train about 4:30pm on Saturday between Leederville and Glendalough stations while monitoring traffic, and immediately notified the PTA.

PTA spokesman David Hynes told the ABC the authority knew which train the man was on, but allowed it to continue for several minutes to the next station.

“He was clinging on to a windscreen wiper — were he to fall it’s a very unfriendly and unreceptive surface with ballast and rail and concrete sleeper,” Mr Hynes said.

“He would have almost certainly been killed, if not badly injured.”

He said trains typically travelled along the line at up to 110 kilometres per hour.

The man got off the back of the train at Glendalough and boarded the interior of the train before it continued to Stirling station, where he was detained by PTA staff.

He was later taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital for a mental health assessment.

Dozens of people driving along the Mitchell Freeway witnessed the event.

The man could face charges for trespassing on Public Transport Authority property.

“Safety is an absolute priority for the PTA and that’s for our own people and passengers, whether they’re inside or outside of the train,” Mr Hynes said.

“This is incredibly stupid and very dangerous.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/man-arrested-for-riding-outside-moving-train/8979068

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

You could say any argument is scaremongering to some extent

Not really. Some arguments are based on evidence, some aren’t.

Don’t think evidence has anything to do with it. You can scaremonger using facts as well.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

You could say any argument is scaremongering to some extent

Not really. Some arguments are based on evidence, some aren’t.

Don’t think evidence has anything to do with it. You can scaremonger using facts as well.

Then I suppose we have different views on what scaremonger means, but that’s fine and it’s not the point of the argument, which is that the No side is making statements about what things will happen is ME is brought in, but because those things haven’t happened when ME was brought in elsewhere, it puts the No side in an impossible position.

Consider also; you have a minor accident with another vehicle. No one hurt.
But if the other vehicle is a motor cycle, well the consequences can be far more tragic, for the car driver as well.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Not really. Some arguments are based on evidence, some aren’t.

Don’t think evidence has anything to do with it. You can scaremonger using facts as well.

Then I suppose we have different views on what scaremonger means, but that’s fine and it’s not the point of the argument, which is that the No side is making statements about what things will happen is ME is brought in, but because those things haven’t happened when ME was brought in elsewhere, it puts the No side in an impossible position.

We if the No side can’t think of more imaginative argument than what you describe, then they deserve to lose. However not everyone is a non-thinking idiot and might well have personal or religious reasons for their beliefs, which like this entire argument is NOT based on logic.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think evidence has anything to do with it. You can scaremonger using facts as well.

Then I suppose we have different views on what scaremonger means, but that’s fine and it’s not the point of the argument, which is that the No side is making statements about what things will happen is ME is brought in, but because those things haven’t happened when ME was brought in elsewhere, it puts the No side in an impossible position.

We if the No side can’t think of more imaginative argument than what you describe, then they deserve to lose. However not everyone is a non-thinking idiot and might well have personal or religious reasons for their beliefs, which like this entire argument is NOT based on logic.

I’d honestly respect someone more if they just said that: “I’m a Biblical literalist who takes the old testament seriously, and so I think gays are going to hell. Marriage Equality will make more people go gay and I want to save them from a terrible fate.” Or “I associate homosexuality strictly with anal sex and the idea of that is repulsive to me so I view all homosexuals dimly and don’t particularly want them to be content. “

All this other obfuscatory nonsense just makes them seem dishonest or dimwitted.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Then I suppose we have different views on what scaremonger means, but that’s fine and it’s not the point of the argument, which is that the No side is making statements about what things will happen is ME is brought in, but because those things haven’t happened when ME was brought in elsewhere, it puts the No side in an impossible position.

We if the No side can’t think of more imaginative argument than what you describe, then they deserve to lose. However not everyone is a non-thinking idiot and might well have personal or religious reasons for their beliefs, which like this entire argument is NOT based on logic.

I’d honestly respect someone more if they just said that: “I’m a Biblical literalist who takes the old testament seriously, and so I think gays are going to hell. Marriage Equality will make more people go gay and I want to save them from a terrible fate.” Or “I associate homosexuality strictly with anal sex and the idea of that is repulsive to me so I view all homosexuals dimly and don’t particularly want them to be content. “

All this other obfuscatory nonsense just makes them seem dishonest or dimwitted.

Well some do say exactly what you said, so I guess in your opinion they have right on their side. This is not a logical debate dv, it is based on opinion, yet you and others will jump from supposedly factual information to pure fantasy whenever it suits. The ONLY outcome will be the results of the vote/survey, when will no doubt the emotional outbursts will continue.

PermeateFree said:

Well some do say exactly what you said, so I guess in your opinion they have right on their side. This is not a logical debate dv, it is based on opinion, yet you and others will jump from supposedly factual information to pure fantasy whenever it suits. The ONLY outcome will be the results of the vote/survey, when will no doubt the emotional outbursts will continue.

Well I don’t think I’ve delved into fantasy on this topic.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Well some do say exactly what you said, so I guess in your opinion they have right on their side. This is not a logical debate dv, it is based on opinion, yet you and others will jump from supposedly factual information to pure fantasy whenever it suits. The ONLY outcome will be the results of the vote/survey, when will no doubt the emotional outbursts will continue.

Well I don’t think I’ve delved into fantasy on this topic.

Well trying to attach logic to this debate, you have.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Well some do say exactly what you said, so I guess in your opinion they have right on their side. This is not a logical debate dv, it is based on opinion, yet you and others will jump from supposedly factual information to pure fantasy whenever it suits. The ONLY outcome will be the results of the vote/survey, when will no doubt the emotional outbursts will continue.

Well I don’t think I’ve delved into fantasy on this topic.

Well trying to attach logic to this debate, you have.

touche

>might well have personal or religious reasons for their beliefs

They’re entitled to their “personal or religious reasons” but they’re not entitled to impose them on other people.

“I believe in goblins therefore you can’t get married” is stupid and unjust.

Bubblecar said:

>might well have personal or religious reasons for their beliefs

They’re entitled to their “personal or religious reasons” but they’re not entitled to impose them on other people.

“I believe in goblins therefore you can’t get married” is stupid and unjust.

I think you will find that most are simply saying no and not trying to do anything else, in the same vein as you and yours are just saying yes. They have as much right to lobby as you do.

PermeateFree said:

I think you will find that most are simply saying no and not trying to do anything else, in the same vein as you and yours are just saying yes. They have as much right to lobby as you do.

The question is: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

So those saying NO based on their personal religious beliefs are in effect saying: “My personal religious beliefs are a sound reason to deny everyone else the right to same-sex marriage.”

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you will find that most are simply saying no and not trying to do anything else, in the same vein as you and yours are just saying yes. They have as much right to lobby as you do.

The question is: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

So those saying NO based on their personal religious beliefs are in effect saying: “My personal religious beliefs are a sound reason to deny everyone else the right to same-sex marriage.”

Well to them they are sound reasons.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you will find that most are simply saying no and not trying to do anything else, in the same vein as you and yours are just saying yes. They have as much right to lobby as you do.

The question is: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

So those saying NO based on their personal religious beliefs are in effect saying: “My personal religious beliefs are a sound reason to deny everyone else the right to same-sex marriage.”

Well to them they are sound reasons.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you will find that most are simply saying no and not trying to do anything else, in the same vein as you and yours are just saying yes. They have as much right to lobby as you do.

The question is: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

So those saying NO based on their personal religious beliefs are in effect saying: “My personal religious beliefs are a sound reason to deny everyone else the right to same-sex marriage.”

Well to them they are sound reasons.

I will add, there are probably many other reasons besides religion why people will vote No.

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

PermeateFree said:

Well to them they are sound reasons.

And yet these people claim to believe in “religious freedom”, even though they seek to disregard the religious views of others and impose their own beliefs on them.

It’s a position full of contradictions and lacking any consistent principles.

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

?

It’s a matter of logic, not a matter of opinion.

Read up on philosophy. You’ll find that rational thinking is recognised as an intellectual discipline, not just “yeah well that’s what you think” etc.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Well to them they are sound reasons.

And yet these people claim to believe in “religious freedom”, even though they seek to disregard the religious views of others and impose their own beliefs on them.

It’s a position full of contradictions and lacking any consistent principles.

Well do they think that, some probably do, but most will just go about their business and not even consider your concerns. You are dealing with individuals, not a line of bottles.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

I think the tactics re trying to derail it and the advice to abstain have been misguided but you cannot deny they do hold the higher moral ground. The ability to get married in no way effects others, to the converse the religious could get kudos by show some humility and an expression of solidarity in humanity. The gays aren’t trying to impose anything on religion, the religious, or some at least, are trying to impose on gays.

>most will just go about their business and not even consider your concerns.

So why is the government asking them to answer survey questions?

Remind yourself, marriage equality advocates like myself are opposed to this survey.

It should be the government’s responsibility to legislate fairly, not put it to a public lottery.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

I think the tactics re trying to derail it and the advice to abstain have been misguided but you cannot deny they do hold the higher moral ground. The ability to get married in no way effects others, to the converse the religious could get kudos by show some humility and an expression of solidarity in humanity. The gays aren’t trying to impose anything on religion, the religious, or some at least, are trying to impose on gays.

The great majority of people who called for a boycott (including myself) soon changed their minds.

We don’t agree with the survey thingy but we advocate YES.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

?

It’s a matter of logic, not a matter of opinion.

Read up on philosophy. You’ll find that rational thinking is recognised as an intellectual discipline, not just “yeah well that’s what you think” etc.

It has NOTHING to do with logic! The question is, as you wanted to bring to everyone’s attention: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” that is a question, where they are asking for your opinion and opinions are NOT facts.

Bubblecar said:

>most will just go about their business and not even consider your concerns.

So why is the government asking them to answer survey questions?

Remind yourself, marriage equality advocates like myself are opposed to this survey.

It should be the government’s responsibility to legislate fairly, not put it to a public lottery.

The politics of reasons have been explained before, it’s a bad job, but you get what youare given and have to work with it. Pinning your faith on a labor in the face of a No vote is a fools errand. Better to make do and a yes vote will mean you can marry before the year is out.

PermeateFree said:

It has NOTHING to do with logic! The question is, as you wanted to bring to everyone’s attention: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” that is a question, where they are asking for your opinion and opinions are NOT facts.

As I said, you need to read an introduction to philosophy. You think that “logic” means “facts”. It doesn’t, it means making consistent sense.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s think of another survey question: “Should the law be changed to ban religion in this country?”

As an atheist who regards religion as fallacious and harmful, I might be expected to vote YES. But in fact I’d vote NO, because I wouldn’t feel entitled to impose my personal view on people who could be expected to strongly disagree with it.

Well that is your attitude, but it is not everyone’s. So you think you occupy the high moral ground, but many think you don’t. The tactics used by the Yes campaign are pitiful.

I think the tactics re trying to derail it and the advice to abstain have been misguided but you cannot deny they do hold the higher moral ground. The ability to get married in no way effects others, to the converse the religious could get kudos by show some humility and an expression of solidarity in humanity. The gays aren’t trying to impose anything on religion, the religious, or some at least, are trying to impose on gays.

That is true, but they are not voting No to stop same sex couples from marrying, but giving their opinion that they should not. They are not denying anything to anyone, although that might be the outcome.

AwesomeO said:

Bubblecar said:

>most will just go about their business and not even consider your concerns.

So why is the government asking them to answer survey questions?

Remind yourself, marriage equality advocates like myself are opposed to this survey.

It should be the government’s responsibility to legislate fairly, not put it to a public lottery.

The politics of reasons have been explained before, it’s a bad job, but you get what youare given and have to work with it. Pinning your faith on a labor in the face of a No vote is a fools errand. Better to make do and a yes vote will mean you can marry before the year is out.

As I said, I advocate YES. But marriage equality is inevitable regardless of this survey.

>That is true, but they are not voting No to stop same sex couples from marrying, but giving their opinion that they should not.

They are saying: “The law should NOT be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” so yes, they are hoping to stop same-sex couples from marrying.

There may be a very few people saying “I voted NO, but I hope YES wins”, but those people are clearly nuts.

Bubblecar said:

>most will just go about their business and not even consider your concerns.

So why is the government asking them to answer survey questions?

Remind yourself, marriage equality advocates like myself are opposed to this survey.

It should be the government’s responsibility to legislate fairly, not put it to a public lottery.

So you do have SOME people who happen to be in government, who are using their position to stir up trouble. Have you heard of the global warming deniers? This is what happens in real life and you should direct your concerns at them, not blame all No voters.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

It has NOTHING to do with logic! The question is, as you wanted to bring to everyone’s attention: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” that is a question, where they are asking for your opinion and opinions are NOT facts.

As I said, you need to read an introduction to philosophy. You think that “logic” means “facts”. It doesn’t, it means making consistent sense.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

Bubblecar said:

>That is true, but they are not voting No to stop same sex couples from marrying, but giving their opinion that they should not.

They are saying: “The law should NOT be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” so yes, they are hoping to stop same-sex couples from marrying.

There may be a very few people saying “I voted NO, but I hope YES wins”, but those people are clearly nuts.

Think you need to read more slowly, as that was not what was meant.

Anyway, whatever the outcome, the Yes side could have done very much better had they used a little commonsense instead of thrashing around in the deep end.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

It has NOTHING to do with logic! The question is, as you wanted to bring to everyone’s attention: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” that is a question, where they are asking for your opinion and opinions are NOT facts.

As I said, you need to read an introduction to philosophy. You think that “logic” means “facts”. It doesn’t, it means making consistent sense.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

To make consistent sense you need logic.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

As I said, you need to read an introduction to philosophy. You think that “logic” means “facts”. It doesn’t, it means making consistent sense.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

To make consistent sense you need logic.

Yes dear.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

To make consistent sense you need logic.

Yes dear.

Look at observer, he is always trying to link facts, but does he consistently make sense?

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

And to make consistent sense you need linking FACTS, not opinions.

To make consistent sense you need logic.

Yes dear.

Look at observer, he is always trying to link facts, but does he consistently make sense?

If they are not actual facts and do not link together, then they will not make sense.

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

Bubblecar said:

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

It that a fact, or just your opinion?

Bubblecar said:

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

And then the libs will table legislation no one likes.

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

And then the libs will table legislation no one likes.

Bit of credit for trying. They could have just said No like labor. It’s gonna be hilarious if they get it up and legislated and a good chance they will.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

It that a fact, or just your opinion?

It’s my prediction. Expect more reports like this one from yesterday, as more polling is conducted:

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-to-vote-emphatically-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-according-to-new-poll-ng-b88607474z

Bubblecar said:

Relax, YES will win. In fact I think it’s very likely they’ve already won. Most people who will bother returning their forms have probably already done so and most voted YES.

Public surveys should be able to confirm this long before the official counting begins. It might effectively be all over within a couple weeks.

YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON

In sparta homosexuality was not only institutionalised but obligatory.

Older men would take a young teenage boy under their wing, groom them and basically have their way with them. Other homosexual activities would blossom among the older boys no longer of any use to the older men.

However when it came to marriage even in this utopian land of homosexuality the law was quite clear – marriage was between a man and a woman and practically everyone had to get married. Lesbians and gays would be thrown into a dark room and warned to take their pick and come out and prepare for marriage.

In spartan society homosexual relations were the ideal, even die hards wanting to persue a hetrosexual relationship with a woman were forced to live in barracks after marriage.

Hetrosexual relationships were only required only so far as providing young boys for the sexual needs of the older men and creating the next generation of fodder for the next war.

Interestingly enough such a society barely struggled past 450 years and was a spent force by Alexander’s time

wookiemeister said:

However when it came to marriage even in this utopian land of homosexuality the law was quite clear – marriage was between a man and a woman and practically everyone had to get married. Lesbians and gays would be thrown into a dark room and warned to take their pick and come out and prepare for marriage.

Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an “abomination”.

an interesting read for you.

What the Bible has to say

Leviticus didn’t seem to know about genetics or chromosomes.

From Facebook:

Chris JW
Yesterday at 11:18 ·
I remember the first time I fell in love. It was with another boy, my best friend, when I was about 14.

I remember praying every night for a year that I would wake up and the feelings would be gone. Not because I was scared of being rejected, but because I knew that loving a boy meant I was disgusting and sick.

I remember the year I spent building up the courage to tell him, not because I expected him to reciprocate, but because I desperately needed someone to understand me.

I remember the numbness I felt when he cut off contact with me soon after, because his parents thought I was a bad influence.

I remember what it feels like to have no friends at school because you can’t open up to anyone. To be told by your teacher that gay kids are not welcome at your school, that they would be expelled.

I remember running out of class to a park where no one could see me and bursting out in tears. I remember knowing that, just like the other times, none of my teachers would care enough to look for me or even tell my parents.

I remember knowing that I wasn’t wanted, that I was a stain on the school, that they wished I would just leave.

I remember how powerless I felt as I cried silently listening to a bible study as a man told my mum and sisters, in the next room, that gay people are evil and have an ‘agenda’ to corrupt them.

I remember how desperately I wanted to tell my sisters that he was wrong. That I had never met another gay person before, that I didn’t want to corrupt anyone.

I remember feeling that he was teaching my family to hate me.

I remember carrying around the pain of being ashamed of who I was for a decade, unable to trust anyone enough to show them who I really was.

One thing I don’t remember, is thanking my oldest friend, Josh, for being the only light in the darkness. For unknowingly showing me that it’s possible for people like me to be loved. For showing me a glimpse of a life where I would be accepted for who I was.

I’ve never told him that his friendship may have saved my life.

I know I’m extremely fortunate to have made it to a stage of my life, at age 30, where I’m happy.
I know I’m no longer ashamed of who I am.

But I know that, like almost all of my gay friends, I’ll be carrying around the trauma of those dark times for the rest of my life.

I know that many of us don’t ever make it here.

I know why we are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than our straight friends.

I admire those friends and clients that have stood up for who they are even whilst knowing that it may lead to being bashed, kicked out of home, or raped.

I know they are the biggest heroes to me. I know I have never been that brave.

I know I’ve always taken the easy way out. I know it’s easier to go along with people’s assumptions and pretend that I’m straight.
I know I was scared that, despite everyone’s best intentions, I would be reduced to a stereotype.

I know I’ve listened to the homophobic jokes and comments from friends and workmates, when they don’t think any gay people are around. I’ve rarely ever corrected them.

I know I’ve watched both of my beautiful sisters’, who I love very much, experience the happiest days of their lives. I know that I was smiling to the world, but was crying on the inside. I knew I’d probably never get to experience the same.

I know how powerless I feel, sitting on the other side of the world, whilst some of the people I love the most cry every night. I know that nothing I say will help them deal with the pain, the guilt, or the shame.

I know it’s nobody’s fault. I know it’s just that they don’t understand.

I know how angry I used to feel every time I heard someone say that ‘being gay is a sin, but we should treat them with love’.

I know now that they just don’t understand what love is.

I know that love is not just refraining from saying something homophobic, or pretending sexuality doesn’t exist.

I know that love is accepting every part of someone unconditionally. It’s telling them that there is nothing wrong with who they are. It’s telling them that they are equal to everyone else.

I know you’re not an evil person if you choose to vote no.

I know that it’s because you just don’t understand what it feels like to grow up to feel ashamed of yourself.

I know that no parent, sibling, friend, or teacher would choose to condemn someone they love to such needless suffering if they could truly know what it feels like.

I know that I was born like this and I’m unable to change.

I know that no one would choose this life.

I know that voting yes won’t destroy homophobia overnight. But I know it will send a ray of hope to a young person that life can and will be different.

I know it will save a teenager’s life.

Phil_C said:

From Facebook:

Chris JW
Yesterday at 11:18 ·
I remember the first time I fell in love. It was with another boy, my best friend, when I was about 14.

I remember praying every night for a year that I would wake up and the feelings would be gone. Not because I was scared of being rejected, but because I knew that loving a boy meant I was disgusting and sick.

I remember the year I spent building up the courage to tell him, not because I expected him to reciprocate, but because I desperately needed someone to understand me.

I remember the numbness I felt when he cut off contact with me soon after, because his parents thought I was a bad influence.

I remember what it feels like to have no friends at school because you can’t open up to anyone. To be told by your teacher that gay kids are not welcome at your school, that they would be expelled.

I remember running out of class to a park where no one could see me and bursting out in tears. I remember knowing that, just like the other times, none of my teachers would care enough to look for me or even tell my parents.

I remember knowing that I wasn’t wanted, that I was a stain on the school, that they wished I would just leave.

I remember how powerless I felt as I cried silently listening to a bible study as a man told my mum and sisters, in the next room, that gay people are evil and have an ‘agenda’ to corrupt them.

I remember how desperately I wanted to tell my sisters that he was wrong. That I had never met another gay person before, that I didn’t want to corrupt anyone.

I remember feeling that he was teaching my family to hate me.

I remember carrying around the pain of being ashamed of who I was for a decade, unable to trust anyone enough to show them who I really was.

One thing I don’t remember, is thanking my oldest friend, Josh, for being the only light in the darkness. For unknowingly showing me that it’s possible for people like me to be loved. For showing me a glimpse of a life where I would be accepted for who I was.

I’ve never told him that his friendship may have saved my life.

I know I’m extremely fortunate to have made it to a stage of my life, at age 30, where I’m happy.
I know I’m no longer ashamed of who I am.

But I know that, like almost all of my gay friends, I’ll be carrying around the trauma of those dark times for the rest of my life.

I know that many of us don’t ever make it here.

I know why we are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than our straight friends.

I admire those friends and clients that have stood up for who they are even whilst knowing that it may lead to being bashed, kicked out of home, or raped.

I know they are the biggest heroes to me. I know I have never been that brave.

I know I’ve always taken the easy way out. I know it’s easier to go along with people’s assumptions and pretend that I’m straight.
I know I was scared that, despite everyone’s best intentions, I would be reduced to a stereotype.

I know I’ve listened to the homophobic jokes and comments from friends and workmates, when they don’t think any gay people are around. I’ve rarely ever corrected them.

I know I’ve watched both of my beautiful sisters’, who I love very much, experience the happiest days of their lives. I know that I was smiling to the world, but was crying on the inside. I knew I’d probably never get to experience the same.

I know how powerless I feel, sitting on the other side of the world, whilst some of the people I love the most cry every night. I know that nothing I say will help them deal with the pain, the guilt, or the shame.

I know it’s nobody’s fault. I know it’s just that they don’t understand.

I know how angry I used to feel every time I heard someone say that ‘being gay is a sin, but we should treat them with love’.

I know now that they just don’t understand what love is.

I know that love is not just refraining from saying something homophobic, or pretending sexuality doesn’t exist.

I know that love is accepting every part of someone unconditionally. It’s telling them that there is nothing wrong with who they are. It’s telling them that they are equal to everyone else.

I know you’re not an evil person if you choose to vote no.

I know that it’s because you just don’t understand what it feels like to grow up to feel ashamed of yourself.

I know that no parent, sibling, friend, or teacher would choose to condemn someone they love to such needless suffering if they could truly know what it feels like.

I know that I was born like this and I’m unable to change.

I know that no one would choose this life.

I know that voting yes won’t destroy homophobia overnight. But I know it will send a ray of hope to a young person that life can and will be different.

I know it will save a teenager’s life.

Yes.

Phil_C said:

From Facebook:

Chris JW
Yesterday at 11:18 ·
I remember the first time I fell in love. It was with another boy, my best friend, when I was about 14.

I remember praying every night for a year that I would wake up and the feelings would be gone. Not because I was scared of being rejected, but because I knew that loving a boy meant I was disgusting and sick.

I remember the year I spent building up the courage to tell him, not because I expected him to reciprocate, but because I desperately needed someone to understand me.

I remember the numbness I felt when he cut off contact with me soon after, because his parents thought I was a bad influence.

I remember what it feels like to have no friends at school because you can’t open up to anyone. To be told by your teacher that gay kids are not welcome at your school, that they would be expelled.

I remember running out of class to a park where no one could see me and bursting out in tears. I remember knowing that, just like the other times, none of my teachers would care enough to look for me or even tell my parents.

I remember knowing that I wasn’t wanted, that I was a stain on the school, that they wished I would just leave.

I remember how powerless I felt as I cried silently listening to a bible study as a man told my mum and sisters, in the next room, that gay people are evil and have an ‘agenda’ to corrupt them.

I remember how desperately I wanted to tell my sisters that he was wrong. That I had never met another gay person before, that I didn’t want to corrupt anyone.

I remember feeling that he was teaching my family to hate me.

I remember carrying around the pain of being ashamed of who I was for a decade, unable to trust anyone enough to show them who I really was.

One thing I don’t remember, is thanking my oldest friend, Josh, for being the only light in the darkness. For unknowingly showing me that it’s possible for people like me to be loved. For showing me a glimpse of a life where I would be accepted for who I was.

I’ve never told him that his friendship may have saved my life.

I know I’m extremely fortunate to have made it to a stage of my life, at age 30, where I’m happy.
I know I’m no longer ashamed of who I am.

But I know that, like almost all of my gay friends, I’ll be carrying around the trauma of those dark times for the rest of my life.

I know that many of us don’t ever make it here.

I know why we are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than our straight friends.

I admire those friends and clients that have stood up for who they are even whilst knowing that it may lead to being bashed, kicked out of home, or raped.

I know they are the biggest heroes to me. I know I have never been that brave.

I know I’ve always taken the easy way out. I know it’s easier to go along with people’s assumptions and pretend that I’m straight.
I know I was scared that, despite everyone’s best intentions, I would be reduced to a stereotype.

I know I’ve listened to the homophobic jokes and comments from friends and workmates, when they don’t think any gay people are around. I’ve rarely ever corrected them.

I know I’ve watched both of my beautiful sisters’, who I love very much, experience the happiest days of their lives. I know that I was smiling to the world, but was crying on the inside. I knew I’d probably never get to experience the same.

I know how powerless I feel, sitting on the other side of the world, whilst some of the people I love the most cry every night. I know that nothing I say will help them deal with the pain, the guilt, or the shame.

I know it’s nobody’s fault. I know it’s just that they don’t understand.

I know how angry I used to feel every time I heard someone say that ‘being gay is a sin, but we should treat them with love’.

I know now that they just don’t understand what love is.

I know that love is not just refraining from saying something homophobic, or pretending sexuality doesn’t exist.

I know that love is accepting every part of someone unconditionally. It’s telling them that there is nothing wrong with who they are. It’s telling them that they are equal to everyone else.

I know you’re not an evil person if you choose to vote no.

I know that it’s because you just don’t understand what it feels like to grow up to feel ashamed of yourself.

I know that no parent, sibling, friend, or teacher would choose to condemn someone they love to such needless suffering if they could truly know what it feels like.

I know that I was born like this and I’m unable to change.

I know that no one would choose this life.

I know that voting yes won’t destroy homophobia overnight. But I know it will send a ray of hope to a young person that life can and will be different.

I know it will save a teenager’s life.

Thanks for sharing that.

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

I did not want this plebiscite, or vote, or survey.

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

I did not want this plebiscite, or vote, or survey.

The opposite is true

Phil_C said:

From Facebook:

Chris JW
Yesterday at 11:18 ·
I remember the first time I fell in love. It was with another boy, my best friend, when I was about 14.
!
!
!
!
!
I know that voting yes won’t destroy homophobia overnight. But I know it will send a ray of hope to a young person that life can and will be different.

I know it will save a teenager’s life.

I know just how he feels. Thanks for that Phl.

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

Apparently the SMS was sent out to every possible mobile-phone number so there was no invasion of privacy.

I got the SMS yesterday. It was already too late, my YES vote was already in the mail last week. Because fuck God, fuck the Bible and fuck the NO campaign. Bunch of campaigners all of them.

EVERY DONATION MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Just $300 provides an education for one girl in Africa.

Craigburn Primary School has made $261,729 more than their goal.

http://www.doitinadress.com/team-1/craigburn-primary-school/

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

:)

party_pants said:

Because fuck God, fuck the Bible and fuck the NO campaign. Bunch of campaigners all of them.

Yep, see, the opposite is true.

The end of Goodes’ career will be regarded one day with disbelief. Indigenous people said at the time they considered the booing of Goodes to be an act of racism. Goodes himself considered it an act of racism. But what mattered more to people than the perspective of those most affected by that issue was being able to exercise what the political right called free speech.

And herein lies an essential problem with the postal vote on same-sex marriage, curiously illuminated by the AFL. By not listening to the people most affected by this issue, and resolving it with a conscience vote, the government has allowed this issue to be convoluted, become about semantics and privilege. The vote has given legitimacy to a type of resistance to the AFL’s gesture that has no real purpose, and no good outcome.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-response-to-afls-decent-gesture-a-sad-indictment-20170922-gymunp.html

Michael V said:

EVERY DONATION MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Just $300 provides an education for one girl in Africa.

Craigburn Primary School has made $261,729 more than their goal.

http://www.doitinadress.com/team-1/craigburn-primary-school/

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

:)

That is education for 872 African girls. Well done Josh Thomas. I must grudgingly admit the world is a better place for his life.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

Apparently the SMS was sent out to every possible mobile-phone number so there was no invasion of privacy.

I still felt violated.

SWMBO got the text this evening. As she’d voted yes, against my sage advice, she was obviously upset by the intrusion. She’s only posted her letter yesterday afternoon, so I advised her to go letter box diving to see whether she could recover the said envolope and hopefully adjust her grievous mistake.

I haven’t seen her for the last few hours.

Woodie said:

The end of Goodes’ career will be regarded one day with disbelief. Indigenous people said at the time they considered the booing of Goodes to be an act of racism. Goodes himself considered it an act of racism. But what mattered more to people than the perspective of those most affected by that issue was being able to exercise what the political right called free speech.

And herein lies an essential problem with the postal vote on same-sex marriage, curiously illuminated by the AFL. By not listening to the people most affected by this issue, and resolving it with a conscience vote, the government has allowed this issue to be convoluted, become about semantics and privilege. The vote has given legitimacy to a type of resistance to the AFL’s gesture that has no real purpose, and no good outcome.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-response-to-afls-decent-gesture-a-sad-indictment-20170922-gymunp.html

Goodes got bood because he’s a boof head. Nothing to do with his race

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

Apparently the SMS was sent out to every possible mobile-phone number so there was no invasion of privacy.

I still felt violated.

SWMBO got the text this evening. As she’d voted yes, against my sage advice, she was obviously upset by the intrusion. She’s only posted her letter yesterday afternoon, so I advised her to go letter box diving to see whether she could recover the said envolope and hopefully adjust her grievous mistake.

I haven’t seen her for the last few hours.

PWM, give sibeen’s handle back!

:)

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

I did not want this plebiscite, or vote, or survey.

:(

This is so hurtful.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

Apparently the SMS was sent out to every possible mobile-phone number so there was no invasion of privacy.

I still felt violated.

SWMBO got the text this evening. As she’d voted yes, against my sage advice, she was obviously upset by the intrusion. She’s only posted her letter yesterday afternoon, so I advised her to go letter box diving to see whether she could recover the said envolope and hopefully adjust her grievous mistake.

I haven’t seen her for the last few hours.

I’m really over the “jokes”.

kii said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Apparently the SMS was sent out to every possible mobile-phone number so there was no invasion of privacy.

I still felt violated.

SWMBO got the text this evening. As she’d voted yes, against my sage advice, she was obviously upset by the intrusion. She’s only posted her letter yesterday afternoon, so I advised her to go letter box diving to see whether she could recover the said envolope and hopefully adjust her grievous mistake.

I haven’t seen her for the last few hours.

I’m really over the “jokes”.

Really?

You probably shouldn’t come here for the next few weeks then. This place is full of yes voters yet some of us are going to take the piss out of the no campaign by making jokes about them. I’m not going to stop doing that , nor will I apologise for doing so.

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

I still felt violated.

SWMBO got the text this evening. As she’d voted yes, against my sage advice, she was obviously upset by the intrusion. She’s only posted her letter yesterday afternoon, so I advised her to go letter box diving to see whether she could recover the said envolope and hopefully adjust her grievous mistake.

I haven’t seen her for the last few hours.

I’m really over the “jokes”.

Really?

You probably shouldn’t come here for the next few weeks then. This place is full of yes voters yet some of us are going to take the piss out of the no campaign by making jokes about them. I’m not going to stop doing that , nor will I apologise for doing so.

Thanks for that bit of explaining……because, you know….*rolls eyes *

Just remember that not all people who post here have strong mental health. I find the horrible messages from the No people extremely hurtful.

I will be posting here, sibeen, and speaking my mind. Even though many people don’t like me doing that, or ignore me or think I should be quiet or..or..or..or…

Or whatever.

.

kii said:

sibeen said:

kii said:

I’m really over the “jokes”.

Really?

You probably shouldn’t come here for the next few weeks then. This place is full of yes voters yet some of us are going to take the piss out of the no campaign by making jokes about them. I’m not going to stop doing that , nor will I apologise for doing so.

Thanks for that bit of explaining……because, you know….*rolls eyes *

Just remember that not all people who post here have strong mental health. I find the horrible messages from the No people extremely hurtful.

I will be posting here, sibeen, and speaking my mind. Even though many people don’t like me doing that, or ignore me or think I should be quiet or..or..or..or…

Or whatever.

.

But you come in and ‘tell people off’ for their ways of dealing with a subject and then don’t expect a response?

rolls eyes

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

Really?

You probably shouldn’t come here for the next few weeks then. This place is full of yes voters yet some of us are going to take the piss out of the no campaign by making jokes about them. I’m not going to stop doing that , nor will I apologise for doing so.

Thanks for that bit of explaining……because, you know….*rolls eyes *

Just remember that not all people who post here have strong mental health. I find the horrible messages from the No people extremely hurtful.

I will be posting here, sibeen, and speaking my mind. Even though many people don’t like me doing that, or ignore me or think I should be quiet or..or..or..or…

Or whatever.

.

But you come in and ‘tell people off’ for their ways of dealing with a subject and then don’t expect a response?

rolls eyes

as to the horrible messages, surely that’s only one poster and he could be quite easily avoided by just not clicking on the threads the idiot posts in.

Still, I’m curious about how they got my number

dv said:

Still, I’m curious about how they got my number

Brute force. Seems they sent out an SMS to practically every valid number in Australia.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Still, I’m curious about how they got my number

Brute force. Seems they sent out an SMS to practically every valid number in Australia.

I did not get one…true dinks.

What are the odds?

No, deevs, really, what are the odds?

:)

what is sms

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

Really?

You probably shouldn’t come here for the next few weeks then. This place is full of yes voters yet some of us are going to take the piss out of the no campaign by making jokes about them. I’m not going to stop doing that , nor will I apologise for doing so.

Thanks for that bit of explaining……because, you know….*rolls eyes *

Just remember that not all people who post here have strong mental health. I find the horrible messages from the No people extremely hurtful.

I will be posting here, sibeen, and speaking my mind. Even though many people don’t like me doing that, or ignore me or think I should be quiet or..or..or..or…

Or whatever.

.

But you come in and ‘tell people off’ for their ways of dealing with a subject and then don’t expect a response?

rolls eyes

Every joke people make hurts someone. People are told to get over it, grow a thicker skin, ignore it, it’s just a joke. When your whole life is this, then what happens next?

No, I am not an LGBTQI person. I’m straight, but I have seen the damage “jokes” do. One joke, another joke, a few more….then your life is seen as a joke?

Woodie said:

And just maybe, just maybe, all those that complained about the unsolicited SMS text, then maybe you might also like to claim invasion of privacy next time an emergency bush fire text is sent to your phone without your consent as well.

I did not want this plebiscite, or vote, or survey.

Silly really, doubt if that sort of stuff will change anyone’s mind, it will only reinforce prejudices. Wouldn’t worry about it, you have heard it all before.

kii said:

Just remember that not all people who post here have strong mental health.

In fact, having a bit of a mental problem is one of the prerequisites for posting here.

SCIENCE said:

what is sms

the SSM SMS, Mss.

Whatever happened to Bruce Ruxton, Hey what. Now there’s a great campaigner for the NO case.

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/feature/secret-history-australias-gay-diggers-anzac