Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

Woodie said:

Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

Oh, I can hardly wait.

Don’t be daft, Nigel. Yes will shit it in and you and I both no it. The better question is one that Party Pants raised a week or so ago.

Will it be an absolute majority?

I’d like to think so and am hoping for the same.

I hope so.

Woodie, whatever the result, you are loved, valuable and awesome 😘😘😘 never forget your value.

Woodie said:

Should I sleep well tonight?

Yes. But even if you don’t the results are published till 10am your time so you can sleep in.

Divine Angel said:

I hope so.

Woodie, whatever the result, you are loved, valuable and awesome 😘😘😘 never forget your value.

Jaysus, gag me with a spoon as Moon Zappa famously stated.

party_pants said:

Woodie said:

Should I sleep well tonight?

Yes. But even if you don’t the results are published till 10am your time so you can sleep in.

Hop the border, we get the results at 9am.

Yes. It will be yes.

Whether there is a parliament to do something with it is another question.

sibeen said:

Woodie said:

Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

Oh, I can hardly wait.

Don’t be daft, Nigel. Yes will shit it in and you and I both no it. The better question is one that Party Pants raised a week or so ago.

Will it be an absolute majority?

I’d like to think so and am hoping for the same.

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

The naysayers will not accept it.

Who do they think they are?

Woodie said:

Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

-

YES

Woodie said:

sibeen said:

Woodie said:

Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

Oh, I can hardly wait.

Don’t be daft, Nigel. Yes will shit it in and you and I both no it. The better question is one that Party Pants raised a week or so ago.

Will it be an absolute majority?

I’d like to think so and am hoping for the same.

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

I reckon it’ll get up and quickly.

Woodie said:

sibeen said:

Woodie said:

Will the result be “YES” or “NO” for marriage equality when announced tomorrow?

Should I sleep well tonight?

Oh, I can hardly wait.

Don’t be daft, Nigel. Yes will shit it in and you and I both no it. The better question is one that Party Pants raised a week or so ago.

Will it be an absolute majority?

I’d like to think so and am hoping for the same.

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

Now I don’t like to be crude, as most of you here would be well aware, but the naysayers can GO AND GET FUCKED.

I apologise to any kiddies watching this channnel.

AwesomeO said:

Woodie said:

sibeen said:

Oh, I can hardly wait.

Don’t be daft, Nigel. Yes will shit it in and you and I both no it. The better question is one that Party Pants raised a week or so ago.

Will it be an absolute majority?

I’d like to think so and am hoping for the same.

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

I reckon it’ll get up and quickly.

—

I reckon it’s Turnbull’s ace to get back in the game.

Divine Angel said:

I hope so.

Woodie, whatever the result, you are loved, valuable and awesome 😘😘😘 never forget your value.

Thanks, Ms Angel. Much appreciated. :) One major problem with this “vote” that was never wanted. Even if it is as much as 60% yaysayers. That means 3 out of 5 people I pass on the street do not approve of gay people. Just point to 3 out of 5 houses in your street, and have a think about it, and what the occupants now statistically think. What was sorta hidden and unknown, is now legitimised and counted.

We all surround ourselves with people etc that accept us.. Everyone does. Along political and religious views, so we can get a sense that everyone thinks that same as we do.

sarahs mum said:

Yes. It will be yes.

Whether there is a parliament to do something with it is another question.

Ditto. Two weeks of sittings left this year.

Many of my LGBTIQ friends are experiencing severe mental health issues over this stupid vote. I just want to make sure you’re ok, woodie.

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

Woodie said:

Should I sleep well tonight?

Yes. But even if you don’t the results are published till 10am your time so you can sleep in.

Hop the border, we get the results at 9am.

Yeah but but it is 10 AM here by then.

sarahs mum said:

The naysayers will not accept it.

Who do they think they are?

They’re the ones that think they’re gunna write the legislation for it.

Woodie said:

Divine Angel said:

I hope so.

Woodie, whatever the result, you are loved, valuable and awesome 😘😘😘 never forget your value.

Thanks, Ms Angel. Much appreciated. :) One major problem with this “vote” that was never wanted. Even if it is as much as 60% yaysayers. That means 3 out of 5 people I pass on the street do not approve of gay people. Just point to 3 out of 5 houses in your street, and have a think about it, and what the occupants now statistically think. What was sorta hidden and unknown, is now legitimised and counted.

We all surround ourselves with people etc that accept us.. Everyone does. Along political and religious views, so we can get a sense that everyone thinks that same as we do.

It means no such thing! Why you jump to such ridiculous conclusions is beyond me.

tauto said:

AwesomeO said:

Woodie said:

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

I reckon it’ll get up and quickly.

—

I reckon it’s Turnbull’s ace to get back in the game.

I do think a strong YES vote will see the end of Tony Abbott. Turnbull hedged his bets.

Divine Angel said:

Many of my LGBTIQ friends are experiencing severe mental health issues over this stupid vote. I just want to make sure you’re ok, woodie.

I’ve had my moments.

Woodie said:

Divine Angel said:

Many of my LGBTIQ friends are experiencing severe mental health issues over this stupid vote. I just want to make sure you’re ok, woodie.

I’ve had my moments.

She’ll be apples, mate.

:)

Woodie said:

tauto said:

AwesomeO said:

I reckon it’ll get up and quickly.

—

I reckon it’s Turnbull’s ace to get back in the game.

I do think a strong YES vote will see the end of Tony Abbott. Turnbull hedged his bets.

—

At least Tony will have a daughter and sister to ease his defeats, again.

tauto said:

AwesomeO said:

Woodie said:

I’m not convinced, Beeny Boy. Or P’raps I’ve been reading too much Facebook. Anyway, it’s not over yet. Even if it is “yes” , the naysayers will still lock it up in unacceptable “protections”. Not done before Christmas as eeerrr….ummm….. promised. I see a resurgence of the word “fillibuster”. The naysayers will not accept it.

I reckon it’ll get up and quickly.

—

I reckon it’s Turnbull’s ace to get back in the game.

It is about all he’s got left. He needs to punt the conservatives into a dark corner and start leading the party and the government. He needs to put it on the conservatives to STFU and grudgingly go along or quit the party. There is nothing to be gained for him by trying to appease them.

if I were PM this wouldn’t even be an issue….

party_pants said:

It is about all he’s got left. He needs to punt the conservatives into a dark corner and start leading the party and the government. He needs to put it on the conservatives to STFU and grudgingly go along or quit the party. There is nothing to be gained for him by trying to appease them.

I think Turnbull needs to keep doing exactly what he’s doing. Same with Abbott and the rest of them. In fact I insist. Keep up the good work, lads (and ladies) of the right. You’re doing a brilliant job. Let them all implode on themselves and they’ll be gone at the next election. Problem of the conservative right fixed, solved, done and dusted.

Arts said:

if I were PM this wouldn’t even be an issue….

Run for local council first.

Yours is no disgrace

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

Woodie said:

party_pants said:

It is about all he’s got left. He needs to punt the conservatives into a dark corner and start leading the party and the government. He needs to put it on the conservatives to STFU and grudgingly go along or quit the party. There is nothing to be gained for him by trying to appease them.

I think Turnbull needs to keep doing exactly what he’s doing. Same with Abbott and the rest of them. In fact I insist. Keep up the good work, lads (and ladies) of the right. You’re doing a brilliant job. Let them all implode on themselves and they’ll be gone at the next election. Problem of the conservative right fixed, solved, done and dusted.

I am hoping this will be the high water mark for conservative politics in this country for some time. A rejection of the wider conservative agenda, not just about SSM.

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The “naysayers” were very successful, Parpyone, bringing what I think was around 80% support down to around 60%, or so they’re saying now. Any political/election campaign that showed that sort of success in turning a vote around like that????

What the final result will be tomorrow? I honestly don’t know.

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not a voting yes, they are automatically a voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the guys I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much be the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The “naysayers” were very successful, Parpyone, bringing what I think was around 80% support down to around 60%, or so they’re saying now. Any political/election campaign that showed that sort of success in turning a vote around like that????

What the final result will be tomorrow? I honestly don’t know.

You are talking about a country that votes for Pauline and Barnaby and indeed Abbott, Dutton and the list goes on.

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The “naysayers” were very successful, Parpyone, bringing what I think was around 80% support down to around 60%, or so they’re saying now. Any political/election campaign that showed that sort of success in turning a vote around like that????

What the final result will be tomorrow? I honestly don’t know.

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not voting yes, they are automatically voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the gays I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

party_pants said:

I am hoping this will be the high water mark for conservative politics in this country for some time. A rejection of the wider conservative agenda, not just about SSM.

Even a small margin for YES won’t shut them up , and they’ll claim “moral victory” for a “considerable portion” or the populace, and will not let their agenda go. Needs to be a good 70%+ YES for the “wider conservative agenda” to be acquiesced.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not a voting yes, they are automatically a voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the guys I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much be the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

wtf?

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not a voting yes, they are automatically a voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the guys I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much be the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

wtf?

Just PF being his usual friendly, popular self :)

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

At least you kept your cool in the forum Woodie, whereas I swallowed a certain troll’s bait hook, line & sinker, as the cliché goes.

:-O

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not a voting yes, they are automatically a voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the guys I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much be the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

wtf?

Ask Car or better still check his bigoted comments in his many posts on the subject.

roughbarked said:

You are talking about a country that votes for Pauline and Barnaby and indeed Abbott, Dutton and the list goes on.

Exactly, Roughy. what I was pertaining to earlier. I fully realise they are out there, but I do not personally know any that do vote that way. Hence a sort of “false sense of security” so to speak. And tomorrow, I will know exactly, and statistically, what those that pass me in the street think of me.

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

And the informal count??? :)

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

The trouble with you two, is you think if people are not a voting yes, they are automatically a voting no. I did not vote no, but if you two were the guys I knew I probably would have. Homosexual people have given great gifts to humanity and the world would be very much be the poorer without them. However, you two might represent a substantial portion of the gay community, but thankfully you do not represent them all, especially those of exceptional talent and intellect. I just wonder how many no votes you both have generated by your brainless attacks and assumptions.

wtf?

Just PF being his usual friendly, popular self :)

No, you are like George Bush who said, you are either with us, or against us. Then you undermine those you perceive are against you.

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

And the informal count??? :)

No more than a few %.

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

And the informal count??? :)

No more than a few %.

The donkey vote??? :)

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

And the informal count??? :)

No more than a few %.

The donkey vote??? :)

Few if any donkeys are likely to turn up.

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

And the informal count??? :)

I doubt there will be much of an informal vote. There will, of course, those who drew a cock and balls on the ballot and then posted that in; but thankfully that sort of mindlessness doesn’t really show its face until the mandatory turn up on election day.

Approximately 78% of people had returned their vote, so if that remains the same then a Yes percentage of 64% or greater will mean an absolute majority.

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

No more than a few %.

The donkey vote??? :)

Few if any donkeys are likely to turn up.

How about yourself?

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Woodie said:

The donkey vote??? :)

Few if any donkeys are likely to turn up.

How about yourself?

Christ, you are a disgusting and annoying individual.

BTW, DO forced me to say that.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Few if any donkeys are likely to turn up.

How about yourself?

Christ, you are a disgusting and annoying individual.

BTW, DO forced me to say that.

Don’t worry, I am well aware of your association with DO, he obviously thinks you are available to do his bidding. I suppose when your interests are only sport and beer, you would be easy for him to manipulate.

Woodie said:

party_pants said:

I am hoping this will be the high water mark for conservative politics in this country for some time. A rejection of the wider conservative agenda, not just about SSM.

Even a small margin for YES won’t shut them up , and they’ll claim “moral victory” for a “considerable portion” or the populace, and will not let their agenda go. Needs to be a good 70%+ YES for the “wider conservative agenda” to be acquiesced.

For the conservatives to lose influence it needs only for the moderates to see that the conservatives represent a minority, and that they hold far more sway than their numbers warrant.

No Matter Who Wins, We Can’t Let Turnbull Take Credit For Marriage Equality

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/marriage-equality-wont-be-turnbulls-legacy/

Am going to see if snoozleberries come my way, with the attitude that tomorrow is just another day. (when it actually isn’t).

P’raps a Forum Party may be in order for tomorrow evening if things go the way I hope they will. You may have to start without me, as I’ll be incommunicado on the way to Coffs Harbour.

Woodie said:

Am going to see if snoozleberries come my way, with the attitude that tomorrow is just another day. (when it actually isn’t).

P’raps a Forum Party may be in order for tomorrow evening if things go the way I hope they will. You may have to start without me, as I’ll be incommunicado on the way to Coffs Harbour.

Nighto Woodie.

I’m going to show firm self-discipline and save any celebrations until after the house inspection on Friday.

Too much to do until then.

Bubblecar said:

No Matter Who Wins, We Can’t Let Turnbull Take Credit For Marriage Equality

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/marriage-equality-wont-be-turnbulls-legacy/

He will, though. He hedged his bets. He’ll take credit for the vote, the way it was done, the lot. YAY or NAY. “The people have spoken” will feature heavily and repeatedly. If YAY, and more so if there is a close YAY, then the scrag fight will start about concessions and protections, and he’ll let it happen.

“Thirty to 40 per cent of Australians will vote ‘no’ and I don’t want to see their rights and freedoms diminished at all.” – Senator James Paterson.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his cabinet ministers backed Senator Smith’s bill on Monday, although they suggested it would be amended in line with the will of the Parliament.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-ministers-reject-james-patersons-alternative-samesex-marriage-bill-20171113-gzk30z.html

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

No Matter Who Wins, We Can’t Let Turnbull Take Credit For Marriage Equality

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/marriage-equality-wont-be-turnbulls-legacy/

He will, though. He hedged his bets. He’ll take credit for the vote, the way it was done, the lot. YAY or NAY. “The people have spoken” will feature heavily and repeatedly. If YAY, and more so if there is a close YAY, then the scrag fight will start about concessions and protections, and he’ll let it happen.

OK, I know I’m going to be on the outer with the majority of the forum here but, who the fuck else did anything about it?

I know Labor are now claiming that they’d bring it to a binding vote for their members if they got elected. Did they do it whilst they were in power?

sibeen said:

OK, I know I’m going to be on the outer with the majority of the forum here but, who the fuck else did anything about it?

I know Labor are now claiming that they’d bring it to a binding vote for their members if they got elected. Did they do it whilst they were in power?

I fully accept that, Beeny Boy. Very disappointed when Labor had the “chance”, and didn’t. Not even put to a parliamentary vote, because it would not have got up. They’ve now changed their mind. Problem is political parties cop it when they don’t change, and then cop it when they do.

If these conservatives belive in God, then they should realise that God asks of them to love thine neighbour, to show compassion.

roughbarked said:

If these conservatives belive in God, then they should realise that God asks of them to love thine neighbour, to show compassion.

I don’t care. It was a money wasting, non-binding survey not a referendum.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

If these conservatives belive in God, then they should realise that God asks of them to love thine neighbour, to show compassion.

I don’t care. It was a money wasting, non-binding survey not a referendum.

All true. A bullshit plan by a bullshit mob of power mongers.

Not long now.

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/tv/detail.php?id=18698915&fta=1&fox=0

roughbarked said:

If these conservatives belive in God, then they should realise that God asks of them to love thine neighbour, to show compassion.

If these conservatives believe in the Christian God, then they should realise that God tells them to kill gays.
Brett

most likely do something today. i’ll eat things. go places, and come back. act normal.

Are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet

Divine Angel said:

Are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet

Yes

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

Yes, it’s been so painful and continues to be :/

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

me too. So..we spent 100 mill to find out that one in three is an a***hole.And the most a***holes live in Blaxland.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

me too. So..we spent 100 mill to find out that one in three is an a***hole.And the most a***holes live in Blaxland.

Makes sense. I know what the people in Blaxland are like :/

Pretty conclusive. It’s 49% overall.

“Who is this ABS upstart? It is un-Australian for someone other than me to call an Australian election result, even if this one is a survey.”

Antony Green.

:)

Of 12.7 million votes, 61.6 per cent were returned in favour of same-sex marriage.

The final participation rate accounted for 79.5 per cent of eligible voters.

Mr Kalisch announced every state and territory recorded a majority Yes vote.

61.6% : 38.4%

dv will along shortly with a full statistical break down..

Arts said:

Of 12.7 million votes, 61.6 per cent were returned in favour of same-sex marriage.

The final participation rate accounted for 79.5 per cent of eligible voters.

Mr Kalisch announced every state and territory recorded a majority Yes vote.

Did I see it right?
On tv, it looked like it said 61.6 yes, 38.4 no, 0.2 unclear…
100.2%?

There were 7,817,247 votes for Yes and 4,873,987 for No. A further 36,686 votes, or 0.2 per cent, were unclear.

Every state and territory recorded a majority Yes result over 60 per cent, with the exception of New South Wales, where just 57.8 per cent voted Yes.

Out of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions, 133 recorded a majority Yes response, and 17 of the divisions recorded a majority No response.

All age groups had higher than 70 per cent participation, with older voters having a slightly higher turnout.

NSW with 57.8% yes is the State with the lowest yes percentage and the only State below 60%.

Overwhelmed with the result,*sheds a tear or two** however abhorrently disgusted at the way it got there. It ain’t over yet.

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

Mathias Corman is at it already. There will be “ solid protections for religious protections”.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

me too. So..we spent 100 mill to find out that one in three is an a***hole.And the most a***holes live in Blaxland.

Certainly know now where NOT to live.

Woodie said:

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

Mathias Corman is at it already. There will be “ solid protections for religious protections”.

I didn’t think the catholics believed in using protection…

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Arts said:

Of 12.7 million votes, 61.6 per cent were returned in favour of same-sex marriage.

The final participation rate accounted for 79.5 per cent of eligible voters.

Mr Kalisch announced every state and territory recorded a majority Yes vote.

Did I see it right?
On tv, it looked like it said 61.6 yes, 38.4 no, 0.2 unclear…
100.2%?

the .2% is statistical cutting room floor data.

Woodie said:

Overwhelmed with the result,*sheds a tear or two** however abhorrently disgusted at the way it got there. It ain’t over yet.
[/quote

Yeah, same. It was almost a non-event here in NM. I heard about it on the radio. What the LNP have done is abhorrent.

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

Arts said:

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

Better than orange dumpster fires and shitgibbons throwing crap.

Arts said:

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

My confidence was well-placed:

Bubblecar said:

Pretty sure YES will be above 60%, NO will be below 40%.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

:D Exactly!

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

well done Australia

now it’s over to the pollies to balls up the legislation…

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

can you do a rainbow one? or several of them each in a shade of a rainbow?

Damn. Shorten is being inspirational. Where did that come from?

Only now that the pollies know what the people think , will they come out in support

Sickening

ruby said:

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

75% of his electorate chose YES.

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

75% of his electorate chose YES.

80% of Turnbull’s electorate.

ruby said:

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

75% of his electorate chose YES.

80% of Turnbull’s electorate.

75% of Abbott’s electorate

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

well, now you’ve done it, people.. there’ll be rainbows and unicorns all over the place!

can you do a rainbow one? or several of them each in a shade of a rainbow?

I did a bunch of pink, purple, green, turquoise, cobalt ones. And a few sepia/golden browns. I need to buy new inks and more papers. Technically I could do rainbow ones. Hopefully twill give me some money to invest in myself.

I don’t normally swear in here, but all I can say is fuck religious protections…

58.7% of my electorate chose YES, not bad for a big fat mainly rural seat.

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

75% of his electorate chose YES.

:)

Yes.

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Fuck the Calvinists.

Woodie said:

Overwhelmed with the result,*sheds a tear or two** however abhorrently disgusted at the way it got there. It ain’t over yet.

No. That was just a formality.. now it gets interesting..

‘Stead will be a leader of the battle that lies beyond the vote, a battle to shape legislation as far as possible to safeguard the church. The revolutionary plan emerging from the mayhem of opposition to equal marriage is a historic pivot by the churches from deep hostility to cautious support for human rights law.

“I think people are becoming increasingly aware that we can’t expect the goodwill and happy compact we’ve had to this point will necessary continue into the future. Therefore we need to have some way of framing protections for religious freedom in a more permanently binding way.”

Forget equal marriage for a moment, this shift could change the nation. The big reason this country is the last in the civilised world not to have a charter of rights is passionate opposition to the idea from bishops, cardinals, Liberal leaders and News Corp columnists.

They are now cautiously talking rights.

It’s a brutally realistic shift. Politics once offered the churches their best protection. But their political capital is low. Lobbying clearly doesn’t work as well these days. Polls for years have put in doubt the claim that there’s a “silent majority” out there backing the faiths. The vote this week is shaping as the death knell of that old idea.’

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/13/hanging-on-for-dear-life-hardliners-change-tack-on-same-sex-marriage

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Poor lovies.
There, will that do?

Electorates that voted no in Vic & NSW

Calwell – Vic – Labor
Bruce – Vic – Labor
Werriwa – NSW – Labor
McMahon – NSW – Labor
Fowler – NSW – Labor
Blaxland – NSW – Labor
Banks – NSW – Liberal
Barton – NSW – Labor
Watson – NSW – Labor
Parramatta – NSW – Labor
Bennelong – NSW – Liberal
Mitchell – NSW – Liberal
Greenway – NSW – Labor
Chifley – NSW – Labor
Groom – QLD – Liberal
Maranoa – QLD- Liberal
Kennedy – QLD- Katter

Fucking conservative voters :)

Western Sydney is a bit of a shit shower for Labor.

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Why?
Is SSM going to be compulsory ?

sibeen said:

Electorates that voted no in Vic & NSW

Calwell – Vic – Labor
Bruce – Vic – Labor
Werriwa – NSW – Labor
McMahon – NSW – Labor
Fowler – NSW – Labor
Blaxland – NSW – Labor
Banks – NSW – Liberal
Barton – NSW – Labor
Watson – NSW – Labor
Parramatta – NSW – Labor
Bennelong – NSW – Liberal
Mitchell – NSW – Liberal
Greenway – NSW – Labor
Chifley – NSW – Labor
Groom – QLD – Liberal
Maranoa – QLD- Liberal
Kennedy – QLD- Katter

Fucking conservative voters :)

Western Sydney is a bit of a shit shower for Labor.

IKR… I thought for sure that Qld would be the sate with the highest no vote, but good old western sydney shows it’s largely socially conservative ethnic base

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Electorates that voted no in Vic & NSW

Calwell – Vic – Labor
Bruce – Vic – Labor
Werriwa – NSW – Labor
McMahon – NSW – Labor
Fowler – NSW – Labor
Blaxland – NSW – Labor
Banks – NSW – Liberal
Barton – NSW – Labor
Watson – NSW – Labor
Parramatta – NSW – Labor
Bennelong – NSW – Liberal
Mitchell – NSW – Liberal
Greenway – NSW – Labor
Chifley – NSW – Labor
Groom – QLD – Liberal
Maranoa – QLD- Liberal
Kennedy – QLD- Katter

Fucking conservative voters :)

Western Sydney is a bit of a shit shower for Labor.

IKR… I thought for sure that Qld would be the sate with the highest no vote, but good old western sydney shows it’s largely socially conservative ethnic base

Despite the excitement of Yes voters over a win, bureaucratically speaking, Australia is no closer to same-sex marriage. Legally, the survey counted for diddly-squat.

lol

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

Electorates that voted no in Vic & NSW

Calwell – Vic – Labor
Bruce – Vic – Labor
Werriwa – NSW – Labor
McMahon – NSW – Labor
Fowler – NSW – Labor
Blaxland – NSW – Labor
Banks – NSW – Liberal
Barton – NSW – Labor
Watson – NSW – Labor
Parramatta – NSW – Labor
Bennelong – NSW – Liberal
Mitchell – NSW – Liberal
Greenway – NSW – Labor
Chifley – NSW – Labor
Groom – QLD – Liberal
Maranoa – QLD- Liberal
Kennedy – QLD- Katter

Fucking conservative voters :)

Western Sydney is a bit of a shit shower for Labor.

IKR… I thought for sure that Qld would be the sate with the highest no vote, but good old western sydney shows it’s largely socially conservative ethnic base

Despite the excitement of Yes voters over a win, bureaucratically speaking, Australia is no closer to same-sex marriage. Legally, the survey counted for diddly-squat.

lol

I didn’t vote for diddly-squat

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

^ wot he said.

We need to start treating all people as equal. That’s the crux of it.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

IKR… I thought for sure that Qld would be the sate with the highest no vote, but good old western sydney shows it’s largely socially conservative ethnic base

Despite the excitement of Yes voters over a win, bureaucratically speaking, Australia is no closer to same-sex marriage. Legally, the survey counted for diddly-squat.

lol

I didn’t vote for diddly-squat

yes or no… everyone voted for diddly-squat

from TA facebook page…

I always said this was an issue where the Australian people wanted their say and today’s result demonstrates that seeking their views was the right thing to do.

I congratulate the “yes” campaign on their achievement. The people have spoken and, of course, the Parliament should respect the result.

I also thank the 4.7 million Australians who supported marriage between a man and a woman. Both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have pledged their support for freedom of religion.

I look forward to a parliamentary process that improves on the Dean Smith bill to implement same sex marriage with freedom of conscience for all, not just the churches.

So far, this process has been a credit to us as a nation and now needs to be completed in a way that keeps us the best country in the world.

:rollseyes:

How did your electorate vote?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636

kii said:

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

61% which I thought would be higher… now let’s see what comes of it

me too. So..we spent 100 mill to find out that one in three is an a***hole.And the most a***holes live in Blaxland.

Makes sense. I know what the people in Blaxland are like :/

Electorate Blaxland isn’t Blaxland, Blue Mts. Macquarie, I think?

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

it’s the only logical outcome

Seems like the No vote won in Labor held seats with a big Muslim population in western Sydney.

sarahs mum said:

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Fuck the Calvinists.

A point just raised….. They have results by electorate. Should these results (two party preferred) be reflected at a Federal Election, it would results in a 100+ seat majority.

Peak Warming Man said:

Seems like the No vote won in Labor held seats with a big Muslim population in western Sydney.

dirty imigants.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

By definition they must.

Of course there are many who claim to support religious freedom who do not.

It’s a bit strange that no-one ever seems to challenge them on this.

Peak Warming Man said:

Seems like the No vote won in Labor held seats with a big Muslim population in western Sydney.

Amongst others.

Not really surprising, is it?

That’s one reason why we should take the religious freedom question seriously, and not let it get hi-jacked by a few traditionalist Christians.

Woodie said:

sarahs mum said:

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

Fuck the Calvinists.

A point just raised….. They have results by electorate. Should these results (two party preferred) be reflected at a Federal Election, it would results in a 100+ seat majority.

I don’t think the Libs are planning on a majority that large.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

By definition they must.

Of course there are many who claim to support religious freedom who do not.

It’s a bit strange that no-one ever seems to challenge them on this.

I remember on JJJ talkback many years ago they did a story on this and how hard it was for people (especially women) deciding to no longer be religious and the persecution and social isolation they faced from family for doing so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

Ya. In fact could be a huge own goal for rAbbott, bAbetz et al.

wow, the majority of SA only had 53% yes..

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Seems like the No vote won in Labor held seats with a big Muslim population in western Sydney.

Amongst others.

Not really surprising, is it?

That’s one reason why we should take the religious freedom question seriously, and not let it get hi-jacked by a few traditionalist Christians.

I wonder what cultures have accepted gay people from the get go and not seen it as a problem, seems like many are against it, its not just some Western bias that’s for sure.

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

^ wot he said.

We need to start treating all people as equal. That’s the crux of it.

Well not conservatives, right leaners or religious people obviously. You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh?

I’m looking forward to boycotting businesses who won’t serve gays. 🌈

Except.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

Both history and Current Events teach us what happens when religious bodies have control over law

Perhaps if people think god is against need to publically yell out “God if you are against gay marriage give us a sign and I don’t mean appearing in a smudge or the wall or a burrito sign, something really convincing say like making it rain everytime gay people get married”

AwesomeO said:

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

^ wot he said.

We need to start treating all people as equal. That’s the crux of it.

Well not conservatives, right leaners or religious people obviously. You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh?

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Divine Angel said:

^ wot he said.

We need to start treating all people as equal. That’s the crux of it.

Well not conservatives, right leaners or religious people obviously. You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh?

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Well not conservatives, right leaners or religious people obviously. You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh?

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

Grok means understand.

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

I understand that.

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

From Stranger in a Strange Land, a hippie tome up there with a Zen and the Art.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

OK, so apparently I didn’t grok grok in fullness.

I still have no idea what AO is on about though.

AwesomeO said:

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

From Stranger in a Strange Land, a hippie tome up there with a Zen and the Art.

I thought he was a character in the BC comics.

Mayim Bialik’s website is groknation

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

Divine Angel said:

Grok means understand.

From Stranger in a Strange Land, a hippie tome up there with a Zen and the Art.

I thought he was a character in the BC comics.

The one in the cell?

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

From Stranger in a Strange Land, a hippie tome up there with a Zen and the Art.

I thought he was a character in the BC comics.

The one in the cell?

No that’s Spook from the Wizard of Id.
Spook is a legend.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

From Stranger in a Strange Land, a hippie tome up there with a Zen and the Art.

I thought he was a character in the BC comics.

The one in the cell?

That’s Spook from The Wizard of Id.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

You must be new to the forum. I was responding to DAs post about treating people equally and I noted satirically that doesn’t include conservatives, right leaners or religious folk.

I am sure you knew that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

I don’t know what you mean by that.

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

:D

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what you mean by that.

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

You must be new to the forum. I was responding to DAs post about treating people equally and I noted satirically that doesn’t include conservatives, right leaners or religious folk.

I am sure you knew that.

Well obviously I knew you were responding to DA’s post, since it was a response to DA’s post.

I still don’t have a clue what your response to my post was supposed to mean.

I guess it was just a random insult, so we’ll leave it at that.

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what you mean by that.

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

:D

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Well not conservatives, right leaners or religious people obviously. You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh?

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

My response to your post, hardly insulting. I wasn’t talking about legislation as you tried to introduce subsequently, I actually said put shit on, which is why I put it in quotes in response to yours.

Tamb said:

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean it looks like that is suggesting that conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney get more shit put on them than other people, but that’s obviously crap, so he must mean something else, so I’m wondering what it is.

:D

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

AwesomeO said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you find some legislation that discriminates against conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney, let us know.

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

My response to your post, hardly insulting. I wasn’t talking about legislation as you tried to introduce subsequently, I actually said put shit on, which is why I put it in quotes in response to yours.

But you actually said “allowed to put shit on”, and what governs what is allowed is known as “legislation”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

kii said:

:D

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

IMO they are somewhat to the left of Kim Jong-un

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

kii said:

:D

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

For your own ends you are trying to torture a perfectly understandable riposte to a post into something it wasn’t and for extra points thrpwing in I insulted you along the way.

Maybe you should go back and reread in sequence and in context and your confusion might resolve itself. Or not.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

IMO they are somewhat to the left of Kim Jong-un

I can only think they must have a different ABC where you live.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

AwesomeO said:

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

My response to your post, hardly insulting. I wasn’t talking about legislation as you tried to introduce subsequently, I actually said put shit on, which is why I put it in quotes in response to yours.

But you actually said “allowed to put shit on”, and what governs what is allowed is known as “legislation”.

No I didn’t, you introduced legislation for your own ends. You knew my point, you just don’t like it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

AwesomeO said:

When you grok “put shit on” let me know.

My response to your post, hardly insulting. I wasn’t talking about legislation as you tried to introduce subsequently, I actually said put shit on, which is why I put it in quotes in response to yours.

But you actually said “allowed to put shit on”, and what governs what is allowed is known as “legislation”.

No I didn’t, you introduced legislation for your own ends. You knew my point, you just don’t like it.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

For your own ends you are trying to torture a perfectly understandable riposte to a post into something it wasn’t and for extra points thrpwing in I insulted you along the way.

Maybe you should go back and reread in sequence and in context and your confusion might resolve itself. Or not.

Maybe you should.

I don’t really understand how this result reflects politics. Ceptin’ we do have an upcoming state election here. And everyone knows Eric runs the show. The best protest vote against Eric is to vote out the Libs. But the Libs are polling badly anyway. We’ll see what happens when it happens.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

My response to your post, hardly insulting. I wasn’t talking about legislation as you tried to introduce subsequently, I actually said put shit on, which is why I put it in quotes in response to yours.

But you actually said “allowed to put shit on”, and what governs what is allowed is known as “legislation”.

No I didn’t, you introduced legislation for your own ends. You knew my point, you just don’t like it.

What do yo mean “no I didn’t”?

Here’s what you said:

“You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh? “

I can only guess what your point is from what you said.

If you actually meant something else, please tell us what it was, without the insults.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

For your own ends you are trying to torture a perfectly understandable riposte to a post into something it wasn’t and for extra points thrpwing in I insulted you along the way.

Maybe you should go back and reread in sequence and in context and your confusion might resolve itself. Or not.

Maybe you should.

I ain’t the one who is confused and been expressing confusion. I have tried to explain it to you. I know what I wrote and what I meant. You are the one trying all different angles to change a simple forum riposte into something it wasn’t and implying I insulted you along the way.

AwesomeO said:

I have tried to explain it to you.

Could you re-post that one please.

I seem to have not received it here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But you actually said “allowed to put shit on”, and what governs what is allowed is known as “legislation”.

No I didn’t, you introduced legislation for your own ends. You knew my point, you just don’t like it.

What do yo mean “no I didn’t”?

Here’s what you said:

“You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh? “

I can only guess what your point is from what you said.

If you actually meant something else, please tell us what it was, without the insults.

Nicely worded, I like the “us” particularly, and again but this time confirming as read, multiple insults.

You can keep niggling trying for a gotcha, I posted a simple forum riposte, perfectly understandable. If you want to play at being wilfully ignorant and implying all sorts of stuff it wasn’t and going for I insulted you gold then that is down to you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

I have tried to explain it to you.

Could you re-post that one please.

I seem to have not received it here.

Heheh, you can read, scroll back to the beginning of this saga that you have embarked on. Though if you like, I will post mine if you can find these multiple insults of mine you have implied and post them.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

No I didn’t, you introduced legislation for your own ends. You knew my point, you just don’t like it.

What do yo mean “no I didn’t”?

Here’s what you said:

“You should still be allowed to put shit on them … exept Muslims. Western Sydney eh? “

I can only guess what your point is from what you said.

If you actually meant something else, please tell us what it was, without the insults.

Nicely worded, I like the “us” particularly, and again but this time confirming as read, multiple insults.

You can keep niggling trying for a gotcha, I posted a simple forum riposte, perfectly understandable. If you want to play at being wilfully ignorant and implying all sorts of stuff it wasn’t and going for I insulted you gold then that is down to you.

Sounds like you are doing the same shit you always do.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

kii said:

:D

Maybe he was thinking of ABC programming.

But ABC programming religiously does not put shit on conservatives, right leaners and/or religious people other than Muslims in Western Sydney.

It does put shit on extreme right wingers to some extent, but the main group they regularly put shit on is atheists.

Do atheists care if they get shit put on them, I find it a compliment as I know we’ve gotten to people.

My sister says there’s a party going at the Cascade brewery, just around the corner from her. Rodney Croome lives in her street.

Well, in a house, but in her street :)

Bubblecar said:

My sister says there’s a party going at the Cascade brewery, just around the corner from her. Rodney Croome lives in her street.

Well, in a house, but in her street :)

He has good reason to party on.

Well done, Turnbull!

So many tears of joy and relief from psephologists, who were pretty much on the money. The so-called Shy Tory effect didn’t queer the results this time.

Here are the electorates that went mostly No.

Blaxland 73.95% New South Wales
Watson 69.64% New South Wales
McMahon 64.93% New South Wales
Werriwa 63.74% New South Wales
Fowler 63.66% New South Wales
Parramatta 61.62% 47,038 New South Wales
Chifley 58.69% New South Wales
Calwell 56.84% Victoria
Barton 56.36% New South Wales
Maranoa 56.09% Queensland
Banks 55.12% New South Wales
Greenway 53.64% New South Wales
Kennedy 53.26% Queensland
Bruce 53.09% Victoria
Mitchell 50.90% New South Wales
Groom 50.84% Queensland
Bennelong 50.16% New South Wales

dv said:

Here are the electorates that went mostly No.

Blaxland 73.95% New South Wales
Watson 69.64% New South Wales
McMahon 64.93% New South Wales
Werriwa 63.74% New South Wales
Fowler 63.66% New South Wales
Parramatta 61.62% 47,038 New South Wales
Chifley 58.69% New South Wales
Calwell 56.84% Victoria
Barton 56.36% New South Wales
Maranoa 56.09% Queensland
Banks 55.12% New South Wales
Greenway 53.64% New South Wales
Kennedy 53.26% Queensland
Bruce 53.09% Victoria
Mitchell 50.90% New South Wales
Groom 50.84% Queensland
Bennelong 50.16% New South Wales

I make that 11 Labor seats, 3 Lib, 1 Katter and Bennelong in chaos.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if people who support religious freedom include freedom from religion as a religious freedom

By definition they must.

Of course there are many who claim to support religious freedom who do not.

It’s a bit strange that no-one ever seems to challenge them on this.

I remember on JJJ talkback many years ago they did a story on this and how hard it was for people (especially women) deciding to no longer be religious and the persecution and social isolation they faced from family for doing so.

Religious people love to punish when they can.

There’s something about religion and punishment, its a specific learned behavior.

diddly-squat said:

I don’t normally swear in here, but all I can say is fuck religious protections…

Yeah,

so what will happen with this religious freedom now?

I suppose they will still be free to discriminate in their church and will still be allowed to keep out the gays.

but religious people harassing gays or gay sympathizers in public will be not allowed.

Something like that?

Divine Angel said:

I’m looking forward to boycotting businesses who won’t serve gays. 🌈

Yeah that will be fun wont it AwesomeO.

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m looking forward to boycotting businesses who won’t serve gays. 🌈

Yeah that will be fun wont it AwesomeO.

:)

I think for a business to discriminate against gays to be a very silly thing to do. It’s gonna be a hell of a growth industry, gay weddings.

Plus I think you have the wrong idea about me, you can look back many many years on the forum and I supported gay marriage, it might not be in words that you would like, it was along the lines of let them marry, who gives a shit. Pointing out cognitive dissonance does not mean you support the alternative.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

>>>Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

They are now the silent minority.

ruby said:

YES!
Big cheers, and hugs and happy dances.

I’m looking for a picture of Tony Abbott’s reaction.

Probably something like this

Woodie said:

Eric Abetz is now at it too. “Need to consider the NO voters concerns too in all of this”.

We will consider your religious freedom to harass other people to be harassment,

No voters told “No harassment”

No voters also told to FUCK OFF.

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think I agree that this survey was a total waste of money.

Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

Now we just need to work on them claiming that they are in any way supporting “religious freedom” when they attack the rights of other people who do not share their interpretation of a particular religion.

>>>Now the ant-gays can’t say they are speaking for the “silent majority”.

They are now the silent minority.

Or they would be, if they’d shut up for a few minutes

The no voters are still human rights abusers.

I’m not sure I’d want to eat a cake that was being baked for me under legal duress.

dv said:

I’m not sure I’d want to eat a cake that was being baked for me under legal duress.

Damn straight.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

kii said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

My heart goes out to him.

I had thought that the Dean Smith bill had already passed the senate

“Some conservatives are angry over the deal to introduce Dean Smith’s bill into the Senate, claiming they were “blindsided” by process. But at this stage they don’t have the numbers to disrupt the plan”

ROFL

Dickheads.

diddly-squat said:

I had thought that the Dean Smith bill had already passed the senate

Not to my knowledge but I don’t know everything.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The no voters are still human rights abusers.

I think a lot of religious people are human rights abusers, most religious people are not fanatic abusers, but law abiding citizens.

Some take it further than others.

Whether the abuse is 1 out of ten or ten out of ten, human rights abuse is still human rights abuse.

Still a bad choice when the alternative is minding your own business.

kii said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

Bernardi is a human rights abuser

My heart does not go out to him, in fact bernardi can FUCK OFF

dv said:

kii said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

My heart goes out to him.

Mine doesn’t.

He can stick his head up his bum and cry as loud as he likes.

sibeen said:

“Some conservatives are angry over the deal to introduce Dean Smith’s bill into the Senate, claiming they were “blindsided” by process. But at this stage they don’t have the numbers to disrupt the plan”

ROFL

Dickheads.

only if by blindsided they mean have had three months notice

Tau.Neutrino said:

kii said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

Bernardi is a human rights abuser

My heart does not go out to him, in fact bernardi can FUCK OFF

Exactly.

Tau.Neutrino said:

kii said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Politics live: Same-sex marriage to be legalised ‘as soon as possible’ after Yes vote

Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage is likely to be introduced this afternoon after the postal survey returned a 62 per cent Yes vote.

more…

Bernardi looks really angry.

Bernardi is a human rights abuser

My heart does not go out to him, in fact bernardi can FUCK OFF

not sure you’d make that one stick in The Hague

I tell you James Paterson looks very youthful… has been drinking unicorn blood or something??

diddly-squat said:

I tell you James Paterson looks very youthful… has been drinking unicorn blood or something??

He’s quite young.

roffle… here is Paterson’s statement.. (funny how everyone is suddenly a small “l” liberal)

I am very pleased with the strong “Yes” result today. At last, same sex couples will be able to get married, as I have long advocated.

The Parliament must now quickly pass a bill to legalise same sex marriage. It is clear the majority of senators believe my colleague Senator Dean Smith’s Bill is where we should start.

I will now work constructively with my parliamentary colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to ensure that the strongest possible protections for the freedoms of all Australians are enshrined in the final legislation.

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

kii said:

Bernardi looks really angry.

Bernardi is a human rights abuser

My heart does not go out to him, in fact bernardi can FUCK OFF

not sure you’d make that one stick in The Hague

Is religious hatred towards gays is close to Nazi hatred?

The people who ended up in a Hague “Hated” and persecuted other people.

Yes the hatred is different but not much different, when they take their hatred to the next level, is becomes persecution, the next level after that is then Murder.

Hatred is still Hatred.

diddly-squat said:

roffle… here is Paterson’s statement.. (funny how everyone is suddenly a small “l” liberal)

I am very pleased with the strong “Yes” result today. At last, same sex couples will be able to get married, as I have long advocated.

The Parliament must now quickly pass a bill to legalise same sex marriage. It is clear the majority of senators believe my colleague Senator Dean Smith’s Bill is where we should start.

I will now work constructively with my parliamentary colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to ensure that the strongest possible protections for the freedoms of all Australians are enshrined in the final legislation.

He’s a slimy critter.

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bernardi is a human rights abuser

My heart does not go out to him, in fact bernardi can FUCK OFF

not sure you’d make that one stick in The Hague

Is religious hatred towards gays is close to Nazi hatred?

The people who ended up in a Hague “Hated” and persecuted other people.

Yes the hatred is different but not much different, when they take their hatred to the next level, is becomes persecution, the next level after that is then Murder.

Hatred is still Hatred.

I think you probably need to take a bex and have a good lie down

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

not sure you’d make that one stick in The Hague

Is religious hatred towards gays is close to Nazi hatred?

The people who ended up in a Hague “Hated” and persecuted other people.

Yes the hatred is different but not much different, when they take their hatred to the next level, is becomes persecution, the next level after that is then Murder.

Hatred is still Hatred.

I think you probably need to take a bex and have a good lie down

Don’t forget the cup of tea.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is religious hatred towards gays is close to Nazi hatred?

The people who ended up in a Hague “Hated” and persecuted other people.

Yes the hatred is different but not much different, when they take their hatred to the next level, is becomes persecution, the next level after that is then Murder.

Hatred is still Hatred.

I think you probably need to take a bex and have a good lie down

Don’t forget the cup of tea.

I’d suggest just cutting straight to the chase

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

I think you probably need to take a bex and have a good lie down

Don’t forget the cup of tea.

I’d suggest just cutting straight to the chase

Perhaps wise in this case :)

I wont be burning any churches down.

I do think some religious fanatics deserve a good kick up the arse for their unnecessary hatred towards people born that way.

In the middle ages the sun stopped going around the Earth thanks to a SCIENCE discovery that Earth was no longer the center of the Universe.

In the 21 century gays stopped being sinners due to a SCIENCE discovery that sexual diversity is genetic.

I also think humanity is better off without religion. Religion does make people into poor thinkers and religion does make people bad at natural observation.

I think its one reason why its taken so long. anyway, its good the issue is over now.

Maybe now they can tackle domestic violence, aboriginal rights, equal pay for women, decriminalizing substance use and other issues.

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

not sure you’d make that one stick in The Hague

Is religious hatred towards gays is close to Nazi hatred?

The people who ended up in a Hague “Hated” and persecuted other people.

Yes the hatred is different but not much different, when they take their hatred to the next level, is becomes persecution, the next level after that is then Murder.

Hatred is still Hatred.

I think you probably need to take a bex and have a good lie down

Did they say that at the Hague? I suppose a lot of Nazis had headaches when they realized they would be hanged for human rights abuse.

Tau.Neutrino said:

In the middle ages the sun stopped going around the Earth thanks to a SCIENCE discovery that Earth was no longer the center of the Universe.

In the 21 century gays stopped being sinners due to a SCIENCE discovery that sexual diversity is genetic.

Neither of those is true.

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

In the middle ages the sun stopped going around the Earth thanks to a SCIENCE discovery that Earth was no longer the center of the Universe.

In the 21 century gays stopped being sinners due to a SCIENCE discovery that sexual diversity is genetic.

Neither of those is true.

That that to the astronomers that were persecuted by the inquisitions.

That that to the genetic researchers who have been validated.

Fed up with deniers.

Bad.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

if I were PM this wouldn’t even be an issue….

Run for local council first.

Very very tempted to.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

There is no conceivable reason to oppose SSM that isn’t, at its core, either ignorant or bigoted in nature. It really is that simple.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

The No vote was human rights abuse, even if ignorant.

Simple.

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

There is no conceivable reason to oppose SSM that isn’t, at its core, either ignorant or bigoted in nature. It really is that simple.

I imagine many people who aren’t religious at all but don’t like gays will use the religion or sanctity of marriage excuse to have voted No as they don’t like the idea they are homophobic. I do find it worrying that perhaps some religious people don’t have a problem with it at all but as they allow religion to do the moral thinking for them they voted no.

Comparing the table of Division results with the stated intentions of parliamentarians…

All states and territories went Yes.

SENATE

Among the Senators, Fraser Anning (ONP), Brian Burston(ONP), Michaelia Cash(LIB), Alex Gallagher(ALP), Pauline Hanson(ONP), Chris Ketter (ALP), James McGrath(LNP) and Deborah O’Neill(ALP) did not respond to the question.

Cormann, Fierravanti, Georgiou, MacDonald, O’Sullivan, Seselja, Duniam and Ruston all said they’d follow the state or federal result, which means Yes.

Bernardi (CON), Brockman (LIB), McKenzie (NAT), Gichuhi (IND), Don Farrell (ALP) are all firm No.

Collins (ALP), Cannavan (LIB), Bushby(LIB), Fawcett (LIB), Polley(ALP), Abetz (LIB) gave various mixed “wait and see” answers.

The rest were solid Yes.

—-

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ross Vasta, Nicolle Flint, Andrew Gee, Maria Vamvakinou, Stuart Robert, Nola Marino, Ann Sudmalis, Ken Wyatt, David Gillespie, Tony Zappia, Russell Broadbent, Jane Prentice, Steve Irons, Llew O’Brien did not respond.

Of those, all are in “Yes” Divisions except for Maria Vamvakinou in Calwell, which is one of the safest ALP seats and also one of the most strongly No seats (57%).
—-
Rick Wilson, Andrew Hastie, Scott Morrison, John McVeigh, Christian Porter, Tony Abbott, Alex Hawke, George Christensen, Bert van Manen, Chris Hayes, Keith Pitt, Anthony Byrne,
Ian Goodenough, Luke Howarth, Michael McCormack, Scott Buchholz, Mark Coulton gave “wait and see” answers.

Of those, all were in Yes Divisions, except:
Alex Hawk(LIB) in Mitchell which is a safe Lib seat, went less than 51% No.
Chris Hayes (ALP) in Fowler which is a safe Labor seat and was a BIG 64% No.
John McVeigh (LNP) in Groom which is a safe Lib seat, and went less than 51% No.

—-

Andrew Laming, Michelle Landry, Ken O’Dowd, Craig Kelly, Karen Andrews, Steve Ciobo all said they’d follow the electorate result, and all of them are in Yes Divisions.

—-

Kevin Andrews, Bob Katter and David Littleproud all said No. Of those, only Andrews is in a Yes electorate (Menzies).

—-

All the rest said Yes or would follow national results. Here are the No Divisions among them.

Blaxland 74% No, Clare (ALP), safe seat
Watson 70% No, Burke (ALP), safe seat
McMahon 65% No, Bowen (ALP), safe seat
Werriwa 64% No, Stanley (ALP), safe seat
Parramatta 62% No, Owens (ALP), safe seat
Chifley 59% No, Husic (ALP), safe seat
Barton 56% No, Burney (ALP), safe seat
Banks 55% No, Coleman (LIB), marginal seat
Greenway 54% No, Rowland (ALP), fairly safe seat
Bruce 53% No, Hill (ALP), marginal seat

—-

Finally, there two vacant seats, New England and Bennelong. They are both pretty safe seats for the Coalition. Bennelong went 50% No, New England went 53% yes.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

There is no conceivable reason to oppose SSM that isn’t, at its core, either ignorant or bigoted in nature. It really is that simple.

I imagine many people who aren’t religious at all but don’t like gays will use the religion or sanctity of marriage excuse to have voted No as they don’t like the idea they are homophobic. I do find it worrying that perhaps some religious people don’t have a problem with it at all but as they allow religion to do the moral thinking for them they voted no.

96 percent of the population is heterosexual, homophobia is probably on a lot of peoples minds, religious or non religious

It might be be interesting to find out if more religious people are homophobic than non religious people, or if its other other way around?

Maybe we need a new word sexophobia ?

Fear of sexual diversity

homophobia
bisexualphobia
transsexualphobia
asexualphobia

Am I making up new words?

I could go searching but cant be bothered

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you oversimplify the no vote, sure religion plays a large part, but many people simply don’t like the idea for various reasons. Nor does voting no necessarily mean being anti-gay, this is what annoyed me so much with the bigoted response of anything other than what Car thinks, as being anti-gay. Australia is a democracy and is so for the yes vote and ALSO for the no vote. Personally I was very surprised the no vote did so well, I thought it would have been around 20%, so unfortunately I don’t think the crap from all sides is going to die down soon.

There is no conceivable reason to oppose SSM that isn’t, at its core, either ignorant or bigoted in nature. It really is that simple.

In your mind obviously.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/samesex-marriage-labors-political-headache-in-western-sydney/news-story/2c611f1fdccdf94413eefbfca2e79af8

Same-sex marriage: Labor’s political headache in western Sydney

NHo doubt a majority Yes vote will change the minds of those who where undecided or who voted no

p[eople can change thier minds on things except those like Bernadi, Abbott, Abetz

Bernardi and Abetz vow further torture over same-sex bill
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cutandpaste/bernardi-and-abetz-vow-further-torture-over-samesex-bill/news-story/c4e117685dc2db4bb0ffc66fa7fbac21

They are the Human Rights Abusers and I will have no problem telling it to their faces.

• so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved.

One of the problems may be that they did not adequately define the parameters of “success”…

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

furious said:

• so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved.

One of the problems may be that they did not adequately define the parameters of “success”…

Or how to dress for it

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

There is no conceivable reason to oppose SSM that isn’t, at its core, either ignorant or bigoted in nature. It really is that simple.

I imagine many people who aren’t religious at all but don’t like gays will use the religion or sanctity of marriage excuse to have voted No as they don’t like the idea they are homophobic. I do find it worrying that perhaps some religious people don’t have a problem with it at all but as they allow religion to do the moral thinking for them they voted no.

96 percent of the population is heterosexual, homophobia is probably on a lot of peoples minds, religious or non religious

It might be be interesting to find out if more religious people are homophobic than non religious people, or if its other other way around?

Maybe we need a new word sexophobia ?

Fear of sexual diversity

homophobia
bisexualphobia
transsexualphobia
asexualphobia

Am I making up new words?

I could go searching but cant be bothered

You really enjoy you black and white world Tau, it is a great pity you are unable to see more.

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

the laws already exists for that. they’re called the anti-discrimination laws

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Why should anyone feel the same as everyone else, simply we are individuals with different lives, with different experiences and different ideas. Jesus, if we all thought like Car what sort of a world would we be in?

Bernardi and Abetz vow further torture over same-sex bill
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cutandpaste/bernardi-and-abetz-vow-further-torture-over-samesex-bill/news-story/c4e117685dc2db4bb0ffc66fa7fbac21

Get ready for the No campaign’s spin. A statement from Christian Lobby boss Lyle Shelton, Tuesday:

If a Yes vote prevails, we’ll need to get straight back to work.

Straight back to Human rights abusing…

The Christian Lobby can FUCK OFF !

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The Dean Smith bill deals with the marriage law so it won’t touch existing discrimination legislation.

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

No-one is “forced to bake” anything. If you’re a baker in the business of making wedding cakes, you do so by choice.

But you are obliged to abide by the laws that apply to running such a business, including anti-discrimination laws.

As the situation stands, you’re not allowed to say “…but I won’t bake wedding cakes for blacks, gays, gingers etc, ‘cos I happen to harbour irrational prejudices against those groups on account of my religion.”

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Isn’t it highly disturbing that people would honour kill or disown a child who is gay because some law from a made up being (no proof exist for the existence of god) tells them its wrong yet the child is real flesh and blood with feelings.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Why should anyone feel the same as everyone else, simply we are individuals with different lives, with different experiences and different ideas. Jesus, if we all thought like Car what sort of a world would we be in?

Would it still be acceptable today to be against a black person marrying a white person it was years ago and lets not forget Aboriginal people used to need permission to marry, something not acceptable anymore either. How is SSM not just another version of them

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree do you not think that what should have been a simple vote in Parliament was turned into a public debate with those against it making up all sorts of nonsense to justify their bigoted beliefs. I believe it was done in this manner as those that enacted it are against it and secretly enjoy the nastiness that came out

Religion has for far too long been allowed to get away with actions that are appalling all in the name of god said its OK.

Anti gay nonsense should have been done away with a long time ago but its still hangs on.

I reckon in a few decades people will be embarrassed and ashamed gay people weren’t given this right a long time ago, its like a modern version of not allowing people of mixed colour and race to marry, something decent people now consider quite appalling

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Its a bit like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras .

These people, less than 4 percent of the population. have been persecuted and repressed for so long, its their way of expressing emotional relief

That they can move around a more growing tolerant city .

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Isn’t it highly disturbing that people would honour kill or disown a child who is gay because some law from a made up being (no proof exist for the existence of god) tells them its wrong yet the child is real flesh and blood with feelings.

Cut it out Cymek, I’ve left my handkerchief at home.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

I imagine many people who aren’t religious at all but don’t like gays will use the religion or sanctity of marriage excuse to have voted No as they don’t like the idea they are homophobic. I do find it worrying that perhaps some religious people don’t have a problem with it at all but as they allow religion to do the moral thinking for them they voted no.

96 percent of the population is heterosexual, homophobia is probably on a lot of peoples minds, religious or non religious

It might be be interesting to find out if more religious people are homophobic than non religious people, or if its other other way around?

Maybe we need a new word sexophobia ?

Fear of sexual diversity

homophobia
bisexualphobia
transsexualphobia
asexualphobia

Am I making up new words?

I could go searching but cant be bothered

You really enjoy you black and white world Tau, it is a great pity you are unable to see more.

You have strange logic.

How can sexual diversity be black and white?

Men and women can later in life change from heterosexual to bisexual or homosexual and then back again.

I don’t see human chemistry has black and white, its more dynamic than a lot of people think.

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

the laws already exists for that. they’re called the anti-discrimination laws

Which will no doubt , now be changed.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Isn’t it highly disturbing that people would honour kill or disown a child who is gay because some law from a made up being (no proof exist for the existence of god) tells them its wrong yet the child is real flesh and blood with feelings.

Cut it out Cymek, I’ve left my handkerchief at home.

Families disowning and honour killing happens a lot .

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It will be interesting to see what the bill comes up with as to whether devout Muslims will be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Isn’t it highly disturbing that people would honour kill or disown a child who is gay because some law from a made up being (no proof exist for the existence of god) tells them its wrong yet the child is real flesh and blood with feelings.

Cut it out Cymek, I’ve left my handkerchief at home.

It’s true though, some countries have morality police that kill people for being gay because god says its ok

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Why should anyone feel the same as everyone else, simply we are individuals with different lives, with different experiences and different ideas. Jesus, if we all thought like Car what sort of a world would we be in?

Would it still be acceptable today to be against a black person marrying a white person it was years ago and lets not forget Aboriginal people used to need permission to marry, something not acceptable anymore either. How is SSM not just another version of them

Except for places like South Africa where mixed marriages were prohibited, it was otherwise just a social rejection, which do evolve. Aborigines faced a damn site more restrictions than needing to ask to marry, things that were and in many cases still are far more important than SSM.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

96 percent of the population is heterosexual, homophobia is probably on a lot of peoples minds, religious or non religious

It might be be interesting to find out if more religious people are homophobic than non religious people, or if its other other way around?

Maybe we need a new word sexophobia ?

Fear of sexual diversity

homophobia
bisexualphobia
transsexualphobia
asexualphobia

Am I making up new words?

I could go searching but cant be bothered

You really enjoy you black and white world Tau, it is a great pity you are unable to see more.

You have strange logic.

How can sexual diversity be black and white?

Men and women can later in life change from heterosexual to bisexual or homosexual and then back again.

I don’t see human chemistry has black and white, its more dynamic than a lot of people think.

Wasn’t that the idea that women on TV was against, who cares its not her business anyway.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you greatly oversimplify the situation, that is apart from Tau who is a raving lunatic. Sure many who voted NO are religious, but there are many who simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage for various reasons, it is NOT a black and white issue of do you love gays or hate them, which I might add is why I found Car’s bigoted remarks so offensive. We live in a democracy where people have the right to vote which ever way they wish and just because nearly 40% voted NO does not mean they are all anti-gay, some were even gays themselves.

I am surprised the NO vote was so high, I expected it to be closer to 20% so we can expect a great deal of crap being thrown from both sides until this situation is finally resolved. In my opinion the people who create the real problems are from the bigots on BOTH sides, not the ordinary people who are not overly concerned either way.

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Its a bit like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras .

These people, less than 4 percent of the population. have been persecuted and repressed for so long, its their way of expressing emotional relief

That they can move around a more growing tolerant city .

Where do you get only 4% of the population from?

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

96 percent of the population is heterosexual, homophobia is probably on a lot of peoples minds, religious or non religious

It might be be interesting to find out if more religious people are homophobic than non religious people, or if its other other way around?

Maybe we need a new word sexophobia ?

Fear of sexual diversity

homophobia
bisexualphobia
transsexualphobia
asexualphobia

Am I making up new words?

I could go searching but cant be bothered

You really enjoy you black and white world Tau, it is a great pity you are unable to see more.

You have strange logic.

How can sexual diversity be black and white?

Men and women can later in life change from heterosexual to bisexual or homosexual and then back again.

I don’t see human chemistry has black and white, its more dynamic than a lot of people think.

Sorry, thought you were aware we were discussing same sex marriage, not one of your loony and unrelated extensions.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

What real reason could people have for being against SSM, it’s not like gay people are some new trendy thing and it’s all just some fad people will get bored with they’ve existed along as humanity has. Surely it’s social progression to allow it to occur as it shows humanity comes in all shapes and sizes and each is as valid as another.

Its a bit like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras .

These people, less than 4 percent of the population. have been persecuted and repressed for so long, its their way of expressing emotional relief

That they can move around a more growing tolerant city .

Where do you get only 4% of the population from?

Reading research that’s available on the internet.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Why should anyone feel the same as everyone else, simply we are individuals with different lives, with different experiences and different ideas. Jesus, if we all thought like Car what sort of a world would we be in?

Would it still be acceptable today to be against a black person marrying a white person it was years ago and lets not forget Aboriginal people used to need permission to marry, something not acceptable anymore either. How is SSM not just another version of them

Except for places like South Africa where mixed marriages were prohibited, it was otherwise just a social rejection, which do evolve. Aborigines faced a damn site more restrictions than needing to ask to marry, things that were and in many cases still are far more important than SSM.

So its anti SSM just another social rejection which should evolve to not thinking that way

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Isn’t it highly disturbing that people would honour kill or disown a child who is gay because some law from a made up being (no proof exist for the existence of god) tells them its wrong yet the child is real flesh and blood with feelings.

Cut it out Cymek, I’ve left my handkerchief at home.

It’s true though, some countries have morality police that kill people for being gay because god says its ok

Yeah, some throw them off high buildings too, but I think they are now being controlled by physical violence.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

You really enjoy you black and white world Tau, it is a great pity you are unable to see more.

You have strange logic.

How can sexual diversity be black and white?

Men and women can later in life change from heterosexual to bisexual or homosexual and then back again.

I don’t see human chemistry has black and white, its more dynamic than a lot of people think.

Sorry, thought you were aware we were discussing same sex marriage, not one of your loony and unrelated extensions.

We are discussing SSM. People can change their sexuality over the course of their life time as well as being born that way.

If people have fears of sexuality then they need some help.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its a bit like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras .

These people, less than 4 percent of the population. have been persecuted and repressed for so long, its their way of expressing emotional relief

That they can move around a more growing tolerant city .

Where do you get only 4% of the population from?

Reading research that’s available on the internet.

Please do provide references, as I am unable to discover them?

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Where do you get only 4% of the population from?

Reading research that’s available on the internet.

Please do provide references, as I am unable to discover them?

I’m not going doing your research, Its there on the internet, you can search for it.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Would it still be acceptable today to be against a black person marrying a white person it was years ago and lets not forget Aboriginal people used to need permission to marry, something not acceptable anymore either. How is SSM not just another version of them

Except for places like South Africa where mixed marriages were prohibited, it was otherwise just a social rejection, which do evolve. Aborigines faced a damn site more restrictions than needing to ask to marry, things that were and in many cases still are far more important than SSM.

So its anti SSM just another social rejection which should evolve to not thinking that way

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You have strange logic.

How can sexual diversity be black and white?

Men and women can later in life change from heterosexual to bisexual or homosexual and then back again.

I don’t see human chemistry has black and white, its more dynamic than a lot of people think.

Sorry, thought you were aware we were discussing same sex marriage, not one of your loony and unrelated extensions.

We are discussing SSM. People can change their sexuality over the course of their life time as well as being born that way.

If people have fears of sexuality then they need some help.

You are out of this world Tau.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Reading research that’s available on the internet.

Please do provide references, as I am unable to discover them?

I’m not going doing your research, Its there on the internet, you can search for it.

Because you are talking crap.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Except for places like South Africa where mixed marriages were prohibited, it was otherwise just a social rejection, which do evolve. Aborigines faced a damn site more restrictions than needing to ask to marry, things that were and in many cases still are far more important than SSM.

So its anti SSM just another social rejection which should evolve to not thinking that way

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Sorry, thought you were aware we were discussing same sex marriage, not one of your loony and unrelated extensions.

We are discussing SSM. People can change their sexuality over the course of their life time as well as being born that way.

If people have fears of sexuality then they need some help.

You are out of this world Tau.

Some people don’t even identify as a man or a women, aren’t interested in having sex or even being in a relationship, nothing wrong with that either.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

We are discussing SSM. People can change their sexuality over the course of their life time as well as being born that way.

If people have fears of sexuality then they need some help.

You are out of this world Tau.

Some people don’t even identify as a man or a women, aren’t interested in having sex or even being in a relationship, nothing wrong with that either.

I think you are talking different things there. Cymek and Tau are focussing on gender, not Same Sex, they’re different issues.

I misheard Anna, the celebration was at the Cascade Hotel, not the brewery:

Long-time activist Rodney Croome proud of Tasmanian support for same-sex marriage

A short distance from where he was arrested 29 years ago after pushing for gay rights, Rodney Croome stood up in a South Hobart pub to praise Tasmania’s same-sex marriage stance.

For decades, Mr Croome battled Australian homosexuality laws in general and Tasmania’s in particular.

But the state that was the last in the country to decriminalise sex between men in private (1997) returned a 63.6 per cent yes vote in the same-sex marriage survey — higher than the national average of 62 per cent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/rodney-croome-proud-of-tasmanian-support-for-same-sex-marriage/9152818

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So its anti SSM just another social rejection which should evolve to not thinking that way

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

Yes, the Dean Smith bill will be introduced into parliament (senate) tonight or tomorrow.
All those who are interested will get up and have their say then they will have a conscience vote on any amendments.
Then the bill will be voted on at the second reading and then once passed will go to the other place for a similar process.
It may bounce back and forth between the two chambers a couple of times before final approval and signing into law by Her Majesties representative.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So its anti SSM just another social rejection which should evolve to not thinking that way

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

I think religious freedom should be religious people can go to to church and have the religious freedom to discriminate to themselves and refuse entry to gays, but do it public and that religious freedom becomes a crime of harassment.

I think businesses that discriminate should be shut down.

Religion is not free trade and would see people refusing other people like black people being refused customer service in a white only shop.

Its Not Ok.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

whatever, we need our freedom of speech. We cannot tell people that they don’t have a right to object, even if we do see them as complete plonkers.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Well it was evolving, not long ago it was illegal to be a gay.

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

Yes, the Dean Smith bill will be introduced into parliament (senate) tonight or tomorrow.
All those who are interested will get up and have their say then they will have a conscience vote on any amendments.
Then the bill will be voted on at the second reading and then once passed will go to the other place for a similar process.
It may bounce back and forth between the two chambers a couple of times before final approval and signing into law by Her Majesties representative.

I think Senator Smith’s bill was introduced into the Senate this afternoon. Discussion starts tomorrow morning at 9:30 am.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

whatever, we need our freedom of speech. We cannot tell people that they don’t have a right to object, even if we do see them as complete plonkers.

No but we are free to call them out on what comes across as bigoted or bias opinion.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So isn’t the next step to allow SSM marriage.

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

Personally I don’t care one way or the other, I just get pissed off by the stupid who think everything is either black or white. People are different, they have different backgrounds and hey, they might even have had different life experiences to your own. I must admit a large portion of the gay community are extroverted and do tend to make more noise and carry on seemingly forever, however that’s life.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think religious freedom should be religious people can go to to church and have the religious freedom to discriminate to themselves and refuse entry to gays, but do it public and that religious freedom becomes a crime of harassment.

I think businesses that discriminate should be shut down.

Religion is not free trade and would see people refusing other people like black people being refused customer service in a white only shop.

Its Not Ok.

See you have taken another turn Tau, let us know when you find your way back.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

whatever, we need our freedom of speech. We cannot tell people that they don’t have a right to object, even if we do see them as complete plonkers.

No but we are free to call them out on what comes across as bigoted or bias opinion.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror occasionally.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

whatever, we need our freedom of speech. We cannot tell people that they don’t have a right to object, even if we do see them as complete plonkers.

Why should the general population be tolerant of religious people or non religious people who hate others?

Should we be tolerant of Nazis? The outcome of their hate is to Kill people?

The outcome of gay haters is to harass and bash gay people.

I say to all of these people keep your hatred to yourselves and keep your negative freedom of speech (Hatred) to yourselves.

If a group of people went about hating others because of X, Y , Z is that hate ok, when its a harassment crime against others?

Should religious freedom still include human rights abuse, or the freedom to harass others using the banner of using free speech to hate?

Time for Religious people to start behaving themselves in a changing society.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think the outcome was YES, wasn’t it? Just not 100% of Australians voted for it, and that does not mean they all hate gays.

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

Personally I don’t care one way or the other, I just get pissed off by the stupid who think everything is either black or white. People are different, they have different backgrounds and hey, they might even have had different life experiences to your own. I must admit a large portion of the gay community are extroverted and do tend to make more noise and carry on seemingly forever, however that’s life.

Everything is not black and white.

Stop twisting it around to suit yourself.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think religious freedom should be religious people can go to to church and have the religious freedom to discriminate to themselves and refuse entry to gays, but do it public and that religious freedom becomes a crime of harassment.

I think businesses that discriminate should be shut down.

Religion is not free trade and would see people refusing other people like black people being refused customer service in a white only shop.

Its Not Ok.

See you have taken another turn Tau, let us know when you find your way back.

Your a fool PF.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

whatever, we need our freedom of speech. We cannot tell people that they don’t have a right to object, even if we do see them as complete plonkers.

No but we are free to call them out on what comes across as bigoted or bias opinion.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror occasionally.

I try to identify when I’m thinking that way and correct it.
I suppose you can be biased against people who are biased, I don’t push my beliefs on them in public and make up politically motivated lies though. I leave people alone with their beliefs but expect the same in return and don’t accept a belief or tradition should continue if its repressive

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think religious freedom should be religious people can go to to church and have the religious freedom to discriminate to themselves and refuse entry to gays, but do it public and that religious freedom becomes a crime of harassment.

I think businesses that discriminate should be shut down.

Religion is not free trade and would see people refusing other people like black people being refused customer service in a white only shop.

Its Not Ok.

See you have taken another turn Tau, let us know when you find your way back.

Your a fool PF.

Discrimination in businesses is NOT ETHICAL.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

No but I am at a loss to why people who vote NO, it really has no impact on most people and gives equal rights to a minority. You’d have to have some sort of bias to vote No, it could even by they are annoyed some gay people are proud to be that way and loudly tell the world and you are paying them back for not shutting up.

Personally I don’t care one way or the other, I just get pissed off by the stupid who think everything is either black or white. People are different, they have different backgrounds and hey, they might even have had different life experiences to your own. I must admit a large portion of the gay community are extroverted and do tend to make more noise and carry on seemingly forever, however that’s life.

Everything is not black and white.

Stop twisting it around to suit yourself.

You are beyond description Tau, so I will not try.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think religious freedom should be religious people can go to to church and have the religious freedom to discriminate to themselves and refuse entry to gays, but do it public and that religious freedom becomes a crime of harassment.

I think businesses that discriminate should be shut down.

Religion is not free trade and would see people refusing other people like black people being refused customer service in a white only shop.

Its Not Ok.

See you have taken another turn Tau, let us know when you find your way back.

Your a fool PF.

You’re

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

No but we are free to call them out on what comes across as bigoted or bias opinion.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror occasionally.

I try to identify when I’m thinking that way and correct it.
I suppose you can be biased against people who are biased, I don’t push my beliefs on them in public and make up politically motivated lies though. I leave people alone with their beliefs but expect the same in return and don’t accept a belief or tradition should continue if its repressive

You and Tau live in the same world. You are NOT the opinion of Australia and you do not know what and how other people think. You are entitled to your views, but don’t try to impress them on others. It is you with the bias views.

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps you should look in the mirror occasionally.

I try to identify when I’m thinking that way and correct it.
I suppose you can be biased against people who are biased, I don’t push my beliefs on them in public and make up politically motivated lies though. I leave people alone with their beliefs but expect the same in return and don’t accept a belief or tradition should continue if its repressive

You and Tau live in the same world. You are NOT the opinion of Australia and you do not know what and how other people think. You are entitled to your views, but don’t try to impress them on others. It is you with the bias views.

Are you trying to censor people?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don’t support the negative opinions of Nazis or human rights abusers who masquerade around in any religious, social or political form.

You’re still a fool PF.

I expect that someone has already pointed out a windfall for the religious right from this opinion poll:

any natural or accidental disaster can now be blamed on God’s fury at such an unholy nation.

Business leaders widely welcome Yes vote.

Well, they would. Because despite racism or sexism or whatever we call the ism of inequalitt or inequity, business thrives on taking people’s money. If they are black or yellow or rainbow, business cannot afford to refuse their money.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

It is undemocratic, maybe he should step down.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

Stats are stats. They rarely speak the truth.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

Yes, so many human rights abusers, what to do with them?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

He holds strong personal views that don’t represent his electorate. He said he will abstain.

mcgoon said:

I expect that someone has already pointed out a windfall for the religious right from this opinion poll:

any natural or accidental disaster can now be blamed on God’s fury at such an unholy nation.

hah. :) wouldn’t be the first time.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

Stats are stats. They rarely speak the truth.

It’s an inconvenient truth that’s for sure.

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

Yes, so many human rights abusers, what to do with them?

I suppose let them be decent law abiding citizens that still abuse other peoples rights?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes, so many human rights abusers, what to do with them?

Put them in an iron box, with spikes on the inside.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I try to identify when I’m thinking that way and correct it.
I suppose you can be biased against people who are biased, I don’t push my beliefs on them in public and make up politically motivated lies though. I leave people alone with their beliefs but expect the same in return and don’t accept a belief or tradition should continue if its repressive

You and Tau live in the same world. You are NOT the opinion of Australia and you do not know what and how other people think. You are entitled to your views, but don’t try to impress them on others. It is you with the bias views.

Are you trying to censor people?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don’t support the negative opinions of Nazis or human rights abusers who masquerade around in any religious, social or political form.

You’re still a fool PF.

But it is you who are persecuting people who voted No, by saying they are gay haters. All I have said is they are NOT necessarily gay haters and that different people with different backgrounds often think differently, yet you REFUSE to accept this and carry on with your stupid persecution.

roughbarked said:

mcgoon said:

I expect that someone has already pointed out a windfall for the religious right from this opinion poll:

any natural or accidental disaster can now be blamed on God’s fury at such an unholy nation.

hah. :) wouldn’t be the first time.

Yeah, but now they have a new stick with which to beat the drum.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

He holds strong personal views that don’t represent his electorate. He said he will abstain.

Human rights is too difficult for him.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Posted 8 minutes ago | Updated 6 minutes ago

One of Australia’s most prominent No supporters in the same-sex marriage campaign, Andrew Hastie, refuses to follow his electorate’s lead and support the result.

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

He holds strong personal views that don’t represent his electorate. He said he will abstain.

If he does abstain for voting, does this make his vote a YES vote?

mcgoon said:

I expect that someone has already pointed out a windfall for the religious right from this opinion poll:

any natural or accidental disaster can now be blamed on God’s fury at such an unholy nation.

Ha!

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

You wanna hope they don’t follow the electorates leads, as the majority of those electorates who voted no are Labor. And despite Penny Wong being front and centre on the ABC news, Labor has already demonstrated they have an issue with same sex marriage.

Stats are stats. They rarely speak the truth.

It’s an inconvenient truth that’s for sure.

When was the truth ever convenient?

mcgoon said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes, so many human rights abusers, what to do with them?

Put them in an iron box, with spikes on the inside.

Like this?

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

You and Tau live in the same world. You are NOT the opinion of Australia and you do not know what and how other people think. You are entitled to your views, but don’t try to impress them on others. It is you with the bias views.

Are you trying to censor people?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don’t support the negative opinions of Nazis or human rights abusers who masquerade around in any religious, social or political form.

You’re still a fool PF.

But it is you who are persecuting people who voted No, by saying they are gay haters. All I have said is they are NOT necessarily gay haters and that different people with different backgrounds often think differently, yet you REFUSE to accept this and carry on with your stupid persecution.

I’m not persecuting anyone.

It’s my opinion that the No voters are Human rights abusers.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

This is what I call undemocratic. Spend all your time trying to swing the way the democracy works and then get pissed off that democracy works and want no part in it.

He holds strong personal views that don’t represent his electorate. He said he will abstain.

If he does abstain for voting, does this make his vote a YES vote?

It is neutral. Neither yes nor no.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mcgoon said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes, so many human rights abusers, what to do with them?

Put them in an iron box, with spikes on the inside.

Like this?

There’s something about religion and punishment.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are you trying to censor people?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don’t support the negative opinions of Nazis or human rights abusers who masquerade around in any religious, social or political form.

You’re still a fool PF.

But it is you who are persecuting people who voted No, by saying they are gay haters. All I have said is they are NOT necessarily gay haters and that different people with different backgrounds often think differently, yet you REFUSE to accept this and carry on with your stupid persecution.

I’m not persecuting anyone.

It’s my opinion that the No voters are Human rights abusers.

You would be the most intolerant person I have yet met and would be just as bad as the most bigoted of the far right.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are you trying to censor people?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don’t support the negative opinions of Nazis or human rights abusers who masquerade around in any religious, social or political form.

You’re still a fool PF.

But it is you who are persecuting people who voted No, by saying they are gay haters. All I have said is they are NOT necessarily gay haters and that different people with different backgrounds often think differently, yet you REFUSE to accept this and carry on with your stupid persecution.

I’m not persecuting anyone.

It’s my opinion that the No voters are Human rights abusers.

Why? It is their human right to be able to vote no.