No one wants to seem harsh towards gay friends and family ¬members which is why most people’s initial ¬inclination was to say “yes” to same-sex marriage.

But that’s starting to change as more and more of us realise that this issue is being exploited by the left-wing activists who are waging war on our way of life.

The issue is less same-sex marriage itself than the consequences for parental choice, freedom of speech and freedom of religion that it will bring in its train.

Very few Australians would want a Catholic adoption agency to close down, an orthodox Jewish school to have its funding threatened, or parents to be denied information about sex education classes in their children’s schools, but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law of comparable countries.

No one should underestimate the scale of the moral and cultural shifts that have accompanied the Left’s “long march through the ¬institutions”.
Of course, the placards “vote yes for same-sex marriage and for (so-called) safe schools” misrepresent the views of most same-sex ¬marriage supporters but social ¬re-¬engineering is certainly the agenda of the countercultural warriors who are driving this campaign.

They don’t want to join marriage; they want to change it.
The more marriage is broadened out, the less it means; but once it means almost anything, it can end up meaning nothing much at all and a great pillar of society designed originally for the protection of women and the nurturing of children has been kicked away.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, there was no doubt a tough and judgmental aspect to life in Australia where much was ¬improperly denied and where many were wrongly kept in a subordinate place. I rejoice at the freedom, the opportunity, and the acceptance that everyone can now take for granted; but I fear a suffocating new orthodoxy as the social pendulum swings from one -extreme to another.

For all the narrow-mindedness of the recent past, at least there was a clear understanding that the concept of marriage as the loving union of one man with one woman, preferably for life and usually dedicated to wellbeing of their children, was an essential part of keeping in check the selfish and exploitative side of humanity.

Everywhere we look, what was self-evident just a generation ago is now under assault; and we’re not just junking old prejudices in favour of sensible things like allowing women to tackle numerous roles once reserved for men.

It’s becoming a different world where gender is no longer objectively set but is whatever people choose; where prepubescent children are permitted (as far as they can) actually to change their sex; where doctors are expected to ¬assist people to die rather than help them to live; and where schoolchildren can’t give each other Christmas cards lest that seem unfair to non-Christians.

These are just some of the ¬bewildering moral transformations that are becoming the new normal in this brave new world.

Same-sex marriage is the frontal attack on traditional values that can only take place because of the infiltration and erosion that’s been going on for years.

So much social change has happened more or less without anyone noticing at the time: IVF for singles; adoption for gays; the evolution of fathers’ day and mothers’ day into “special person’s” days.

But thanks to an Abbott government commitment, that the Turnbull government has honoured as best it can with the postal plebiscite, the public are finally being asked what they think.
And due to the bullying and intolerance of the “yes” forces — the GetUp!!!!! petition to strike off a doctor concerned about family values; the sacking of a young Christian girl who posted “it’s OK the say ‘no’” on social media; the ¬notion that anti-SSM MPs should be “hate-f … ed” out of their alleged homophobia; the hounding of ¬Israel Folau for daring to speak out and much more — the public are ¬beginning to sense that the “love is love” campaign isn’t quite as innocent as it sounds.

Of course, the “yes” case has all the money and all the celebrities on their side.
The Abbott family’s ballots ¬arrived in the post along with a glossy brochure from some Liberal leaders urging a “yes” vote.
Millions of people’s (silent) ¬mobile phone numbers have been bombarded by “yes” text messages.

Dozens of big companies are spending shareholders’ money on one side of this argument.
Even sporting codes are trying to frogmarch their followers into voting just one way.
We’ll soon find out how influential the politically correct establishment has been.
My instinct is that Australians still might surprise everyone and vote against being lectured about what to do.

Tony Abbott is MP for Warringah and the former prime minister

The_observer said:

No one wants to seem harsh towards gay friends and family ¬members which is why most people’s initial ¬inclination was to say “yes” to same-sex marriage.

But that’s starting to change as more and more of us realise that this issue is being exploited by the left-wing activists who are waging war on our way of life.

The issue is less same-sex marriage itself than the consequences for parental choice, freedom of speech and freedom of religion that it will bring in its train.

Very few Australians would want a Catholic adoption agency to close down, an orthodox Jewish school to have its funding threatened, or parents to be denied information about sex education classes in their children’s schools, but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law of comparable countries.

No one should underestimate the scale of the moral and cultural shifts that have accompanied the Left’s “long march through the ¬institutions”.
Of course, the placards “vote yes for same-sex marriage and for (so-called) safe schools” misrepresent the views of most same-sex ¬marriage supporters but social ¬re-¬engineering is certainly the agenda of the countercultural warriors who are driving this campaign.

They don’t want to join marriage; they want to change it.
The more marriage is broadened out, the less it means; but once it means almost anything, it can end up meaning nothing much at all and a great pillar of society designed originally for the protection of women and the nurturing of children has been kicked away.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, there was no doubt a tough and judgmental aspect to life in Australia where much was ¬improperly denied and where many were wrongly kept in a subordinate place. I rejoice at the freedom, the opportunity, and the acceptance that everyone can now take for granted; but I fear a suffocating new orthodoxy as the social pendulum swings from one -extreme to another.

For all the narrow-mindedness of the recent past, at least there was a clear understanding that the concept of marriage as the loving union of one man with one woman, preferably for life and usually dedicated to wellbeing of their children, was an essential part of keeping in check the selfish and exploitative side of humanity.

Everywhere we look, what was self-evident just a generation ago is now under assault; and we’re not just junking old prejudices in favour of sensible things like allowing women to tackle numerous roles once reserved for men.

It’s becoming a different world where gender is no longer objectively set but is whatever people choose; where prepubescent children are permitted (as far as they can) actually to change their sex; where doctors are expected to ¬assist people to die rather than help them to live; and where schoolchildren can’t give each other Christmas cards lest that seem unfair to non-Christians.

These are just some of the ¬bewildering moral transformations that are becoming the new normal in this brave new world.

Same-sex marriage is the frontal attack on traditional values that can only take place because of the infiltration and erosion that’s been going on for years.

So much social change has happened more or less without anyone noticing at the time: IVF for singles; adoption for gays; the evolution of fathers’ day and mothers’ day into “special person’s” days.

But thanks to an Abbott government commitment, that the Turnbull government has honoured as best it can with the postal plebiscite, the public are finally being asked what they think.
And due to the bullying and intolerance of the “yes” forces — the GetUp!!!!! petition to strike off a doctor concerned about family values; the sacking of a young Christian girl who posted “it’s OK the say ‘no’” on social media; the ¬notion that anti-SSM MPs should be “hate-f … ed” out of their alleged homophobia; the hounding of ¬Israel Folau for daring to speak out and much more — the public are ¬beginning to sense that the “love is love” campaign isn’t quite as innocent as it sounds.

Of course, the “yes” case has all the money and all the celebrities on their side.
The Abbott family’s ballots ¬arrived in the post along with a glossy brochure from some Liberal leaders urging a “yes” vote.
Millions of people’s (silent) ¬mobile phone numbers have been bombarded by “yes” text messages.

Dozens of big companies are spending shareholders’ money on one side of this argument.
Even sporting codes are trying to frogmarch their followers into voting just one way.
We’ll soon find out how influential the politically correct establishment has been.
My instinct is that Australians still might surprise everyone and vote against being lectured about what to do.

Tony Abbott is MP for Warringah and the former prime minister

They all have dementia in Warringah.

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

Well it is all true. So called SSM is very much part of the ugly lefts social engineering agenda, & no one needs to be anti gay or suffering from dementia
to recognise it, & despise it.

(drums) BubBUButa

(vocals) Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann

Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann

Ba ba ba ba Barbara Ann

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

Well it is all true. So called SSM is very much part of the ugly lefts social engineering agenda, & no one needs to be anti gay or suffering from dementia
to recognise it, & despise it.

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

Here’s a lovely wish for equality, prepared for The_observer by The Ballarat Arts Academy and The BallaRat Pack Orchestra.

What a Wonderful World

We made this for you, because through art we can imagine the world not as it is, but as it could be.
A message of love and equality from the heart of Ballarat, Western Victoria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FkwaMGpnrg

These lines are interesting as well

where doctors are expected to ¬assist people to die rather than help them to live;

Is living with a non curable painful illness kept alive by machines and medicine with little or no quality of life, living or a living death sentence ?

where schoolchildren can’t give each other Christmas cards lest that seem unfair to non-Christians.

Is that even true or one of those lying emails that attempts to outrage people at what I would imagine in this case is Muslims.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

Well it is all true. So called SSM is very much part of the ugly lefts social engineering agenda, & no one needs to be anti gay or suffering from dementia
to recognise it, & despise it.

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Well it is all true. So called SSM is very much part of the ugly lefts social engineering agenda, & no one needs to be anti gay or suffering from dementia
to recognise it, & despise it.

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

Married couples don’t have to have children or can’t for some reason so is that still a marriage if they don’t create life.

The_observer said:

And that is my business!

Well pretty soon you’ll benefit from a happy business expansion, as many more peoples’ marriages are legally recognised.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

Married couples don’t have to have children or can’t for some reason so is that still a marriage if they don’t create life.

No, they don’t have to, but they can :)

“Very few Australians would want a Catholic adoption agency to close down, an orthodox Jewish school to have its funding threatened, or parents to be denied information about sex education classes in their children’s schools, but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law of comparable countries.”

Wrong.

The NO case are relying on this one example of “orthodox Jewish School to have it’s funding threatened”. This did NOT flow from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-jewish-school-lgbt-issues-fail-ofsted-inspection-vishnitz-girls-london-orthodox-sex-british-a7809221.html

The UK enacted legislation in 2010 “2010 Equalities Act” The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. It replaced previous anti-discrimination laws with a single Act, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protection in some situations. Part 6 covers Schools.

On 17 July 2013, Her Majesty the Queen granted royal assent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.

Now let’s look at just one of the claims “but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law”. I’ll let you work out your own timelines as to what preceded what.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Well it is all true. So called SSM is very much part of the ugly lefts social engineering agenda, & no one needs to be anti gay or suffering from dementia
to recognise it, & despise it.

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

roffle…

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

Married couples don’t have to have children or can’t for some reason so is that still a marriage if they don’t create life.

No, they don’t have to, but they can :)

so your position is, no possibility of a baby, no marriage… yes??

what about couples that can’t have children… by your definition they should be able to get married either..

And you know, it’s OK to say Yes, too.

Woodie said:

“Very few Australians would want a Catholic adoption agency to close down, an orthodox Jewish school to have its funding threatened, or parents to be denied information about sex education classes in their children’s schools, but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law of comparable countries.”

Wrong.

The NO case are relying on this one example of “orthodox Jewish School to have it’s funding threatened”. This did NOT flow from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-jewish-school-lgbt-issues-fail-ofsted-inspection-vishnitz-girls-london-orthodox-sex-british-a7809221.html

The UK enacted legislation in 2010 “2010 Equalities Act” The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. It replaced previous anti-discrimination laws with a single Act, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protection in some situations. Part 6 covers Schools.

On 17 July 2013, Her Majesty the Queen granted royal assent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.

Now let’s look at just one of the claims “but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law”. I’ll let you work out your own timelines as to what preceded what.

in contrast, I’d be more than happy for adoption services to be taken out of the hands of any religious organisation…

Marriage is not primarily about children.

It is more about legal, financial and taxation purposes.
It is also a social thing in making a public statement and commitment to the other person.

>But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

how does that work exactly, the reality comes from the word (or word-concept), or does stuff exist out there then variously terms applied.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Married couples don’t have to have children or can’t for some reason so is that still a marriage if they don’t create life.

No, they don’t have to, but they can :)

so your position is, no possibility of a baby, no marriage… yes??

what about couples that can’t have children… by your definition they should be able to get married either..

Very simple. In general a male & female can produce offspring. This fact seperates them from same sex couples. So, marriage is a word that does, & should always define a union between a male & a female.

Let same sex couples make up their own word to describe a union between two people of the same sex who cannot, & never will be able to produce offspring.

:)

The_observer said:

Let same sex couples make up their own word to describe a union between two people of the same sex who cannot, & never will be able to produce offspring.

OK, how about: marriage

Yep, sounds good, we’re all agreed.

Marriage it is then!

Good job there’s already a marriage equality movement, who are set to win this very convincingly.

The NO side losers can clear up all the discarded pamphlets, before they go and have a good cry :)

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

How does someone being gay, transgender, etc, hurt anyone else, its not really most people business anyway.
If marriage changes so what, marriages used to often be arranged and people had no say and that’s something that changed in Western society at least. Culture is dynamic and traditions die

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

roffle…

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

No, they don’t have to, but they can :)

so your position is, no possibility of a baby, no marriage… yes??

what about couples that can’t have children… by your definition they should be able to get married either..

Very simple. In general a male & female can produce offspring. This fact seperates them from same sex couples. So, marriage is a word that does, & should always define a union between a male & a female.

Let same sex couples make up their own word to describe a union between two people of the same sex who cannot, & never will be able to produce offspring.

:)

there are a great many males and females that can’t have children… fir instance, my SIL has Turner’s Syndrome – should she not be able to get married because she is incapable of having a child?

>So, marriage is a word that does, & should always define a union between a male & a female.

since when did words, that way, define such things.

it’s a bit like my wife, let’s pretend her name is Henry, that she’s defined by her name.

total crap

I wouldn’t really care what they called it.. what it needs to represent, however, is the same legally binding contractual abilities, clauses and rights as does a heterosexual marriage.

Arts said:

I wouldn’t really care what they called it.. what it needs to represent, however, is the same legally binding contractual abilities, clauses and rights as does a heterosexual marriage.

luckily there is already a word for that

The separate but equal argument doesn’t work for me. Either people are fully equal or they are not.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

No, its not my business.

But marriage should remain a word to describe a union between a woman & a man, because only a woman & a man can create life, & this is the big difference.
And that is my business!

roffle…

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

roffle…

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Except, it doesn’t.

You’re quoting propaganda from religious tragics.

As usual :)

>Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

how do I know you don’t hope they suffer poorer psychological health.

i’m going to say you think that, that you are nasty that way, short of evidence to the contrary, for the moment.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

roffle…

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

roffle… what all those kids that have been raised by a couple but are the result of extra-martial affairs? are they of “poorer health” , or children who’ve had a parent die or leave and have grown up in a family with a non-biological parent?

*BUMP * for The_observer:

“…the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.

These may include the ability to; engage in abstract thinking and process complex chains of ideas, separate arguments based on facts from unfounded ones, not feel threatened by changes in the status quo and critically engage with new or diverse viewpoints.

These results may thus shed some light over why some on the “no” side may be failing to offer or accept evidence-based arguments, or why they keep relying on philosophically, historically or empirically flawed ones.

This applies, for instance, to the scientifically unsupported claim that children are worse off in same-sex households.

In fact, these arguments are being exploited by a “no” advertising campaign that relies almost exclusively on emotional instead of rational arguments.

It is possible many supporters of the “no” case could not be convinced by reason and evidence.”

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/9148/

Woodie said:

Now let’s look at just one of the claims “but these have all flowed from enshrining same-sex marriage in the law”. I’ll let you work out your own timelines as to what preceded what.

Do I need to address all the other “flowed from” “slippery slope” examples and cases of the NO side with regards to timelines as well? The wedding cake? Safe Schools? Religious freedoms? Free speech? Adoption agencies?

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

I wouldn’t really care what they called it.. what it needs to represent, however, is the same legally binding contractual abilities, clauses and rights as does a heterosexual marriage.

luckily there is already a word for that

Wonderful. Problem solved. Now, lets move on.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Except, it doesn’t.

You’re quoting propaganda from religious tragics.

As usual :)

LOL my bubble n squeak

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

I wouldn’t really care what they called it.. what it needs to represent, however, is the same legally binding contractual abilities, clauses and rights as does a heterosexual marriage.

luckily there is already a word for that

yeah, we should just use that one… then we should all just use either Mr, Or Mrs, or Miss.. or Doctor.. so we can all be equal

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

roffle…

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Do they, is it the parents or the barbs from the intolerant that mess up the children
How would they research that anyway, did they included abusive parents who are man and women

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

roffle… what all those kids that have been raised by a couple but are the result of extra-martial affairs? are they of “poorer health” , or children who’ve had a parent die or leave and have grown up in a family with a non-biological parent?

to lose one parent could be considered a misfortune, lose both, looks like carelessness to me.

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

I wouldn’t really care what they called it.. what it needs to represent, however, is the same legally binding contractual abilities, clauses and rights as does a heterosexual marriage.

luckily there is already a word for that

yeah, we should just use that one… then we should all just use either Mr, Or Mrs, or Miss.. or Doctor.. so we can all be equal

thats GOLD

Family means all sorts of things anyway, the nuclear family probably seems to weird many cultures and a detriment as you may have very little help raising children with only two parents

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Except, it doesn’t.

You’re quoting propaganda from religious tragics.

As usual :)

LOL my bubble n squeak

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

As usual, you support the nutcase “renegade” instead of the official medical body, and the many dozens of studies that have shown children raised by same sex couples do fine.

They’ll do even better as homophobia continues to become less and less socially acceptable.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

SSM partners can use a surrogate with eggs or sperm from themselves plus a donor and as it’s carefully planed the child is wanted not an unwanted accident who may be resented

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Do they, is it the parents or the barbs from the intolerant that mess up the children
How would they research that anyway, did they included abusive parents who are man and women

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

:)

Bubblecar said:

*BUMP * for The_observer:

(snip)

It is possible many supporters of the “no” case could not be convinced by reason and evidence.”

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/9148/

Hence DFTT.

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

roffle… what all those kids that have been raised by a couple but are the result of extra-martial affairs? are they of “poorer health” , or children who’ve had a parent die or leave and have grown up in a family with a non-biological parent?

to lose one parent could be considered a misfortune, lose both, looks like carelessness to me.

probably the children of SS couples

The_observer said:

Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

You keep trotting this one out, Mr O, yet you are unable to confirm it anywhere other than very small sample obscure “studies”.

We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the wellbeing of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Except, it doesn’t.

You’re quoting propaganda from religious tragics.

As usual :)

LOL my bubble n squeak

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

As usual, you support the nutcase “renegade” instead of the official medical body, and the many dozens of studies that have shown children raised by same sex couples do fine.

They’ll do even better as homophobia continues to become less and less socially acceptable.

can you read moron???

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

LOL my bubble n squeak

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

As usual, you support the nutcase “renegade” instead of the official medical body, and the many dozens of studies that have shown children raised by same sex couples do fine.

They’ll do even better as homophobia continues to become less and less socially acceptable.

can you read moron???

I can read you, as usual, supporting the nutcase “renegade” whose views coincide with your far-right hysteria.

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

roffle… what all those kids that have been raised by a couple but are the result of extra-martial affairs? are they of “poorer health” , or children who’ve had a parent die or leave and have grown up in a family with a non-biological parent?

to lose one parent could be considered a misfortune, lose both, looks like carelessness to me.

What an Earnest and Wilde thing to say, Lady B.

;)

criminological research time and time again shows that kids do ‘better’ when raise by people who are ‘present’ and not too overbearing and not too aloof to their needs…. also when they have a sense of belonging to their peers…

extrapolating from that when society accepts same sex marriage, so too will children and acceptance by peers will increase… of course some people will always be arseholes… but that’s got nothing to do with kids who’s parents are homosexual

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

You keep trotting this one out, Mr O, yet you are unable to confirm it anywhere other than very small sample obscure “studies”.

No, I don’t keep trotting this one out Mr Pecker. First I’ve mentioned it actually.

repeat.
Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, renounced his life membership of the body and was critical of its process to adopt a position in favour of gay marriage, saying the membership was not consulted…

“The position statement has very little to say about medicine and was little more than a politically motivated, ideologically-driven opinion piece which is dressed up as evidence-based health policy,” Dr Middleton said…

Dr Middleton’s report was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.
“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

Just some facts you don’t like Mr Pecker

Aren’t many of those against SSM raised children of the mindset that gay men all hate women and instil these thoughts in the children and deny them female companionship and the reverse for lesbians. If that was true then yes it wouldn’t be healthy but it isn’t true

Arts said:

to lose one parent could be considered a misfortune, lose both, looks like carelessness to me.

In a handbag? On the Brighton line?

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

You keep trotting this one out, Mr O, yet you are unable to confirm it anywhere other than very small sample obscure “studies”.

No, I don’t keep trotting this one out Mr Pecker. First I’ve mentioned it actually.

repeat.
Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, renounced his life membership of the body and was critical of its process to adopt a position in favour of gay marriage, saying the membership was not consulted…

“The position statement has very little to say about medicine and was little more than a politically motivated, ideologically-driven opinion piece which is dressed up as evidence-based health policy,” Dr Middleton said…

Dr Middleton’s report was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.
“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

Just some facts you don’t like Mr Pecker

If you’d bother to Google, you’d find that more than one meta-analysis of all available data has been conducted, which show no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fair worse on average than those raised by opposite sex couples.

Also, let’s remind ourselves that there are thousands of children in institutional care after being removed from abusive and neglectful heterosexual parents. But no matter how bad those parents are, it doesn’t effect the legality of their marriage certificates…

And some of those children of very unloving heterosexual parents end up being successfully fostered by loving gay parents, such as this couple:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/gay-foster-parents-create-a-home-for-12-teenage-girls/8878938

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

You keep trotting this one out, Mr O, yet you are unable to confirm it anywhere other than very small sample obscure “studies”.

No, I don’t keep trotting this one out Mr Pecker. First I’ve mentioned it actually.

repeat.
Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, renounced his life membership of the body and was critical of its process to adopt a position in favour of gay marriage, saying the membership was not consulted…

“The position statement has very little to say about medicine and was little more than a politically motivated, ideologically-driven opinion piece which is dressed up as evidence-based health policy,” Dr Middleton said…

Dr Middleton’s report was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.
“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

Just some facts you don’t like Mr Pecker

If you’d bother to Google, you’d find that more than one meta-analysis of all available data has been conducted, which show no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fair worse on average than those raised by opposite sex couples.

Also, let’s remind ourselves that there are thousands of children in institutional care after being removed from abusive and neglectful heterosexual parents. But no matter how bad those parents are, it doesn’t effect the legality of their marriage certificates…

And some of those children of very unloving heterosexual parents end up being successfully fostered by loving gay parents, such as this couple:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/gay-foster-parents-create-a-home-for-12-teenage-girls/8878938

That would be an anaylsis by you

Anyway you’ve lost. Marriage equality is inevitable, suck it up.

The_observer said:

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

I’ve just pointed you to “decades of research” Mr O, that seems to say the contrary. Where is your “decades of research” that supports your claim? You are very short on substantiating evidence of claims. Most are “has beens”, ex-whatever or fringe groups.

Seems to me a pattern developing
The biggest opponents to SSM were also the biggest opponents and sometimes the only opponents to:

The spherical Earth theory
Copernican theory
Evolution
Geological timeframes
Abolishion of slavery
Women’s suffrage.
Education of women
Child labour
Equality regarding hetro/homo sexuality
Pain relief for childbirth.
Segregation.
Contraception.

and thats just off the top of my head

And another thing. If my friend Kim tells me about her friends Courtney & Ashley getting married, I know straight away that they are two people of the opposite sex, & thus, I can ask without embarrassement of offence “are they intending to breed”?

:)

Bubblecar said:

Anyway you’ve lost. Marriage equality is inevitable, suck it up.

I’ll just cut n paste that for later, thanks.

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

I’ve just pointed you to “decades of research” Mr O, that seems to say the contrary. Where is your “decades of research” that supports your claim? You are very short on substantiating evidence of claims. Most are “has beens”, ex-whatever or fringe groups.

The AMA past president says your wrong, Mr Pecker.

The_observer said:

And another thing. If my friend Kim tells me about her friends Courtney & Ashley getting married, I know straight away that they are two people of the opposite sex, & thus, I can ask without embarrassement of offence “are they intending to breed”?

:)

So your ability to ask a Q without embarrassement is more important to someones freedom to act ?

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

I’ve just pointed you to “decades of research” Mr O, that seems to say the contrary. Where is your “decades of research” that supports your claim? You are very short on substantiating evidence of claims. Most are “has beens”, ex-whatever or fringe groups.

The AMA past president says your wrong, Mr Pecker.

The AMA itself says he’s right, Mr Orifice.

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

The_observer said:

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

I’ve just pointed you to “decades of research” Mr O, that seems to say the contrary. Where is your “decades of research” that supports your claim? You are very short on substantiating evidence of claims. Most are “has beens”, ex-whatever or fringe groups.

The AMA past president says your wrong, Mr Pecker.

One or two doctors saying it doesn’t make it true

The_observer said:

The AMA past president says your wrong, Mr Pecker.

A has been and an ex. Just as I claimed.

Thomo said:

The_observer said:

And another thing. If my friend Kim tells me about her friends Courtney & Ashley getting married, I know straight away that they are two people of the opposite sex, & thus, I can ask without embarrassement of offence “are they intending to breed”?

:)

So your ability to ask a Q without embarrassement is more important to someones freedom to act ?

? I like plays & movies.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

I’ve just pointed you to “decades of research” Mr O, that seems to say the contrary. Where is your “decades of research” that supports your claim? You are very short on substantiating evidence of claims. Most are “has beens”, ex-whatever or fringe groups.

The AMA past president says your wrong, Mr Pecker.

The AMA itself says he’s right, Mr Orifice.

yes fatso

Cymek said:

Aren’t many of those against SSM raised children of the mindset that gay men all hate women and instil these thoughts in the children and deny them female companionship and the reverse for lesbians. If that was true then yes it wouldn’t be healthy but it isn’t true

I think it would not be the same-sex parents that might harm the child (lets face they must really want one to get one), but the attitude of people outside of that relationship, especially kids at school. It is probably why the experts say these children will have more hurdles to jump.

While opposite sex couples can be the best all around for a child’s welfare, they can also be the worst, and a child from that relationship will certainly be damaged for the rest of its life. So I would say the trading off of a bad opposite sex marriage against a same-sex one, would certainly favour the latter.

However, it is what happens down the track that really matters. Will the social attitude change toward same-sex children and would the same-sex couples simply become like opposite sex ones, with a proportion becoming bad parents for the same reasons as same-sex marriages, in other words will kids be better off with either, or simply the luck of the draw.

I guess if you are a homosexual interracial barren disabled poor couple, you should probably not even live near kids….

Here ya go, Mr O. Some ammo for you. Sheesh, I’m even having to do YOUR homework for ya now.

http://critiqueama.com/ “WHY THE AMA SHOULD RETRACT ITS STATEMENT ON ‘MARRIAGE EQUALITY’”

hmmm…. let me see. UPDATE 31 August: now 650 doctors including 36 Professors / Associate Professors and 6 former AMA state presidents.

Dunno what’s happened to their petition. Hasn’t been updated or much else for nearly a month now. You’d think they’d be goin’ at it ‘ammer’n‘tongs. Not even any supporting articles listed for weeks. Looks like a bit of a fizzer, actually, doesn’t it.

In 2011, there were 70,200 medical practitioners (doctors) identified by the Census of Population and Housing currently working in Australia, which includes 43,400 general practitioners (GPs) and 25,400 specialist medical practitioners (specialists). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20April+2013

Woodie said:

Here ya go, Mr O. Some ammo for you. Sheesh, I’m even having to do YOUR homework for ya now.

http://critiqueama.com/ “WHY THE AMA SHOULD RETRACT ITS STATEMENT ON ‘MARRIAGE EQUALITY’”

hmmm…. let me see. UPDATE 31 August: now 650 doctors including 36 Professors / Associate Professors and 6 former AMA state presidents.

Dunno what’s happened to their petition. Hasn’t been updated or much else for nearly a month now. You’d think they’d be goin’ at it ‘ammer’n‘tongs. Not even any supporting articles listed for weeks. Looks like a bit of a fizzer, actually, doesn’t it.

In 2011, there were 70,200 medical practitioners (doctors) identified by the Census of Population and Housing currently working in Australia, which includes 43,400 general practitioners (GPs) and 25,400 specialist medical practitioners (specialists). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20April+2013

The child will always know that only one of the parents is their real parent (at best) & will always know thay they have been bred in some unnatural fashion to please a couple incapable of producing offspring themselves.

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Here ya go, Mr O. Some ammo for you. Sheesh, I’m even having to do YOUR homework for ya now.

http://critiqueama.com/ “WHY THE AMA SHOULD RETRACT ITS STATEMENT ON ‘MARRIAGE EQUALITY’”

hmmm…. let me see. UPDATE 31 August: now 650 doctors including 36 Professors / Associate Professors and 6 former AMA state presidents.

Dunno what’s happened to their petition. Hasn’t been updated or much else for nearly a month now. You’d think they’d be goin’ at it ‘ammer’n‘tongs. Not even any supporting articles listed for weeks. Looks like a bit of a fizzer, actually, doesn’t it.

In 2011, there were 70,200 medical practitioners (doctors) identified by the Census of Population and Housing currently working in Australia, which includes 43,400 general practitioners (GPs) and 25,400 specialist medical practitioners (specialists). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20April+2013

The child will always know that only one of the parents is their real parent (at best) & will always know thay they have been bred in some unnatural fashion to please a couple incapable of producing offspring themselves.

my kids know they were bred in an ‘unnatural’ fashion… they may still make me proud and become serial killers … but they’ll probably just be well adjusted or something boring like that

Arts said:

The_observer said:

Woodie said:

Here ya go, Mr O. Some ammo for you. Sheesh, I’m even having to do YOUR homework for ya now.

http://critiqueama.com/ “WHY THE AMA SHOULD RETRACT ITS STATEMENT ON ‘MARRIAGE EQUALITY’”

hmmm…. let me see. UPDATE 31 August: now 650 doctors including 36 Professors / Associate Professors and 6 former AMA state presidents.

Dunno what’s happened to their petition. Hasn’t been updated or much else for nearly a month now. You’d think they’d be goin’ at it ‘ammer’n‘tongs. Not even any supporting articles listed for weeks. Looks like a bit of a fizzer, actually, doesn’t it.

In 2011, there were 70,200 medical practitioners (doctors) identified by the Census of Population and Housing currently working in Australia, which includes 43,400 general practitioners (GPs) and 25,400 specialist medical practitioners (specialists). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20April+2013

The child will always know that only one of the parents is their real parent (at best) & will always know thay they have been bred in some unnatural fashion to please a couple incapable of producing offspring themselves.

my kids know they were bred in an ‘unnatural’ fashion… they may still make me proud and become serial killers … but they’ll probably just be well adjusted or something boring like that

define unnatural fashion, in your case, if you like?

The_observer said:

Arts said:

The_observer said:

The child will always know that only one of the parents is their real parent (at best) & will always know thay they have been bred in some unnatural fashion to please a couple incapable of producing offspring themselves.

my kids know they were bred in an ‘unnatural’ fashion… they may still make me proud and become serial killers … but they’ll probably just be well adjusted or something boring like that

define unnatural fashion, in your case, if you like?

in a petri dish then implanted it took four men to get me pregnant an none of them was the father

Arts said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

my kids know they were bred in an ‘unnatural’ fashion… they may still make me proud and become serial killers … but they’ll probably just be well adjusted or something boring like that

define unnatural fashion, in your case, if you like?

in a petri dish then implanted it took four men to get me pregnant an none of them was the father

you see, I’m against this (no offence to you personally), in a world where there is just too many humans.

The_observer said:

Arts said:

The_observer said:

define unnatural fashion, in your case, if you like?

in a petri dish then implanted it took four men to get me pregnant an none of them was the father

you see, I’m against this (no offence to you personally), in a world where there is just too many humans.

then we need to change the laws to make adoption easier and more accessible… because as it stands, IVF is cheaper, easier and more available than adoption is … unless you are Angelina Jolie

Arts said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

in a petri dish then implanted it took four men to get me pregnant an none of them was the father

you see, I’m against this (no offence to you personally), in a world where there is just too many humans.

then we need to change the laws to make adoption easier and more accessible… because as it stands, IVF is cheaper, easier and more available than adoption is … unless you are Angelina Jolie

yes.

Arts said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

my kids know they were bred in an ‘unnatural’ fashion… they may still make me proud and become serial killers … but they’ll probably just be well adjusted or something boring like that

define unnatural fashion, in your case, if you like?

in a petri dish then implanted it took four men to get me pregnant an none of them was the father

It’s not wrong its just different

You are a troll observer

You have been told again and again that sexual diversity is genetic and natural.

You have been told again and again that any religious and political discrimination is clearly human rights abuse.

You have been told again and again that homosexuals are born that way.

Same sex parents can do just as well as heterosexuals bringing up children.

All the fear and scaremongering is religious discriminatory unnecessary and outdated.

There are no cultural values at stake only Tony Abbott’s ego.

The problem with Tony Abbott is that he does not understand human rights, he lives in the past and he fears change.

You are seeking to diminish peoples rights.

One cultural value that is at stake are religious politicians who wont be able to use religious discrimination to create bad laws.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

dv said:

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

Seems a very low number. Much of the campaigning effort seems wasted if the undecideds don’t exist in large enough numbers to sway the result.

It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

dv said:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

Elvis_Rieu said:

It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

More to the point, it was the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve that would have had to be incestuous to keep the chain of humanity alive. That is against the law and traditional family values too.

It was Ernie & Bert not Ernie & Gert.

It was Bill & Ben not Bill & Gwen.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

Correct.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

You do not know why people have certain opinions, I dare say I would find some of yours revolting. So stop judging others based on your ridiculous assumptions.

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

Correct.

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

You do not know why people have certain opinions, I dare say I would find some of yours revolting. So stop judging others based on your ridiculous assumptions.

if you have a opinion and it is discriminatory it is a discriminatory opinion

not an assumption

its an observation

>>> I dare say I would find some of yours revolting.

Presumption is trying to put words or concepts into my mouth that are not there

stop clutching at straws

Bubblecar said:

It was Ernie & Bert not Ernie & Gert.

It was Bill & Ben not Bill & Gwen.

Bill and Ben were laying in bed together,
Bill turns to Ben and says “Heyyyyyy lublup”

Ben says “If you loved me, you’d swallow that..”

Mikey Robins

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

Correct.

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Correct.

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

does that include people in the LGBTQI community who voted no?

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Correct.

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

You are beyond reason and understanding, no wonder this debate has degenerated the way it has.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

You are beyond reason and understanding, no wonder this debate has degenerated the way it has.

now you are talking nonsense.

if you are wrong, you are wrong

and you are wrong.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

You are beyond reason and understanding, no wonder this debate has degenerated the way it has.

now you are talking nonsense.

if you are wrong, you are wrong

and you are wrong.

Need I say more? Could not have summed you up better.

Ignore him Tau, he likes to drag these exchanges out until the end of time.

Bubblecar said:

Ignore him Tau, he likes to drag these exchanges out until the end of time.

No, just trying to increase the logic and reduce the emotion. Seems to be a thankless and worthless exercise.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

This Yes/No debate is a very good example of people only taking in what compliments their own opinion.

the yes no debate is simple

if you voted yes you support human rights

if you voted no you are seeking to diminish people rights

does that include people in the LGBTQI community who voted no?

There are human rights abusers all other the place of any sex or gender preference.

There some homosexuals who are seeking to diminish other peoples rights.

There are also some bisexuals seeking to diminish other peoples rights.

There are hetrosexuals who are seeking to diminish other peoples rights.

Dictators want to diminish peoples.
Politicians seek to diminish peoples rights.
Religious people seek to diminish peoples rights.
Far right extremists seek to diminish peoples rights.
Far left extremists seek to diminish peoples rights.
Men seek to diminish peoples rights.
Women seek to diminish peoples rights.
Gangs seek to diminish peoples rights.
Nazis want to diminish peoples rights.
Criminals want to diminish peoples.
Wars diminish peoples rights.
Terrorists seek to diminish peoples rights.
War criminals seek to diminish peoples rights.
Cult leaders seek to diminish peoples rights.
Corporations seek to diminish peoples rights.
Organizations seek to diminish peoples rights.
Businesses seek to diminish peoples rights.
Bullies seek to diminish peoples rights.
Sexual predators seek to diminish peoples rights.
Rapists seek to diminish peoples rights.
Pedophiles seek to diminish peoples rights.
People traffickers seek to diminish peoples rights.
and more…

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

It is NOT fair to say that, what it means is 33% have given their opinion, which happens to be No. Gee Tau, stop being a dick.

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

You do not know why people have certain opinions, I dare say I would find some of yours revolting. So stop judging others based on your ridiculous assumptions.

Pf, thats an excellent come back on my behalf, because its very accurate, mate.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Ignore him Tau, he likes to drag these exchanges out until the end of time.

No, just trying to increase the logic and reduce the emotion. Seems to be a thankless and worthless exercise.

Their should be little emotion understanding logic and ethics.
But some people do.
Do you get emotional over mathematics if a calculation is wrong?
Some people may get a bit frustrated.
Most people will keep at it until the calculation is right and can be validated.
So applying that logic.
Why get emotional over ethics or logic if something is either right or wrong?
Ok, some might be a bit of frustrated understanding a new concept.
But why hold onto a wrongful idea if its wrong?

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Ignore him Tau, he likes to drag these exchanges out until the end of time.

No, just trying to increase the logic and reduce the emotion. Seems to be a thankless and worthless exercise.

Their should be little emotion understanding logic and ethics.
But some people do.
Do you get emotional over mathematics if a calculation is wrong?
Some people may get a bit frustrated.
Most people will keep at it until the calculation is right and can be validated.
So applying that logic.
Why get emotional over ethics or logic if something is either right or wrong?
Ok, some might be a bit of frustrated understanding a new concept.
But why hold onto a wrongful idea if its wrong?

You are just so mixed up, I can’t be bothered.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A discriminatory opinion which still diminish peoples rights.

get it right

You do not know why people have certain opinions, I dare say I would find some of yours revolting. So stop judging others based on your ridiculous assumptions.

Pf, thats an excellent come back on my behalf, because its very accurate, mate.

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

No, just trying to increase the logic and reduce the emotion. Seems to be a thankless and worthless exercise.

Their should be little emotion understanding logic and ethics.
But some people do.
Do you get emotional over mathematics if a calculation is wrong?
Some people may get a bit frustrated.
Most people will keep at it until the calculation is right and can be validated.
So applying that logic.
Why get emotional over ethics or logic if something is either right or wrong?
Ok, some might be a bit of frustrated understanding a new concept.
But why hold onto a wrongful idea if its wrong?

You are just so mixed up, I can’t be bothered.

Well off you go then.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

You do not know why people have certain opinions, I dare say I would find some of yours revolting. So stop judging others based on your ridiculous assumptions.

Pf, thats an excellent come back on my behalf, because its very accurate, mate.

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Pf, thats an excellent come back on my behalf, because its very accurate, mate.

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

You live in a black and white world Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Pf, thats an excellent come back on my behalf, because its very accurate, mate.

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

Wrong again

I dont live in a black and white world.

I know there are lots of other colors and shades

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

Wrong again

I dont live in a black and white world.

I know there are lots of other colors and shades

If you live in a black and white world, then you would have great difficulty of knowing any other, but you don’t even try.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not accurate.

I judge people on observations not assumptions.

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

Wrong again

I dont live in a black and white world.

I know there are lots of other colors and shades

you are very low on the Autism scale then…

>Their should be little emotion understanding logic and ethics.

dunno ‘bout that.

i’ve not got your type of super-rationality, am not gifted so.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

You Tau live in a black and white would Tau, when in reality it is various shades of grey.

Wrong again

I dont live in a black and white world.

I know there are lots of other colors and shades

If you live in a black and white world, then you would have great difficulty of knowing any other, but you don’t even try.

Bubblecar is right, you like dragging debates out.

You have trouble accepting that you are wrong.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

retrospection?

transition said:

>Their should be little emotion understanding logic and ethics.

dunno ‘bout that.

i’ve not got your type of super-rationality, am not gifted so.

How many mathematicians get emotional over mathematics?

I can see people get emotional over ethics and logic.

There are people who want to diminish other peoples rights, when their freedom to diminish other peoples rights is threatened, they get emotional.

Usually negative people will respond with negativity.

Michael V said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2017/09/26/new-poll-shows-rise-in-ssm-support.html

A new Guardian Essential Poll shows that the ‘yes’ side has a commanding lead among Australians who have voted in the same sex marriage survey.

More than one-third of Australians have already voted, with 72 per cent claiming they have voted ‘yes’, while 26 per cent voted ‘no’.

The poll also shows that 58 per cent of Australians support same sex marriage, a three per cent increase from last week’s figure, while 33 per cent oppose changes to the current law.

Nine percent of Australians are undecided.

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

retrospection?

Introspection.

>How many mathematicians get emotional over mathematics?

never been shortchanged?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Michael V said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So it fair to say around 33 percent of people want to diminish other peoples rights?

33 percent of the population need some retrospection on ethics.

retrospection?

Introspection.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wrong again

I dont live in a black and white world.

I know there are lots of other colors and shades

If you live in a black and white world, then you would have great difficulty of knowing any other, but you don’t even try.

Bubblecar is right, you like dragging debates out.

You have trouble accepting that you are wrong.

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

The_observer said:

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

One consistent theme from all your posts, observer – the Left really scare you. Pretty much shitless.

Which is sad, because we’re actually really nice people.

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

No, they don’t have to, but they can :)

so your position is, no possibility of a baby, no marriage… yes??

what about couples that can’t have children… by your definition they should be able to get married either..

Very simple. In general a male & female can produce offspring. This fact seperates them from same sex couples. So, marriage is a word that does, & should always define a union between a male & a female.

Let same sex couples make up their own word to describe a union between two people of the same sex who cannot, & never will be able to produce offspring.

:)

You probasbly should try running this past childless couples who have to adopt in the same way any same sex couple can do. The marriage isn’t aboput what sex the people are or what is their god. It IS about the children, of any couple who are willing to raise them.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

One consistent theme from all your posts, observer – the Left really scare you. Pretty much shitless.

Which is sad, because we’re actually really nice people.

No, not scared, hate. And your an arsehole.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

One consistent theme from all your posts, observer – the Left really scare you. Pretty much shitless.

Which is sad, because we’re actually really nice people.

No, not scared, hate. And your an arsehole.

your = you’re

And you’re quite wrong, I’m a champ :)

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Yep, they cannot produce offspring. Someone from the opposite sex must be involved. The child will eventually learn this. Perhaps this is why medical evidence shows children raised by SS couples suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father.

Except, it doesn’t.

You’re quoting propaganda from religious tragics.

As usual :)

LOL my bubble n squeak

Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, was scathing of the AMA for its “demonstrably false” claim that children raised by gay parents do not suffer poorer psychological health than children who are raised by their biological mother and father…

“Decades of research have confirmed that children do best, on average, when raised by their married biological mother and father,” the report said.

“By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.”…

there’s no excuse for using bad sampling to produce results that are skewed.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

One consistent theme from all your posts, observer – the Left really scare you. Pretty much shitless.

Which is sad, because we’re actually really nice people.

No, not scared, hate. And your an arsehole.

Your arsehole keeps spewing bullshit.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

One consistent theme from all your posts, observer – the Left really scare you. Pretty much shitless.

Which is sad, because we’re actually really nice people.

No, not scared, hate. And your an arsehole.

your = you’re

And you’re quite wrong, I’m a champ :)

Your a chimp.

The_observer said:

Your a chimp.

Your a bad spelar.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

If you live in a black and white world, then you would have great difficulty of knowing any other, but you don’t even try.

Bubblecar is right, you like dragging debates out.

You have trouble accepting that you are wrong.

There’s no right or wrong in the yes … VOTE NO, debate.

But lots of Left.

There are a string of psychoanalysists out there who could really help you.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Your a chimp.

Your a bad spelar.

And loving it

For The_observer: one of the nicest marriage equality ads, from last year. Go on, feel a little human warmth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fi6oSKo7s

Bubblecar said:

For The_observer: one of the nicest marriage equality ads, from last year. Go on, feel a little human warmth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fi6oSKo7s

Man + woman = baby = marriage

Man + man = 0

Woman + woman = 0

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

For The_observer: one of the nicest marriage equality ads, from last year. Go on, feel a little human warmth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fi6oSKo7s

Man + woman = baby = marriage

Man + man = 0

Woman + woman = 0

Must be a sad little state of mind.

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Your a chimp.

Your a bad spelar.

And loving it

Taking pride in being a deadshit might make you get warm and wet feelings in your panties. However, this doesn’t cause anyone else to be endeared to you or your cause.

The_observer said:

Man + woman = baby = marriage

No it doesn’t.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

For The_observer: one of the nicest marriage equality ads, from last year. Go on, feel a little human warmth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fi6oSKo7s

Man + woman = baby = marriage

Man + man = 0

Woman + woman = 0

Must be a sad little state of mind.

Did you do math at school? Biology?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Your a bad spelar.

And loving it

Taking pride in being a deadshit might make you get warm and wet feelings in your panties. However, this doesn’t cause anyone else to be endeared to you or your cause.

This is why I & many others voted NO.

Carry on.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Man + woman = baby = marriage

Man + man = 0

Woman + woman = 0

Must be a sad little state of mind.

Did you do math at school? Biology?

In Australia we do maths.

You don’t qualify to have a say in an Australian survey.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

And loving it

Taking pride in being a deadshit might make you get warm and wet feelings in your panties. However, this doesn’t cause anyone else to be endeared to you or your cause.

This is why I & many others voted NO.

Carry on.

I’m afraid that you are unable to speak for anyone else.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Man + woman = baby = marriage

Man + man = 0

Woman + woman = 0

Must be a sad little state of mind.

Did you do math at school? Biology?

It just gets sadder with each post, observer.

Always remember: there’s no law against stopping being silly.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Must be a sad little state of mind.

Did you do math at school? Biology?

In Australia we do maths.

You don’t qualify to have a say in an Australian survey.

Hmmm. Pretty sure they sent me the survey in the mail.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Taking pride in being a deadshit might make you get warm and wet feelings in your panties. However, this doesn’t cause anyone else to be endeared to you or your cause.

This is why I & many others voted NO.

Carry on.

I’m afraid that you are unable to speak for anyone else.

You’re funny.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Must be a sad little state of mind.

Did you do math at school? Biology?

It just gets sadder with each post, observer.

Always remember: there’s no law against stopping being silly.

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

This is why I & many others voted NO.

Carry on.

I’m afraid that you are unable to speak for anyone else.

You’re funny.

It is the law.

The_observer said:

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

I wonder why you’re so lonely that you choose to interact with people who don’t like you all the time.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Did you do math at school? Biology?

It just gets sadder with each post, observer.

Always remember: there’s no law against stopping being silly.

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

I wonder why you’re so lonely that you choose to interact with people who don’t like you all the time.

What?;who doesn’t like me?

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

I wonder why you’re so lonely that you choose to interact with people who don’t like you all the time.

What?;who doesn’t like me?

Probably everyone that you cannot see in your mirror.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

It just gets sadder with each post, observer.

Always remember: there’s no law against stopping being silly.

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I wonder why you’re so lonely that you choose to interact with people who don’t like you all the time.

What?;who doesn’t like me?

Probably everyone that you cannot see in your mirror.

I’m very popular I’ll have you know.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

I don’t think he checked his emails.

He usually respects my reports.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

I wonder how cb voted mr bubbles? Did he tell you?

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

I don’t think he checked his emails.

He usually respects my reports.

Reports. Oh, I’m sure LOL

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

If you do get banned I wont miss you.

If you do get banned it will be because of your constant harassment and trolling, bullying and threatening people.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

Who is Yout?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

If you do get banned I wont miss you.

If you do get banned it will be because of your constant harassment and trolling, bullying and threatening people.

Are you off your face again newt?

Get a job son.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

You go around accusing strangers of paedophilia amongst other things. You certainly don’t bring anything positive to the forum.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

Witty Rejoinder said:

You go around accusing strangers of paedophilia amongst other things. You certainly don’t bring anything positive to the forum.

he is jealous that we get on.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

You go around accusing strangers of paedophilia amongst other things. You certainly don’t bring anything positive to the forum.

People call me a nazi. But hey, thats ok, isn’t it.

Other call me a dickhead because they miss read a post. Oh well.

AwesomeO said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

hear hear.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

If you do get banned I wont miss you.

If you do get banned it will be because of your constant harassment and trolling, bullying and threatening people.

Are you off your face again newt?

Get a job son.

I’m cooking tea.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If you do get banned I wont miss you.

If you do get banned it will be because of your constant harassment and trolling, bullying and threatening people.

Are you off your face again newt?

Get a job son.

I’m cooking tea.

Work is a matter of joules. It doesn’t requie getting your hair cut.

AwesomeO said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

He will move when and how he chooses. Keep it up.

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

He’s a sensible chap who voted YES.

We’re willing to tolerate you, don’t panic.

You’ll be here enjoying a bit of a dance with the rest of us, when marriage equality legislation is successfully passed.

(Although honestly, lord knows what your kids make of your online childishness).

He didn’t vote Yes to your request, bubbles.

I think he voted NO.

I don’t think he checked his emails.

He usually respects my reports.

That’s what I don’t like about you Car, you being so easily offended by criticism on subjects where you feel some affinity, then running to the nearest person you think might come to your aid. A practice not regarded favorably in most social environments.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If you do get banned I wont miss you.

If you do get banned it will be because of your constant harassment and trolling, bullying and threatening people.

Are you off your face again newt?

Get a job son.

I’m cooking tea.

Get off your lazy arse & get a job,son.

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

The_observer said:

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

The thing is, everything you say is incoomprehensible. It isn’t anyone’s fault that you resort to abusing those with bigger IQ.

Continue on all. You’re all showing just how putrid you are.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

The thing is, everything you say is incoomprehensible. It isn’t anyone’s fault that you resort to abusing those with bigger IQ.

No one around here would accuse you of having even a mild case of IQ roughie. LOL

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

The_observer said:

He has no reason to ban me. Yout hatred & Intolerance towards Me doesn’t count.

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

It’s a forum buttercup, man up, you cop shit, everyone does, I certainly did from you and without whimpering like you have been, you went beyond the bounds of ordinary insulting rebuttal. Still, I said nothing, didn’t ask for your removal, somehow I don’t think you would do the same.

Your nuclear reponse speaks more to issues belonging to you, a lack of proportion for one and any sensible idea of decency.

The_observer said:

Continue on all. You’re all showing just how putrid you are.

This doesn’t need to be happening. You don’t need to start threads like this and keep them running.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

The thing is, everything you say is incoomprehensible. It isn’t anyone’s fault that you resort to abusing those with bigger IQ.

No one around here would accuse you of having even a mild case of IQ roughie. LOL

Again, you cannot possibly be aware of what others think or may say.

Im hoping cb will pull the plug on this entire forum.

Wouldn’t think its worth any effort.

Boy, wouldn’t many here shit themselves

AwesomeO said:

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

He has a reason to ban you all right, what you said to me was well well beyond the bounds of ordinary forum argument. Luckily for you I didn’t register a protest, I actually take the principles of free speech pretty seriously, even if it allows dickheads like you to say the most offensive things.

You attacked me A. Because you read a post wrong. When i pointed this out to you, twice, you continued insulting me. I’ve never been rude to you till that time. So take the blame & fuck off pedophile.

It’s a forum buttercup, man up, you cop shit, everyone does, I certainly did from you and without whimpering like you have been, you went beyond the bounds of ordinary insulting rebuttal. Still, I said nothing, didn’t ask for your removal, somehow I don’t think you would do the same.

Your nuclear reponse speaks more to issues belonging to you, a lack of proportion for one and any sensible idea of decency.

Takr your own advise petal.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Continue on all. You’re all showing just how putrid you are.

This doesn’t need to be happening. You don’t need to start threads like this and keep them running.

Its you lot misbehaving

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The thing is, everything you say is incoomprehensible. It isn’t anyone’s fault that you resort to abusing those with bigger IQ.

No one around here would accuse you of having even a mild case of IQ roughie. LOL

Again, you cannot possibly be aware of what others think or may say.

Oh yes i can, & do.

The_observer said:

Im hoping cb will pull the plug on this entire forum.

You’re such a hypocrite. Demands the right to speak out but secretly wants all opposition debate shut down.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Continue on all. You’re all showing just how putrid you are.

This doesn’t need to be happening. You don’t need to start threads like this and keep them running.

Its you lot misbehaving

Have it your own way. I’m busy rooting out bad seeds and adding you to the list won’t be any effort.

I hope you get banned observer.

I wont miss your constant insults.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

No one around here would accuse you of having even a mild case of IQ roughie. LOL

Again, you cannot possibly be aware of what others think or may say.

Oh yes i can, & do.

Yopu’ll need to add some references or you won’t make the interview.

I’m thinking the observer is Tony Abbott.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’m thinking the observer is Tony Abbott.

He’s no Rhodes Scholar.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I hope you get banned observer.

I wont miss your constant insults.

Get a job and do something useful for a change.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I hope you get banned observer.

I wont miss your constant insults.

Get a job and do something useful for a change.

Now. You seem to be able to be in here all day and night. What is the job you do other than stir up shyte?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’m thinking the observer is Tony Abbott.

He’s no Rhodes Scholar.

Very poor at Observation

Very poor at being progressive.

Unable to see things clearly.

He remembers the first time he met her
He remembered the first thing she said
He remembered the first time he held her
And the night that she came to his bed.

He remembers her sweet way of sayin’
Honey has something gone wrong
He remembered the fun and the teasin’
And the reason he wrote her this song.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

They would walk down the street in the evening
And for years I would see them go by
And their love that was more than the clothes that they wore
Could be seen in the gleam in their eyes.

As a kid they would take me for candy
And I’d love to go taggin’ along
We’d hold hands while we walked the corner
And the old man would sing her this song.

I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

Now he walks down the street in the evening
And he stops by the old candy store
And I somehow believe he’s believin’
He’s holdin’ her hand like before.

For he feels all her love walkin’ with him
And he smiles at the things she might say
Then the old man walks up to the hill top
And gives her a daisy a day.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away…

The_observer said:

He remembers the first time he met her
He remembered the first thing she said
He remembered the first time he held her
And the night that she came to his bed.

He remembers her sweet way of sayin’
Honey has something gone wrong
He remembered the fun and the teasin’
And the reason he wrote her this song.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

They would walk down the street in the evening
And for years I would see them go by
And their love that was more than the clothes that they wore
Could be seen in the gleam in their eyes.

As a kid they would take me for candy
And I’d love to go taggin’ along
We’d hold hands while we walked the corner
And the old man would sing her this song.

I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

Now he walks down the street in the evening
And he stops by the old candy store
And I somehow believe he’s believin’
He’s holdin’ her hand like before.

For he feels all her love walkin’ with him
And he smiles at the things she might say
Then the old man walks up to the hill top
And gives her a daisy a day.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away…

A sad song for some sad angry hate speech holidayers.

:)

The_observer said:

Im hoping cb will pull the plug on this entire forum.

Wouldn’t think its worth any effort.

Boy, wouldn’t many here shit themselves

I know cb88 is much wiser than that.

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

He remembers the first time he met her
He remembered the first thing she said
He remembered the first time he held her
And the night that she came to his bed.

He remembers her sweet way of sayin’
Honey has something gone wrong
He remembered the fun and the teasin’
And the reason he wrote her this song.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

They would walk down the street in the evening
And for years I would see them go by
And their love that was more than the clothes that they wore
Could be seen in the gleam in their eyes.

As a kid they would take me for candy
And I’d love to go taggin’ along
We’d hold hands while we walked the corner
And the old man would sing her this song.

I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away.

Now he walks down the street in the evening
And he stops by the old candy store
And I somehow believe he’s believin’
He’s holdin’ her hand like before.

For he feels all her love walkin’ with him
And he smiles at the things she might say
Then the old man walks up to the hill top
And gives her a daisy a day.

Chorus:
I’ll give you a daisy a day dear
I’ll give you a daisy a day
I’ll love you until the rivers run still
And the four winds we know blow away…

A sad song for some sad angry hate speech holidayers.

:)

You live in your own space. As any else will do.

The_observer said:

Im hoping cb will pull the plug on this entire forum.

Wouldn’t think its worth any effort.

Boy, wouldn’t many here shit themselves

buffy said:

The_observer said:

Im hoping cb will pull the plug on this entire forum.

Wouldn’t think its worth any effort.

Boy, wouldn’t many here shit themselves

I know cb88 is much wiser than that.

It doesn’t take a huge IQ level. Even the observer is playing on this very thing.

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

What a strange thing to say.

It’s all complete crap.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

What a strange thing to say.

It’s all complete crap.

As well I am sure that you will explain your comment in a comprehensible manner.

The social justice warrior and endless scream from fringe groups is the end point of an old soviet psyc op from the cold war. The whole point of Psych Op X was to dismantle natural social cohesion within western civilization and replace it with chaos to allow the soviets to ride in unchallenged in their tanks as everyone was running around in gender X tutus, shouting about their rights.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Even if that’s all true, so what, society and values change constantly and some out-dated values are no longer acceptable.
The anti gay brigade pretend its about protecting what is held dear but it’s not its just bigotry.

What a strange thing to say.

It’s all complete crap.

As well I am sure that you will explain your comment in a comprehensible manner.

OK, but to save time, can you let me know which bits are not complete crap, so I can focus on them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a strange thing to say.

It’s all complete crap.

As well I am sure that you will explain your comment in a comprehensible manner.

OK, but to save time, can you let me know which bits are not complete crap, so I can focus on them.

:) I’m with you I simply wanted to hear it spoken aloud.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

As well I am sure that you will explain your comment in a comprehensible manner.

OK, but to save time, can you let me know which bits are not complete crap, so I can focus on them.

:) I’m with you I simply wanted to hear it spoken aloud.

LOL,

“oh, i have no clue what you are trying to say Rev, but whatever it is, i agree 100% with you. Woof woof, i like Rev cause he’s so big and strong and I’m so puny “

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but to save time, can you let me know which bits are not complete crap, so I can focus on them.

:) I’m with you I simply wanted to hear it spoken aloud.

LOL,

“oh, i have no clue what you are trying to say Rev, but whatever it is, i agree 100% with you. Woof woof, i like Rev cause he’s so big and strong and I’m so puny “

Wow! I’ve been on this forum since the old Dr Karl days but dont visit very much (sometimes lurk to see whats being discussed)
Haven’t seen vitriol and trolling on this scale for years.
Who the hell is this observer goober?
Whats your god bothering agenda mate? FFS

.

gaghalfrunt said:

Wow! I’ve been on this forum since the old Dr Karl days but dont visit very much (sometimes lurk to see whats being discussed)
Haven’t seen vitriol and trolling on this scale for years.
Who the hell is this observer goober?
Whats your god bothering agenda mate? FFS

.

Observer could be Mad Monk himself.

dunno

Observer has all the hallmarks of a troll.

Trolls have these “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

Someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation.

Sometimes, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved.

Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

I wouldnt worry about it

Thanks to cultural diversity its doubtful if the hindus, muslims or buddhists will vote YES.

The NO vote camp is most likely tearing open other peoples letters in the same way as the YES voters have gleefully been announcing on social media.

For most people its been a non event.

When labor gets in we’ll have another vote and another until the right result is achieved.

wookiemeister said:

I wouldnt worry about it

Thanks to cultural diversity its doubtful if the hindus, muslims or buddhists will vote YES.

The NO vote camp is most likely tearing open other peoples letters in the same way as the YES voters have gleefully been announcing on social media.

For most people its been a non event.

When labor gets in we’ll have another vote and another until the right result is achieved.

Maybe the religious politicians are Trolling everybody

Horrible people.

Tau.Neutrino said:

wookiemeister said:

I wouldnt worry about it

Thanks to cultural diversity its doubtful if the hindus, muslims or buddhists will vote YES.

The NO vote camp is most likely tearing open other peoples letters in the same way as the YES voters have gleefully been announcing on social media.

For most people its been a non event.

When labor gets in we’ll have another vote and another until the right result is achieved.

Maybe the religious politicians are Trolling everybody

Horrible people.

I don’t watch mainstream media so i’d have no idea with what they are doing