SSM postal vote

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Ahh that old red herring.  Governments aren't voted in.  Tired ones are voted out.  Trying to claim a mandate from an electorate that is tired of mainstream politicians is moot.  We elect our so-called representatives to get the job done.  Nowadays, pollies only react to the 24 hour news cycle and 5 second sound bytes.  Most people couldn't tell you which of the so-called election promises they remember.  Notwithstanding the fact that election promises are consistently broken as a matter of course.

The Marriage Act is a man made piece of legislation, it is not not derived from a particular piece of religious text.  Religious institutions will still conduct themselves in the manner they see fit and in this country we still have freedom of religion, in terms of choice.  I was brought up a Catholic, but although I was legally divorced, the Catholic church will not allow me to re-marry in one of their Churches, as a divorcee.  

And what of the level of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships?  Have you seen the stats?  Oh, but it is OK for a child to witness his abusive father beat the child's mother, but let us not subject a child to a loving relationship of a same sex couple.

Of course, the Churches of various colours, which seek the moral high ground, are damned by their own abusive histories.

 

You must hate democracy.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

You must hate democracy.

Not at all.  Clearly you did not read my post very well.  I hate the bastardisation of it.  You will see the result of democracy at its finest, when a resounding yes vote gets up in the redundant plebiscite that Turnbull foist upon us, under the guise of an "election promise", which was more an abrogation.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Not at all.  Clearly you did not read my post very well.  I hate the bastardisation of it.  You will see the result of democracy at its finest, when a resounding yes vote gets up in the redundant plebiscite that Turnbull foist upon us, under the guise of an "election promise", which was more an abrogation.

I read your post and this one. Perhaps you don't understand what you are writing.

When people have their say it is a celebration of democratic freedom. The bastardisation you wish for is in your hateful mind.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

3 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I read your post and this one. Perhaps you don't understand what you are writing.

When people have their say it is a celebration of democratic freedom. The bastardisation you wish for is in your hateful mind.

WTF. My mind is anything but "hateful".  I do not wish for the bastardisation of democracy, I simply witness it on a daily basis from manipulating politicians on both sides of the political fence.  The hateful speech comes from those that seek to demonise those who happen to be in same sex relationships.

 

[nutbean 8,837]

On 06/10/2017 at 3:45 PM, daisycutter said:

lol - had to look up 'cooties'. need to get out more

you silly...he played for Carlton !

[Biffen 12,323]

I've just had to block all my gay friends on Facebook-they're no longer funny-just a bunch of self righteous pansies who are trying to destroy the patriarchy.

When I'm king of Australia I'll be re-introducing the Eunuch court and they can go back to knitting.

Never flying Qantas again.

[dieter 3,325]

31 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I've just had to block all my gay friends on Facebook-they're no longer funny-just a bunch of self righteous pansies who are trying to destroy the patriarchy.

When I'm king of Australia I'll be re-introducing the Eunuch court and they can go back to knitting.

Never flying Qantas again.

Would you prefer to rent one of my Luftwaffe Fleet Plane Rentals from my Company?

[Biffen 12,323]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

Would you prefer to rent one of my Luftwaffe Fleet Plane Rentals from my Company?

The Lufwaffe is a perfect example of what happens when you leave homosexuals in charge of a major airline.

[dieter 3,325]

4 hours ago, Biffen said:

The Lufwaffe is a perfect example of what happens when you leave homosexuals in charge of a major airline.

No matter: the planes were good. A messerschmidt was the only thing that ever frightened Keith Miller.

[Biffen 12,323]

1 minute ago, dieter said:

No matter: the planes were good. A messerschmidt was the only thing that ever frightened Keith Miller.

Particularly where it was placed-which probably never frightened Herr Goering.

[dieter 3,325]

1 minute ago, Biffen said:

Particularly where it was placed-which probably never frightened Herr Goering.

Nothing could frighten that great man. Especially when the drugs were good.

[Biffen 12,323]

He survived the night of the long knives- but opted out of the Nuremberg trials.

 

 

[dieter 3,325]

54 minutes ago, Biffen said:

He survived the night of the long knives- but opted out of the Nuremberg trials.

 

 

That was because he knew the' I was only following orders' get out clause only applied to the allies.

[Biffen 12,323]

6 minutes ago, dieter said:

That was because he knew the' I was only following orders' get out clause only applied to the allies.

that's right-because we won and got to decide truth. Unlike the gestapo and unit 731 from Japan whom we tried to despatch humanely.

[dieter 3,325]

36 minutes ago, Biffen said:

that's right-because we won and got to decide truth. Unlike the gestapo and unit 731 from Japan whom we tried to despatch humanely.

Read Tolstoy's two books: The Minister and the Massacres', and 'The victims of Yalta'.

The British general who handed over various denominations of Slavs - Russians, Croats, Chetniks, Serbs who weren't Commises - to Tito's killers and Stalin's henchmen was rather oblivious to the slaughter of the men women and children he handed over, though it happened within ear shot.

The General - Lord Aldington - sued Tolstoy for libel.

His case was 'he was only following orders'. The suit was found in the good lord's favour, as it should, after all it is westminster justice...

 

[Biffen 12,323]

13 minutes ago, dieter said:

Read Tolstoy's two books: The Minister and the Massacres', and 'The victims of Yalta'.

The British general who handed over various denominations of Slavs - Russians, Croats, Chetniks, Serbs who weren't Commises - to Tito's killers and Stalin's henchmen was rather oblivious to the slaughter of the men women and children he handed over, though it happened within ear shot.

The General - Lord Aldington - sued Tolstoy for libel.

His case was 'he was only following orders'. The suit was found in the good lord's favour, as it should, after all it is westminster justice...

 

Sounds like a good read.Did you give Solzenhitzens "The Gulag Archipelago " a browse? You will see the results of the Communist utopia played out there. Combined with Mao these two countries make up the bulk of the 120 million deaths i referred to previously.

But you think capitalism and colonialism are worse.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

Sounds like a good read.Did you give Solzenhitzens "The Gulag Archipelago " a browse? You will see the results of the Communist utopia played out there. Combined with Mao these two countries make up the bulk of the 120 million deaths i referred to previously.

But you think capitalism and colonialism are worse.

Nope, never said that. Ever. My mother was in a Soviet labour camp from October 1944 until April 1947. 12 hours a day, rotating shifts, most of the inmates died from malnutrition or typhoid or sheer exhaustion. My father's first gig with the Wermacht after he was conscripted in February 1941, when he turned 17 was Stalingrad

I've never had a truck with the commies. Never had a truck with any totalitarian regime.

Never had a truck for people who believe the history they are impregnated with from birth by the likes of the great mass murderer Churchill.

 

[Biffen 12,323]

26 minutes ago, dieter said:

Nope, never said that. Ever. My mother was in a Soviet labour camp from October 1944 until April 1947. 12 hours a day, rotating shifts, most of the inmates died from malnutrition or typhoid or sheer exhaustion. My father's first gig with the Wermacht after he was conscripted in February 1941, when he turned 17 was Stalingrad

I've never had a truck with the commies. Never had a truck with any totalitarian regime.

Never had a truck for people who believe the history they are impregnated with from birth by the likes of the great mass murderer Churchill.

 

What a marvellous ingrate you are.

Your existence is indeed a miracle.

[dieter 3,325]

2 minutes ago, Biffen said:

What a marvellous ingrate you are.

Your existence is indeed a miracle.

Ingrateful, perhaps.

[Biffen 12,323]

1 minute ago, dieter said:

Ingrateful, perhaps.

Enough of this- we are intruding on the real downtrodden, the truly oppressed, the cultural outcasts of our time who are having their very human rights trampled and quashed by the thoughtless institutions of government and religion.

[Little Goffy 12,557]

The changes to the marriage act are

- minor administrative adjustments

- to correct an oversight where people have previously been treated unequally under civil law

- and in so doing, bring Australia a small step closer to fulfilling its promise as a nation committed to equal rights.

 

Strangely enough, the matter was not at all a priority for the same-sex-attracted community until very recently, as the general political approach was one of pragmatism - focusing on the more high-impact features such as ending the 'gay panic defense' for assaults, putting the brakes on discrimination and hate crimes, and being able to visit your partner in hospital.

There was a gradual snowball effect that gave rise to the issue as a priority, in that in some jurisdictions, particularly in the US, reform of marriage law was the most practical, in some cases the only really practical way at all, to secure some of these most basic partnership rights.

From these specific beginnings, it became apparent that reform to marriage law not only provided those rights in these specific jurisdictions, but also provided a legal and bureacratic signal for harmonisation of other civil laws - in other words, efforts to gain general partnership rights were enhanced by achievement marriage equality, rather than marriage being a distraction.

As well as this practical incentive social factors influenced the priority placed on marriage equality.

As general popular acceptance of same-sex attracted people became more prevalent, and the frequency of rapes, bashings and murders declined (a trend roughly beginning in the 1990s, not so far away) gay people were able to live more openly and to live, well, normally. The previous assumptions about 'the gays being unworthy' slipped, and many more people (and, indeed, churches) realised that here was a key social ritual and status that was being denied to a part of the community that was actually, well, normal. The unfairness of it struck home, and the simplicity of that unfairness became a rallying point.

In turn, the anti-gay lobby is mostly formed from hegemonic religious groups which often see themselves as having special rights over the institution of marriage, even to the point of civil marriage. The campaigns from the same-sex community and its civil-rights oriented allies to seek legal equality were seen as a direct and deliberate attack on the hegemonic status of these groups. To them, it wasn't just a case of live-and-let-live, but rather a diminishing of their role in society, a further erosion of their status as the arbiters of right and wrong. A status already under doubt as a result of, um, shall we say, "being on the wrong side of history on a variety of matters".

So, a battle line formed. Quite suddenly, in many areas. An odd, counter-intuitive feature of the suddenness of marriage equality becoming a major issue is that it is often pressed into urgency and prominence by the opponents of reform. In Australia, the matter was forced forward by Prime Minister Howard, who in 2004, observing that support for same-sex marriage was increasing throughout the 'Western' world, and motivated by his personal religious conservatism and the influence of the conservative Christian lobby, initiated change to the marriage act in a preemptive move to make it more difficult to alter the act in future.

Similarly, those who initiated the sordid 2017 non-binding postal survey were not the advocates of marriage equality, who could be described best as showing 'annoyed acceptance that it would take more time' but were ultimately confident due to the continuously increasing popular acceptance of marriage equality, particularly among younger generations.

Rather, the plebiscite was launches by the anti-gay faction of the conservative parties, who, recognising that both parliament (when not bound by part-line voting requirements) and the general population supported marriage equality and would only increase that support over time, initiated a desultory, disorganised, rushed, non-comprehensive, and sudden plebiscite in  more clearly designed to maximise the chances of a brief, high-intensity scare campaign.

And so it has been. With every sordid event that occurs, the popular sentiment moves to just wanting to avoid participation. Incredibly, a situation has arisen where shameful, inflammatory or grotesque behaviour from either side actually favours the interests of the 'no' campaign. This is because the No campaign's greatest hope is that their highly motivated clique, approximately 1/4 of the population, will vote enthusiastically, while much of the 'Yes' support comes from people who are not personally motivated, but rather just believe in the Australian tradition of leaving people alone to live their lives.

Everything that pushes down people's engagement with the vote is a win for the No campaign. So, not only incidents such as the utter moron who sort-of-headbutted No campaigner Tony Abbott in Tasmania, but even cases of arson against Yes campaigners homes, waves of swastika graffiti, and the most vile hate campaign posters on university campuses or streets. Any conflict, any unseemly behaviour, suits the No campaign's main agenda - to associate anything involving homosexuality as dirty, threatening, and destructive. In method it is much like the truly indefensible, but persistent, use of statistics about children of same-sex parents being bullied in school - 'look, hate find you, you are to blame, you are the problem' - or of increased prevalence of depression and suicide among same-sex attracted people - 'look, they are unhappy because they are gay, which is why more should be done to stigmatise same-sex attraction'.

By combining a non-compulsory, half-arsed survey, with a high-intensity scare campaign, a short turnaround, and no regulation of honesty or integrity in campaigning, the anti-gay lobby has created one final chance to stall progress to marriage equality.

They've also created a big joint event where anyone who wants to can say whatever hateful, obscene and absurd things they like about the gay community and have it be nationally confirmed as 'a valid part of the debate'. Normal people are having their relationships compared to bestiality and pedophilia by high-profile, well-funded figures with extensive media coverage.

Meanwhile, a calculated disingenuous campaign has been waged to portray all Yes campaigning as intrusive, pretentious, 'virtue signaling' and even an attack on free speech. Somehow it has become an offense to suggest that if someone compares your longstanding and stable relationship to bestiality, they might just be speaking from a somewhat bigoted position. A major effort has gone into trying to portray supporting the Yes vote as something that should be done quietly, almost secretly and shamefully. Any open support of 'Yes' is an affront to those around, much like some people are 'offended' by the sight of a same-sex couple holding hands on the street or even existing as minor characters in a movie. A call back to the menace faced by any gay people who came out in the quite near past, and to the 'don't ask don't tell' position that insists on the dirtiness and indecency of same-sex attraction.

Never mind the waste of money. Never mind the shoddy process. Never mind that it is a calculated tactical ploy to bring out the worst in Australia, diminishing the integrity of our democracy, and all done in service to discrimination.

There are tens of thousands of same-sex attracted people who have not yet 'come out', for fear of being excluded from their family, cut off from their friends, and hated by strangers. This plebiscite will have sharpened the fear for a great many of them, as relatives and neighbours and the construction site next door share jokes about dirty homo weddings and walking funny up the aisle, bestiality, pedophilia, 'needing training from a real man' and God 'creating' HIV as a punishment.

Misery and ignominy.

Vote Yes, and hope the reactionary establishment can never force us back into this toxic fog.

[dieter 3,325]

18 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

The changes to the marriage act are

- minor administrative adjustments

- to correct an oversight where people have previously been treated unequally under civil law

- and in so doing, bring Australia a small step closer to fulfilling its promise as a nation committed to equal rights.

 

Strangely enough, the matter was not at all a priority for the same-sex-attracted community until very recently, as the general political approach was one of pragmatism - focusing on the more high-impact features such as ending the 'gay panic defense' for assaults, putting the brakes on discrimination and hate crimes, and being able to visit your partner in hospital.

There was a gradual snowball effect that gave rise to the issue as a priority, in that in some jurisdictions, particularly in the US, reform of marriage law was the most practical, in some cases the only really practical way at all, to secure some of these most basic partnership rights.

From these specific beginnings, it became apparent that reform to marriage law not only provided those rights in these specific jurisdictions, but also provided a legal and bureacratic signal for harmonisation of other civil laws - in other words, efforts to gain general partnership rights were enhanced by achievement marriage equality, rather than marriage being a distraction.

As well as this practical incentive social factors influenced the priority placed on marriage equality.

As general popular acceptance of same-sex attracted people became more prevalent, and the frequency of rapes, bashings and murders declined (a trend roughly beginning in the 1990s, not so far away) gay people were able to live more openly and to live, well, normally. The previous assumptions about 'the gays being unworthy' slipped, and many more people (and, indeed, churches) realised that here was a key social ritual and status that was being denied to a part of the community that was actually, well, normal. The unfairness of it struck home, and the simplicity of that unfairness became a rallying point.

In turn, the anti-gay lobby is mostly formed from hegemonic religious groups which often see themselves as having special rights over the institution of marriage, even to the point of civil marriage. The campaigns from the same-sex community and its civil-rights oriented allies to seek legal equality were seen as a direct and deliberate attack on the hegemonic status of these groups. To them, it wasn't just a case of live-and-let-live, but rather a diminishing of their role in society, a further erosion of their status as the arbiters of right and wrong. A status already under doubt as a result of, um, shall we say, "being on the wrong side of history on a variety of matters".

So, a battle line formed. Quite suddenly, in many areas. An odd, counter-intuitive feature of the suddenness of marriage equality becoming a major issue is that it is often pressed into urgency and prominence by the opponents of reform. In Australia, the matter was forced forward by Prime Minister Howard, who in 2004, observing that support for same-sex marriage was increasing throughout the 'Western' world, and motivated by his personal religious conservatism and the influence of the conservative Christian lobby, initiated change to the marriage act in a preemptive move to make it more difficult to alter the act in future.

Similarly, those who initiated the sordid 2017 non-binding postal survey were not the advocates of marriage equality, who could be described best as showing 'annoyed acceptance that it would take more time' but were ultimately confident due to the continuously increasing popular acceptance of marriage equality, particularly among younger generations.

Rather, the plebiscite was launches by the anti-gay faction of the conservative parties, who, recognising that both parliament (when not bound by part-line voting requirements) and the general population supported marriage equality and would only increase that support over time, initiated a desultory, disorganised, rushed, non-comprehensive, and sudden plebiscite in  more clearly designed to maximise the chances of a brief, high-intensity scare campaign.

And so it has been. With every sordid event that occurs, the popular sentiment moves to just wanting to avoid participation. Incredibly, a situation has arisen where shameful, inflammatory or grotesque behaviour from either side actually favours the interests of the 'no' campaign. This is because the No campaign's greatest hope is that their highly motivated clique, approximately 1/4 of the population, will vote enthusiastically, while much of the 'Yes' support comes from people who are not personally motivated, but rather just believe in the Australian tradition of leaving people alone to live their lives.

Everything that pushes down people's engagement with the vote is a win for the No campaign. So, not only incidents such as the utter moron who sort-of-headbutted No campaigner Tony Abbott in Tasmania, but even cases of arson against Yes campaigners homes, waves of swastika graffiti, and the most vile hate campaign posters on university campuses or streets. Any conflict, any unseemly behaviour, suits the No campaign's main agenda - to associate anything involving homosexuality as dirty, threatening, and destructive. In method it is much like the truly indefensible, but persistent, use of statistics about children of same-sex parents being bullied in school - 'look, hate find you, you are to blame, you are the problem' - or of increased prevalence of depression and suicide among same-sex attracted people - 'look, they are unhappy because they are gay, which is why more should be done to stigmatise same-sex attraction'.

By combining a non-compulsory, half-arsed survey, with a high-intensity scare campaign, a short turnaround, and no regulation of honesty or integrity in campaigning, the anti-gay lobby has created one final chance to stall progress to marriage equality.

They've also created a big joint event where anyone who wants to can say whatever hateful, obscene and absurd things they like about the gay community and have it be nationally confirmed as 'a valid part of the debate'. Normal people are having their relationships compared to bestiality and pedophilia by high-profile, well-funded figures with extensive media coverage.

Meanwhile, a calculated disingenuous campaign has been waged to portray all Yes campaigning as intrusive, pretentious, 'virtue signaling' and even an attack on free speech. Somehow it has become an offense to suggest that if someone compares your longstanding and stable relationship to bestiality, they might just be speaking from a somewhat bigoted position. A major effort has gone into trying to portray supporting the Yes vote as something that should be done quietly, almost secretly and shamefully. Any open support of 'Yes' is an affront to those around, much like some people are 'offended' by the sight of a same-sex couple holding hands on the street or even existing as minor characters in a movie. A call back to the menace faced by any gay people who came out in the quite near past, and to the 'don't ask don't tell' position that insists on the dirtiness and indecency of same-sex attraction.

Never mind the waste of money. Never mind the shoddy process. Never mind that it is a calculated tactical ploy to bring out the worst in Australia, diminishing the integrity of our democracy, and all done in service to discrimination.

There are tens of thousands of same-sex attracted people who have not yet 'come out', for fear of being excluded from their family, cut off from their friends, and hated by strangers. This plebiscite will have sharpened the fear for a great many of them, as relatives and neighbours and the construction site next door share jokes about dirty homo weddings and walking funny up the aisle, bestiality, pedophilia, 'needing training from a real man' and God 'creating' HIV as a punishment.

Misery and ignominy.

Vote Yes, and hope the reactionary establishment can never force us back into this toxic fog.

Well said, Mr Goffy. Couldn't have put it better myself. I hope like hell that the bigots and idiots who are the basis of the no vote get their comeuppance. I wonder if the yes vote gets up and the politicians have the guts to follow the yes majority in parliament, the same bigots and idiots will be the first to whinge about the waste  of millions of dollars.

I'd rather they whinged about the thousands of millions spent on concentration camps in Nauru and Manus.

[Biffen 12,323]

Well written Goffy and unsurprisingly the reply from Herr Dieter finished with an issue irrelevant to the discussion but linked to the progressive viewpoint.

The conservative view has been overstated by the YES campaigners .

Sharpening fear is what politics has become .( There will be a spike in suicides ,gay bashing, etc)

For conservatives the fear has always been a further splintering of society and a break up of traditional life and family values.

For those dedicated to EQUALITY at all costs this has been another rallying point towards a society free of "hate".

The YES campaign will win, upsetting the religious people, then the march will move on to fertility treatment and who pays for that.

After that ,the push will come for state funded all gay schools.

Then gay only healthcare ,transport, Universities and businesses, nursing homes etc.

The gay movement will then seek an exemption from the Equal opportunity Act to employ only gay people.

i'm predicting an outbreak of equality that will eat itself up in contradiction and hypocrisy as the YES campaigners already have with their haranguing and badgering , labelling others as hateful and themselves as Pro LOVE. 

Nothing is equal, fair, just or free from bias.

Gay men and Women have had fair treatment for decades in Australia.

it seems disingenuous to label the plebiscite as being set up to fail, because it won't.

 

 

[Little Goffy 12,557]

21 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Well written Goffy and unsurprisingly the reply from Herr Dieter finished with an issue irrelevant to the discussion but linked to the progressive viewpoint.

The conservative view has been overstated by the YES campaigners .

Sharpening fear is what politics has become .( There will be a spike in suicides ,gay bashing, etc)

For conservatives the fear has always been a further splintering of society and a break up of traditional life and family values.

For those dedicated to EQUALITY at all costs this has been another rallying point towards a society free of "hate".

The YES campaign will win, upsetting the religious people, then the march will move on to fertility treatment and who pays for that.

After that ,the push will come for state funded all gay schools.

Then gay only healthcare ,transport, Universities and businesses, nursing homes etc.

The gay movement will then seek an exemption from the Equal opportunity Act to employ only gay people.

i'm predicting an outbreak of equality that will eat itself up in contradiction and hypocrisy as the YES campaigners already have with their haranguing and badgering , labelling others as hateful and themselves as Pro LOVE. 

Nothing is equal, fair, just or free from bias.

Gay men and Women have had fair treatment for decades in Australia.

it seems disingenuous to label the plebiscite as being set up to fail, because it won't.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that the secret gay agenda is to imitate the Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, and any number of other religious cliques? HORROR! Just as well this secret agenda exists only in your head.

I'm very sorry to hear that 'family life and values' are going to be destroyed by people wanting to formally affirm their commitment to eachother in a traditional manner.

Aside from all that bizarre guff, I must confess to being a bit irritated about the 'fair treatment for decades' bit. I mean, that's just being silly, even the Gillard government's project to eliminate administrative discrimination from the depths of bureaucracy, less than ten years ago, admitted that it left large holes.

I just... Biffen, on this matter, you really seem to be dealing with a reality, and a crisis, that only exist in your mind. Or the collective imagination of your after-church drinking buddies.

 

[Biffen 12,323]

5 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

 

Are you suggesting that the secret gay agenda is to imitate the Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, and any number of other religious cliques? HORROR! Just as well this secret agenda exists only in your head.

I'm very sorry to hear that 'family life and values' are going to be destroyed by people wanting to formally affirm their commitment to eachother in a traditional manner.

Aside from all that bizarre guff, I must confess to being a bit irritated about the 'fair treatment for decades' bit. I mean, that's just being silly, even the Gillard government's project to eliminate administrative discrimination from the depths of bureaucracy, less than ten years ago, admitted that it left large holes.

I just... Biffen, on this matter, you really seem to be dealing with a reality, and a crisis, that only exist in your mind. Or the collective imagination of your after-church drinking buddies.

 

Keep fighting your fight. Why stop after Stonewall?

Your opening sentence mentions all the churches that tolerate an aberrant sexuality and but only one that throws them off buildings and tortures them .

Of course the Gillard govts bleeding heart could never bleed enough for an oppressed minority-the left never can throw enough of other peoples money at the latest trendy oppressed bunch.They want the poor oppressed Muslims here by the million. Oppression votes all round!!

Yes it's non stop gay bashing in this country.All we do is hunt down gays ,almost like a sport.When we're not doing that we are painting swastikas and torching known gay houses. 

There are millions of us and we all get together right after Sunday Service, get drunk and then start a mob raid on gays-it's pretty much our raison d'être. then we taunt teens until they can't take it anymore.

Stop the crocodile tears. I'm getting emotional.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Biffen