What are the odds of Kevin Rudd's godson being the first and only person physically attacked for supporting SSM?

I hope for the sake of those legitimately wanting SSM that left wing activists don't ruin their campaign. Getup!, the ABC and Antifa are doing a goon job of it at the moment.

7 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

What are the odds of Kevin Rudd's godson being the first and only person physically attacked for supporting SSM?

I hope for the sake of those legitimately wanting SSM that left wing activists don't ruin their campaign. Getup!, the ABC and Antifa are doing a goon job of it at the moment.

 

And you didn't catch the coalition for marriage ad on television ?  You keep talking about open mindedness but you continually demonstrate your lack of balance. You simplistically categorise most issues into left or right. I have a  news flash for you -  across the spectrum your "left" and "right" are guilty of extremes, dishonesty and exaggeration

As soon as I see the categorisation "left" or "right" it just screams lack of thought.

 

 

49 minutes ago, nutbean said:

 

And you didn't catch the coalition for marriage ad on television ?  You keep talking about open mindedness but you continually demonstrate your lack of balance. You simplistically categorise most issues into left or right. I have a  news flash for you -  across the spectrum your "left" and "right" are guilty of extremes, dishonesty and exaggeration

As soon as I see the categorisation "left" or "right" it just screams lack of thought.

 

 

I saw the traditional marriage ad on television and the fact you just point at the ad and don't have the courage or foresight to say what was wrong with it screams lack of thought.

"left" and / or "right" are widely used to signify political, idealogical or social systems. To pretend otherwise shows a real lack of thought and understanding.

I thought it was a brilliant ad - straight to the heart of the matter. Those bloody Stalinists, dragging off all our little boys and making them wear dresses ( only priests are allowed to do that) 

 

21 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

And you didn't catch the coalition for marriage ad on television ?  You keep talking about open mindedness but you continually demonstrate your lack of balance. You simplistically categorise most issues into left or right. I have a  news flash for you -  across the spectrum your "left" and "right" are guilty of extremes, dishonesty and exaggeration

As soon as I see the categorisation "left" or "right" it just screams lack of thought.

 

 

You make much sense Herr Nussbaum. Much more than the placard carriers, the black and white one, you get my drift.

1 hour ago, Jara said:

I thought it was a brilliant ad - straight to the heart of the matter. Those bloody Stalinists, dragging off all our little boys and making them wear dresses ( only priests are allowed to do that) 

 

Do you agree with the fundamentals of the safe schools program Jara?

 

A man has allegedly been charged with punching Rudd's godson. I was highly suspicious of the incident but if this is the case I apologise to Rudd and co.

22 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I saw the traditional marriage ad on television and the fact you just point at the ad and don't have the courage or foresight to say what was wrong with it screams lack of thought.

"left" and / or "right" are widely used to signify political, idealogical or social systems. To pretend otherwise shows a real lack of thought and understanding.

I am not sure you even read what you post.

If you want to accuse others of pointing to things and not having the courage or foresight to say what is wrong with and therefore it screams lack of thought - What exactly did you do in your opening post ???? your opening post pointed to the whole freakin ABC ( and Getup and Intifa) without any reference to how they might be ruining the campaign - I think you may have trumped (pun intended) the one ad I pointed to ? 

So what is wrong with the ad ? We are not voting on safe schools program, we are not voting on whether a kid was told he had to wear a dress, we are not voting on whether play acting two of the same sex getting married is right or wrong, we are not voting on religious freedom.  We are voting as to whether two of the same sex can get married.

 

17 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I am not sure you even read what you post.

If you want to accuse others of pointing to things and not having the courage or foresight to say what is wrong with and therefore it screams lack of thought - What exactly did you do in your opening post ???? your opening post pointed to the whole freakin ABC ( and Getup and Intifa) without any reference to how they might be ruining the campaign - I think you may have trumped (pun intended) the one ad I pointed to ? 

So what is wrong with the ad ? We are not voting on safe schools program, we are not voting on whether a kid was told he had to wear a dress, we are not voting on whether play acting two of the same sex getting married is right or wrong, we are not voting on religious freedom.  We are voting as to whether two of the same sex can get married.

 

I said i hope activists don't ruin the yes campaign. That is pretty clear. If you need help in understanding how GetUp! The ABC and Antifa are activist organisations let me know.

How do you know what we are voting on? They are going to draft the legislation after the vote. 

 

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do you agree with the fundamentals of the safe schools program Jara?

 

I do. What right minded person wouldn't?

 

And i'm out (damned recent posts column)..............

 

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I said i hope activists don't ruin the yes campaign. That is pretty clear. If you need help in understanding how GetUp! The ABC and Antifa are activist organisations let me know.

How do you know what we are voting on? They are going to draft the legislation after the vote. 

We are voting on whether we would like to see Marriage Equality, YES or NO. The legislation is unlikely to be anything other than the simple passing of a law to validate marriage between same sex couples.  The government knows that if there is a resounding YES vote, then dicking with legislation in a way that will devalue marriage equality, will see a big backlash against them the next time they go to the polls.

As for the "activists" ruining the YES vote's chances, it is probably no more likely to do so than the rubbish being touted by the pro NO vote people will ruin the NO vote's chances...

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do you agree with the fundamentals of the safe schools program Jara?

 

Sure. I had to wear a dress for much of my childhood (was an altar boy - in Biff's hometown) - look at the fine figure of a man I turned out to be,.

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I said i hope activists don't ruin the yes campaign. That is pretty clear. If you need help in understanding how GetUp! The ABC and Antifa are activist organisations let me know.

How do you know what we are voting on? They are going to draft the legislation after the vote. 

And if you can't see why the traditional marriage ad was disingenuous at best then I can't help you as you are probably too blinkered to understand.

i know exactly what I am voting for as it is clear on the form. Again if you don't understand a simple one sentence question then  I am afraid I can't help you. As to what will be legislated that is up to the blokes in Canberra as this should have been in the first place instead wasting time and money on a non binding plebiscite. 

4 hours ago, Jara said:

Sure. I had to wear a dress for much of my childhood (was an altar boy - in Biff's hometown) - look at the fine figure of a man I turned out to be,.

I have no problem with anybody dressing how they want. 

I don't however have any time for teaching kids gender is fluid.

 

6 hours ago, hardtack said:

We are voting on whether we would like to see Marriage Equality, YES or NO. The legislation is unlikely to be anything other than the simple passing of a law to validate marriage between same sex couples.  The government knows that if there is a resounding YES vote, then dicking with legislation in a way that will devalue marriage equality, will see a big backlash against them the next time they go to the polls.

As for the "activists" ruining the YES vote's chances, it is probably no more likely to do so than the rubbish being touted by the pro NO vote people will ruin the NO vote's chances...

Exactly. We have no idea what the legislation will be.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

And if you can't see why the traditional marriage ad was disingenuous at best then I can't help you as you are probably too blinkered to understand.

i know exactly what I am voting for as it is clear on the form. Again if you don't understand a simple one sentence question then  I am afraid I can't help you. As to what will be legislated that is up to the blokes in Canberra as this should have been in the first place instead wasting time and money on a non binding plebiscite. 

To dodge around saying what is wrong with the ad is disingenuous. 

The current Government were elected with a promise of a plebiscite as part of their election platform. Democracy isn't your thing?

 

3 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Exactly. We have no idea what the legislation will be.

That is the thing. If we don't know what a yes vote will mean for legislation, and the effects it will have, then we vote NO. When I say 'we' - I mean anyone with any common sense.

1 hour ago, KingDingAling said:

That is the thing. If we don't know what a yes vote will mean for legislation, and the effects it will have, then we vote NO. When I say 'we' - I mean anyone with any common sense.

Nonsense. Despite Wrecker's selecting just a part of my statement, it is obvious that the legislation will simply be the granting of the same legal marriage status to same sex couples as is currently afforded to any other male/female couple. A NO vote simply assures that the issue will be shelved indefinitely.

Although I am a fascist dictator when it comes to threats imposed by cultural marxists,antifa,the loony left ,Islam and such.

This doesn't bother me. It will help homosexuals to feel more like a part of society .

I would prefer the government shut down IVF treatments for SS couples.In the same way funding for sex changes is not something I wish to subsidise.

If they cannot or will not produce children the old fashioned way then they should be made to adopt the children of ice addicts or other such orphans.

9 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

That is the thing. If we don't know what a yes vote will mean for legislation, and the effects it will have, then we vote NO. When I say 'we' - I mean anyone with any common sense.

So by this wonderful logic I presume you never vote in any election ? After all politicians and parties don't tell us what their legislation will look like - they campaign on broad brush policy. The whole notion of how this simple act of allowing same sex marriage age will affect things like "safe schools" is such a nonsensical argument. This safe schools legislation is not tied at the hip to same sex marriage and has already had movement and purported changes independent of the same sex marriage vote. All we are being asked to do is vote on same sex marriage. Any other issues like safe schools and religious freedoms (or any issue for that matter) may or may not be brought up in parliament and may or may not be enacted. 

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

To dodge around saying what is wrong with the ad is disingenuous. 

The current Government were elected with a promise of a plebiscite as part of their election platform. Democracy isn't your thing?

 

It'd be about the only promise they haven't broken. 

The conservatives are bringing up all sorts of tangential issues because there's no logical argument against same-sex marriage itself. Listen to talk-back radio - 3AW etc -  or the drongoes in your local pub - mostly stupid ageing men whose main argument is "Never had it before, don't see why we should have it now."

 

Like most conservatives, their driving motivation is a complete lack of empathy (and maybe a fear of their own latent homosexuality). They have hearts of stone. 

That said, I do think Turnbull was pathetic in bringing on the vote without giving details of the legislation. Left the yes-side wide open for abuse, misinterpretation and fear-mongering. Bit like Howard and the Republican referendum.

 

Not that Turnbull really gives a sh*&t. HIs overwhelming interests are money, power and self-aggrandisement. 

12 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

That is the thing. If we don't know what a yes vote will mean for legislation, and the effects it will have, then we vote NO. When I say 'we' - I mean anyone with any common sense.

Tell me what legislation you have ever seen in your lifetime that has been made available to you before any election and your vote ? 

Common sense isn't all that common.

39 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Tell me what legislation you have ever seen in your lifetime that has been made available to you before any election and your vote ? 

Common sense isn't all that common.

Not to mention that an overwhelming YES vote sends a loud and clear message to the govt that they had better not mess up the legislation; otherwise it could see them back in opposition at the next election.