8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do you personally support the safe schools program nut?

Start a new thread...

The safe schools program has zero to do with SSM. In case you have missed it, we don't have SSM in this country and  yet the safe schools program is being debated in parliament as to what should and shouldn't be acceptably taught in our schools and has been debated in different circles since its inception. 

And the nonsensical nature of continually throwing these red herrings into the debate is that it doesn't follow the just because SSM law is passed that it necessarily impacts the safe school program. (Look up Simon Birmingham's response)

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Start a new thread...

The safe schools program has zero to do with SSM. In case you have missed it, we don't have SSM in this country and  yet the safe schools program is being debated in parliament as to what should and shouldn't be acceptably taught in our schools and has been debated in different circles since its inception. 

And the nonsensical nature of continually throwing these red herrings into the debate is that it doesn't follow the just because SSM law is passed that it necessarily impacts the safe school program. (Look up Simon Birmingham's response)

The fact you won't answer the question demonstrates you know they are linked but are desperate to keep them seperate (for the time being).

All you had to say was yes you do or no you don't, this is a forum where everyone is free to voice their opinion. You hate being called a leftist but you keep towing than line.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

Wow... do you not read a newspaper ? Abbott had major opposition within his own party to the plebiscite that he so gleefully promoted and since you are so adept at throwing around epitaphs - only a rusted only righty would see this plebiscite as anything but a crude attempt to confuse and delay.

What on earth does Wong's and Gillard's change of view have to do with this argument. I have not been railing against the right to have a yes or no view or to change it. I have been angered by ridiculous side issues being brought into the debate (like this one) and more importantly the mechanism - ie the plebiscite.

Ill ask you a simple question. Do you not see the total futility of holding a plebiscite that is non binding and for the law to be changed parliamentarians have to vote on legislation anyway. Some of these parliamentarians even before the result of the plebiscite is known have already said that they will vote they way they want to vote irrespective of the result ? The people may have a say but it counts for nothing as this is non binding.  It is not a say - it is nothing more than an opinion that parliamentarians can and will ignore, 

It should be a free vote in parliament - end of story. 

Wong and Gillard were in power before Abbott and held the view marriage should be between a man and a women. No chance for ssm.

Abbott got elected and suggested a plebiscite which could lead to ssm. 

Somehow in your confused logic Abbott delayed ssm when he was the first PM in history to give it a chance.

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

A very poor example. Everybody has the same rights under the marriage act. Any man can marry any women homosexual, heterosexual or any other of the new gay lesbian, transsexual terms I'm not familiar with.

Person B wants to marry someone outside of the existing act and biology.

Hahaha … oh wait, you're serious? That's a completely ridiculous (and monstrously selfish) argument.

Imagine for a second that the situation was completely reversed. Gay people can legally marry, and straight people can't. In that scenario, would you seriously think that your rights as a straight person weren't being impeded? Would you seriously make the case that "I have the right to marry, I'd just have to marry a man"?* Of course you wouldn't.

So … have a little imaginative empathy, and put yourself in their shoes.

Also, on the "nobody's rights are impeded because (gay) men can still marry women" thing ...

So … somewhere between 0.01% (low end estimate) and 1.7% (high end estimate) of babies born are born either A) without genitals/gonads/hormones that aren't identifiably male or female; or B) with a combination of chromosomes other than a simple 'XX' or 'XY'. Those people are called 'Intersex', it's the 'I' in LGBTQIA, and it's a well-documented medical fact.

To borrow your phrase, that IS "existing biology." Here's the wikipedia article to get you started.

So those people, neither men nor women, have no right to marry anyone at all? Even if we accept the logic of 'gay people could legally get married to people they aren't attracted to', some people's rights still ARE being impeded by specifying "between a man and a woman" in the marriage act.

I'm in favour of equality.

To be otherwise is monstrously selfish.

 

 

 

*I'm assuming Wrecker45 is a straight man. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, I apologise.

11 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I suspect when the legislation is drawn up it won't be to just to cross out the words a man and a women and substitute "two people". Would you like a bet?

I don't bet. But that's all that needs changing to the Marriage Act itself. Any other legislation would be enabling and probably separate.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Abbott got elected and suggested a plebiscite which could lead to ssm. 

Somehow in your confused logic Abbott delayed ssm when he was the first PM in history to give it a chance.

Abbott just needs to keep talking. Like Roger Corbett, he's the best advert for the "Yes" case going

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

The fact you won't answer the question demonstrates you know they are linked but are desperate to keep them seperate (for the time being).

All you had to say was yes you do or no you don't, this is a forum where everyone is free to voice their opinion. You hate being called a leftist but you keep towing than line.

Reading is a skill that seems to escape you. I have no desire to discuss the relevant merits of the safe school program which is my choice.

But just so you can read it a third time - I have read the plebescite form from cover to cover and i just can't see where it says anything about safe schools in it and how it is linking to this vote.

For the record this lefty isn't the only person who doesn't think it is linked. The education minister ( who I presume is a righty) and oversee the safe school program doesnt think it is linked either.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/education-minister-simon-birmingham-denies-same-sex-marriage-wo/8855692

 

So instead of me telling you it is not linked I will let Simon Birmingham tell you ""

"It is patently ridiculous to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to see some new wave of teaching reform sweep across the country," Senator Birmingham said.

"That's just not going to happen. This is a simple issue, and it should not be conflated with other issues."

Hey Wrecker - I think Simon Birmingham just called you patently ridiculous.

I'm done here.

32 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I don't bet. But that's all that needs changing to the Marriage Act itself. Any other legislation would be enabling and probably separate.

Probably best you don't bet when you are walking around with blinkers on.

21 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Reading is a skill that seems to escape you. I have no desire to discuss the relevant merits of the safe school program which is my choice.

But just so you can read it a third time - I have read the plebescite form from cover to cover and i just can't see where it says anything about safe schools in it and how it is linking to this vote.

For the record this lefty isn't the only person who doesn't think it is linked. The education minister ( who I presume is a righty) and oversee the safe school program doesnt think it is linked either.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/education-minister-simon-birmingham-denies-same-sex-marriage-wo/8855692

 

So instead of me telling you it is not linked I will let Simon Birmingham tell you ""

"It is patently ridiculous to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to see some new wave of teaching reform sweep across the country," Senator Birmingham said.

"That's just not going to happen. This is a simple issue, and it should not be conflated with other issues."

Hey Wrecker - I think Simon Birmingham just called you patently ridiculous.

I'm done here.

If I start i safe schools thread will you reply?

Or do you need to keep your opinion secret until after the postal survey just like the legislation?

I've yet to see a logical reason for bringing in all of these irrelevancies (like Safe Schools) into the debate. Safe Schools is already operating. How will that change? It's irrelevant. If we were discussing traditional marriage, would the fear-mongerers let us bring in issues like domestic violence? Or the divorce rates of traditional marriage? Would those idiots who say marriage is all about procreation be happy to talk about infertile people marrying?

 

I doubt there is a logical argument. It's just mean-spiritedness (and insecurity - I was listening to some idiot on the radio saying Marriage Equality threatens his marriage and I thought - jeez, mate, you must have a pretty insecure marriage).

 

For god's sake - these people are our fellow countrymen (and presumably Melbourne supporters) . Why deny them the rights the rest of us enjoy?  Why not spread a little love around?  

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

If I start i safe schools thread will you reply?

Or do you need to keep your opinion secret until after the postal survey just like the legislation?

Sure I'll reply.

I will ask you the same questions that I asked King dingaling.

1) do you vote in elections

2/ If so, how are you able to do this when you all you are receiving is general policy information from politicians and have no idea how their legislation will look ?  (or if they keep their promises on general policy and legislate at all, or if they will legislate on issues that were never brought up during the election campaign)

In view of the lovely Andrew Bolt's accusations about the hard core tactics of the Yes Vote, let's assume the bomb threat on AFL house was TOTALLY NOT RELATED because Christians and No voters are very gentle folk.

Edited September 21, 20177 yr by dieter

6 minutes ago, dieter said:

In view of the lovely Andrew Bolt's accusations about the hard core tactics of the Yes Vote, let's assume the bomb threat on AFL house was TOTALLY NOT RELATED because Christians and No voters are very gentle folk.

We can always rely on you to make no sense. What has Andrew Bolt, one of your favourite scapegoats got to do with AFL house?

3 minutes ago, dieter said:

In view of the lovely Andrew Bolt's accusations about the hard core tactics of the Yes Vote, let's assume the bomb threat on AFL house was TOTALLY NOT RELATED because Christians and No voters are very gentle folk.

Nah, no way. Religious people wouldn't do that. They only condemn people to death in Africa because they refuse to allow condoms, or shift rapists on to the next parish, or insist that people should be left dying in agony for months on end because their BS god doesn't approve.  

3 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

We can always rely on you to make no sense. What has Andrew Bolt, one of your favourite scapegoats got to do with AFL house?

He's been banging on about how equal marriage advocates are bullies.

34 minutes ago, Jara said:

He's been banging on about how equal marriage advocates are bullies.

They are. How many shop windows have you seen with a "No" sign out the front? 

It won't happen because their shop will be vandalised.

The yes vote is around 60% at the moment so logically about 40% are in the no camp. Yet we see a large set of the population too scared to voice an opinion.

Andrew Bolt Is not the only one exposing this but Dieter has some kind of obsession with him.

11 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

They are. How many shop windows have you seen with a "No" sign out the front? 

It won't happen because their shop will be vandalised.

Really? We're going to start making things up and use them as arguments?

Pretty desperate stuff, if the constant muddying of the waters with unrelated issues wasn't enough.

Good on Dieter.  Bolt is an arrogant pig, the biggest bully I'm aware of in Australian public life.  I presume (haven't read him lately but I\d be surprised if he wasn't) he's getting his knickers in a knot about the Queensland girl losing her party job -  but happy for the Melbourne Archbishop to threaten the jobs of the Church's (overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded) 180,000 employees.

 

Must admit - I'm curious - I presume you're advocating a No vote. Can you give me a logical reason for this position? Most people I hear can come up with nothing more cogent than the deluded opinions of a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders.

6 minutes ago, Jara said:

Good on Dieter.  Bolt is an arrogant pig, the biggest bully I'm aware of in Australian public life.  I presume (haven't read him lately but I\d be surprised if he wasn't) he's getting his knickers in a knot about the Queensland girl losing her party job -  but happy for the Melbourne Archbishop to threaten the jobs of the Church's (overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded) 180,000 employees.

 

Must admit - I'm curious - I presume you're advocating a No vote. Can you give me a logical reason for this position? Most people I hear can come up with nothing more cogent than the deluded opinions of a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders.

I'm undecided.

If I thought it was purely a ssm vote I would be in the yes camp.

i really dislike Marxist causes and this is a pet cause for them at the moment. Breaking down traditional western values.

I don't like organisations like the AFL getting involved because they are pretending to represent people they don't.

The legislation hasn't been drawn up before the vote which is another reason to think wtf?

Having said all that I don't want to stand in the way of the very small minority who are really hoping to be recognised as married couples and can't be at the moment.

7 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Probably best you don't bet when you are walking around with blinkers on.

Beats tilting at windmills and boxing at shadows.

On ‎20‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:15 PM, nutbean said:

Is that the same Corey Bernardi who  campaigned and got elected as a liberal senator and then after the election decided he really didn't want to be a liberal so is now sitting in parliament that he got elected to on promises to voters that he believes  longer has to keep ?  I would think that makes Mr Bernardi well qualified to comment  on blank cheques.

Is that the same Cory Bernardi  that is on record as saying months before it was known how the plebecite would look  that whatever result the plebiscite returns he will vote no irrespective ? 

 

Yes ,  he lobbied hard to get a high enough position on the Liberal ticket to ensure a DOUBLE term in the Double Dissolution election .

Truly a man of principle.

19 minutes ago, dee-eee said:

Yes ,  he lobbied hard to get a high enough position on the Liberal ticket to ensure a DOUBLE term in the Double Dissolution election .

Truly a man of principle.

what senatorial aspirant from any political party wouldn't lobby hard to get the highest party ticket position possible?

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm undecided.

If I thought it was purely a ssm vote I would be in the yes camp.

i really dislike Marxist causes and this is a pet cause for them at the moment. 1. Breaking down traditional western values.

2. I don't like organisations like the AFL getting involved because they are pretending to represent people they don't.

3. The legislation hasn't been drawn up before the vote which is another reason to think wtf?

Having said all that I don't want to stand in the way of the very small minority who are really hoping to be recognised as married couples and can't be at the moment.

1. Traditional western values I would have thought include a fair go for ALL... hence, the move is to enhancing our "traditional values" so that they are more inclusive.

2. Are you saying that there are no gay AFL players?  The AFL are standing up for the rights of those in their ranks who are currently affected by the marriage laws as they presently stand.

3. To hearken back to Nutbean's comment... can we take it that you don't vote in Federal or State elections as the parties never go to the polls with legislation drawn up.

Edited September 21, 20177 yr by hardtack

"Having said all that I don't want to stand in the way of the very small minority who are really hoping to be recognised as married couples and can't be at the moment."

 

So don't.  Because in muddying the waters and bringing in irrelevant distractions and red herrings that's exactly what you're doing - making it harder for our gay brothers and sisters to enjoy the same kind of stable, officially respected and recognised relationships that the rest of us have had.  

9 hours ago, Jara said:

"Having said all that I don't want to stand in the way of the very small minority who are really hoping to be recognised as married couples and can't be at the moment."

 

So don't.  Because in muddying the waters and bringing in irrelevant distractions and red herrings that's exactly what you're doing - making it harder for our gay brothers and sisters to enjoy the same kind of stable, officially respected and recognised relationships that the rest of us have had.  

It's not muddying the waters when it is genuine concern. I know people who have been organising floats at the Mardi Gras sine the late 90's who are embarrassed that groups like GetUp! and antifa are pretending to represent the gay community when in reality they don't and are fighting a battle for themselves.