24 minutes ago, faultydet said:

 

 

58 minutes ago, faultydet said:

It's a no win argument, full of contradictions.

 

I voted no. Some will label me homophobe.

For 2 years while living in Muslim Mindanao, Philippines, I was proud sole sponsor of an all lesbian basketball team. Loved every minute of it. We lost the grand final both years to the team made up entirely of "bakla" or lady boys. 

 

It's a strange world, isn't it.

I don't get it. If you were kind enough to sponsor their basketball team, why not continue the kindness and let them get married if they want to? What's it to you whether they marry or not?

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

Aren't most issues minority issues ? Surely by your reckoning  the refugee issue falls into exactly the same category ? Indigenous Australians make up 3% of the population  (abs 2011) - minority issue ?  

As I said  - it is not the number of people within these "groups"  - it is the way, we as a country, deal with these "groups".

But hey...that's just my opinion.

 

No the Immigration issue is very much something all Australians are entitled to have an opinion on.

One of the primary pre-requisites of a sovereign state is that it issues it's own visas and passports.

In a town like Melbourne,which has grown 48% in 10 years I wished more people did have an opinion on it.

It's central to the housing crisis and the stagnation of our wages.

Aborigines are not a minority issue because they are first and foremost Australians.

My issue is with the Left and their constant pandering to minorities-who they don't respect as people-only as votes.

One day you might see a pattern and realise there is an orchestrated campaign, using violence protest as a back up ,to create civil war in this nation for no good reason.There is an endemic problem in our Unis and Media ,who are now trying to control speech itself.

there was a time when homosexuals went about being excellent citizens, winning awards, writing world class novels, ballets etc.

Now they are political activists-revolting.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

Well said.

2 hours ago, Jara said:

I don't get it. If you were kind enough to sponsor their basketball team, why not continue the kindness and let them get married if they want to? What's it to you whether they marry or not?

 

I am entitled to my own opinion and my own vote. I make no apologies for that.

I am not a homophobe. The homosexual community in Philippines is gigantic. I would guess it's one of the planet's largest.

I believe marriage is man and woman. It's that simple

 

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

No the Immigration issue is very much something all Australians are entitled to have an opinion on.

One of the primary pre-requisites of a sovereign state is that it issues it's own visas and passports.

In a town like Melbourne,which has grown 48% in 10 years I wished more people did have an opinion on it.

It's central to the housing crisis and the stagnation of our wages.

Aborigines are not a minority issue because they are first and foremost Australians.

My issue is with the Left and their constant pandering to minorities-who they don't respect as people-only as votes.

One day you might see a pattern and realise there is an orchestrated campaign, using violence protest as a back up ,to create civil war in this nation for no good reason.There is an endemic problem in our Unis and Media ,who are now trying to control speech itself.

there was a time when homosexuals went about being excellent citizens, winning awards, writing world class novels, ballets etc.

Now they are political activists-revolting.

For someone with at least half a brain, you say some silly things, old boy. And, by the way, your fears of the 'Left' reek of paranoia. As in ''..One day you might see a pattern and realise there is an orchestrated campaign, using violence protest as a back up ,to create civil war in this nation for no good reason.There is an endemic problem in our Unis and Media ,who are now trying to control speech itself.''

Really. Well I'll be...

4 hours ago, dieter said:

For someone with at least half a brain, you say some silly things, old boy. And, by the way, your fears of the 'Left' reek of paranoia. As in ''..One day you might see a pattern and realise there is an orchestrated campaign, using violence protest as a back up ,to create civil war in this nation for no good reason.There is an endemic problem in our Unis and Media ,who are now trying to control speech itself.''

Really. Well I'll be...

Whale Oil Beef Hooked

 

On 24/09/2017 at 9:18 PM, Earl Hood said:

Angry are you quoting Old Testament or New Testament? Old Testament tends to hate everybody and was written three or four thousands of years ago by understandably very bigoted, insular and insecure people.

The New Testament is supposedly composed of Christ's teachings that form the basis of the Christian beliefs you adhere to supposedly. My memory is that these teachings were much more liberal and understanding about people than the tripe you are espousing! Are there any references to gays in the New Testament and where does Mary Magdeline, a consort of Jesus fit in to all this? 

 it does not matter whether I'm talking about the New Testament or the Old Testament, Jesus said don't think I have come to destroy the law, I have come to fulfill them all,  the Bible never says Mary Magdalene was a consort of Jesus, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus just like anybody else that was close to Jesus, just because she is a woman people make up stories that they were sexually involved,  nothing could be further from the truth, you are mixing up the bible with the  Da Vinci Code which is pure fiction.

1 hour ago, don't make me angry said:

 it does not matter whether I'm talking about the New Testament or the Old Testament, Jesus said don't think I have come to destroy the law, I have come to fulfill them all,  the Bible never says Mary Magdalene was a consort of Jesus, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus just like anybody else that was close to Jesus, just because she is a woman people make up stories that they were sexually involved,  nothing could be further from the truth, you are mixing up the bible with the  Da Vinci Code which is pure fiction.

Yes, you've confirmed it: you're a comedian taking the puss. Either that or you're still an altar boy...

16 hours ago, Biffen said:

No the Immigration issue is very much something all Australians are entitled to have an opinion on.

One of the primary pre-requisites of a sovereign state is that it issues it's own visas and passports.

In a town like Melbourne,which has grown 48% in 10 years I wished more people did have an opinion on it.

It's central to the housing crisis and the stagnation of our wages.

Aborigines are not a minority issue because they are first and foremost Australians.

My issue is with the Left and their constant pandering to minorities-who they don't respect as people-only as votes.

One day you might see a pattern and realise there is an orchestrated campaign, using violence protest as a back up ,to create civil war in this nation for no good reason.There is an endemic problem in our Unis and Media ,who are now trying to control speech itself.

there was a time when homosexuals went about being excellent citizens, winning awards, writing world class novels, ballets etc.

Now they are political activists-revolting.

So you have (rightly) highlighted the importance of these issues, although you do seem to have departed from looking at things simplistically as "statistical majority" . 

I will ask you - if as you (rightly) point out, these issues of immigration, housing crisis and wage stagnation are so important, and you pointed out the non importance of the SSM issue why do you believe that we don't get say on important issues other than to vote for a party/politician that we believe shares our views and will hopefully be successful in legislating as opposed to the unimportant SSM issue where the whole nation gets to put pen to paper ( albeit , the result is non binding) ?

2 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

 it does not matter whether I'm talking about the New Testament or the Old Testament, Jesus said don't think I have come to destroy the law, I have come to fulfill them all,  the Bible never says Mary Magdalene was a consort of Jesus, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus just like anybody else that was close to Jesus, just because she is a woman people make up stories that they were sexually involved,  nothing could be further from the truth, you are mixing up the bible with the  Da Vinci Code which is pure fiction.

Um.

44 minutes ago, nutbean said:

So you have (rightly) highlighted the importance of these issues, although you do seem to have departed from looking at things simplistically as "statistical majority" . 

I will ask you - if as you (rightly) point out, these issues of immigration, housing crisis and wage stagnation are so important, and you pointed out the non importance of the SSM issue why do you believe that we don't get say on important issues other than to vote for a party/politician that we believe shares our views and will hopefully be successful in legislating as opposed to the unimportant SSM issue where the whole nation gets to put pen to paper ( albeit , the result is non binding) ?

Put quite simply- there is a dept of immigration .There is no dept of homosexuality .Ot is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals already.

The problem for DIAC is that every mp / senator can write a letter to excuse/ assist an immigrant .

Gay rights are established and indisputable .The problem you raise of representation is the huge flaw in Democracy and yet to be solved.

42 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Put quite simply- there is a dept of immigration .There is no dept of homosexuality .Ot is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals already.

The problem for DIAC is that every mp / senator can write a letter to excuse/ assist an immigrant .

Gay rights are established and indisputable .The problem you raise of representation is the huge flaw in Democracy and yet to be solved.

To be fair, there is an Attorney General's Department that can deal with changes to the law including marriage law.  Why do they not use a survey to determine changes to other laws?  Was there a survey to determine how the public felt about changes that allowed defacto couples to have what are essentially the same legal rights as traditionally wed couples?  Have there ever been surveys relating to changing the age of consent or the legal age for marriage?

Also, and this is a serious question as I don't know the answer, how was SSM legislated in all of the other "western democracies"?  Did any one of those countries that allow SSM go about it with a survey as has been done here?

I'm not sure why this survey is happening- but the effects of it are that people are discussing the issue.

The predicted suicides are not occurring to my knowledge.

Those on the NO side are bemoaning the costs to the whole nation of what would be straight forward had Labor or Liberal been in control of both Houses of Parliament .

The No side are stating that the legal rights already exist in terms of wills,separation,equal ops etc.

So basically we are arguing for the right to hold Wedding parties for the gay community- as if their social life isn't already lotsa fun!

But I understand it is nice to have a big Wedding- legally recognised.

Every girls dream,big day, happy memories.

The only issue I can see occurring will be if legally married Ozzie men walk hand in hand in say ,Malaysia, and then expect our diplomats to get them out of prison.

There will likely be some legal conundrums to follow that I can't yet predict fully.

I had some gay neighbours once that liked to belt crisp out of each other- always a fair fight mind you as they were of similar size.

I think the big cost and controversy will come from IVF ,surrogacy,fertility treatments- which skyrocket the debate into the stratosphere and bring in the question of biological design,God,tax,Drs rights to say no.landlords rights to choose tenants,day care costs etc.

31 minutes ago, hardtack said:

To be fair, there is an Attorney General's Department that can deal with changes to the law including marriage law.  Why do they not use a survey to determine changes to other laws?  Was there a survey to determine how the public felt about changes that allowed defacto couples to have what are essentially the same legal rights as traditionally wed couples?  Have there ever been surveys relating to changing the age of consent or the legal age for marriage?

Also, and this is a serious question as I don't know the answer, how was SSM legislated in all of the other "western democracies"?  Did any one of those countries that allow SSM go about it with a survey as has been done here?

I can answer on New Zealand - it was introduced into parliament without a survery/plebescite/referendum/hand countby Labour and passed 77 to 44.

Ireland had a referendum, but they had to as it required constitutional change. The result was 62-38%. (They also voted on another referendum question at the same time where they rejected reducing the age of eligibility for President.)

Other countries have changed their law by a parliamentary vote without any public referendum, plebiscite or survey.

We're the only stupid ones in the world.

19 hours ago, Biffen said:

there was a time when homosexuals went about being excellent citizens, winning awards, writing world class novels, ballets etc.

Now they are political activists-revolting.

Yep, wouldn't want those gays to become active in support of their rights, would we? As long as they're nice, compliant citizens we can tolerate them ... sort of.

4 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Yep, wouldn't want those gays to become active in support of their rights, would we? As long as they're nice, compliant citizens we can tolerate them ... sort of.

Yes we need more division and social upheaval .Forget about minimum wages,1st home buyers,Chinese capital becoming our landlords- we need to drop another bilion or two for rights that already exist.

8 hours ago, Biffen said:

Yes we need more division and social upheaval .Forget about minimum wages,1st home buyers,Chinese capital becoming our landlords- we need to drop another bilion or two for rights that already exist.

Hey Biff - here's a dilemma for you.

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gay-marriage-australia-queensland-imam-urged-muslims-to-vote-no/news-story/8359f3aca7fd6b7ec0f3a2677a99c35b

 

(Imam in Victoria today said the same thing, but i couldn't be bothered looking for it)

 

strange bedfellows you find yourself with (not literally I'm sure) - i.e. you're always bagging Muslims but they're with you all the way on this one

On 26 September 2017 at 5:36 PM, faultydet said:

 

I am entitled to my own opinion and my own vote. I make no apologies for that.

I am not a homophobe. The homosexual community in Philippines is gigantic. I would guess it's one of the planet's largest.

I believe marriage is man and woman. It's that simple

 

Er - I never said you weren't entitled to a vote or an opinion, and I certainly didn't say you were a homophobe.

 

I was just kind of hoping you could come up with a more logical argument than the one you offered. Never mind.  

council to offer free gay marriage ceremonies at ratepayers expense. heterosexual couple need not apply

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/free-weddings-for-all-samesex-couples-mayors-pledge-if-gay-marriage-is-legalised-20170922-gyn7hb.html

isn't equality grand or is this just grandstanding?

23 minutes ago, Jara said:

Hey Biff - here's a dilemma for you.

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gay-marriage-australia-queensland-imam-urged-muslims-to-vote-no/news-story/8359f3aca7fd6b7ec0f3a2677a99c35b

 

(Imam in Victoria today said the same thing, but i couldn't be bothered looking for it)

 

strange bedfellows you find yourself with (not literally I'm sure) - i.e. you're always bagging Muslims but they're with you all the way on this one

Wrong again Jara. No conflict at all. Good luck to the homosexuals.I'd prefer a decadent society to one controlled by latent, down low ,religious,pedo,homosexuals .Prefer out gays to the other lot.I'd love the govt to turn Mosques over to the gays for the ceremonies.I really would enjoy that.Gays would too I reckon.

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

council to offer free gay marriage ceremonies at ratepayers expense. heterosexual couple need not apply

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/free-weddings-for-all-samesex-couples-mayors-pledge-if-gay-marriage-is-legalised-20170922-gyn7hb.html

isn't equality grand or is this just grandstanding?

They may have a free time slot on Australia Day DC.

14 hours ago, Jara said:

Er - I never said you weren't entitled to a vote or an opinion, and I certainly didn't say you were a homophobe.

 

I was just kind of hoping you could come up with a more logical argument than the one you offered. Never mind.  

I know you didn't Jara. Apologies if it came across that way.

I will add another head spinner for you.

I also worked at Ok Tedi mine in P.N.G.

The local workforce on the blast crew was entirely male, and they were on site for many months at a time, before heading back to their home province. Over there, when the men felt a bit randy, they would ask their mate to bend over for them for a release. To them it was completely normal, and not even conversation worthy.

Did any of us judge? Nope, we had a condom supply placed inside the amenities block for them instead.

 

Would I vote for them to marry each other? Still no.

On 27/09/2017 at 7:23 AM, don't make me angry said:

 it does not matter whether I'm talking about the New Testament or the Old Testament, Jesus said don't think I have come to destroy the law, I have come to fulfill them all,  the Bible never says Mary Magdalene was a consort of Jesus, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus just like anybody else that was close to Jesus, just because she is a woman people make up stories that they were sexually involved,  nothing could be further from the truth, you are mixing up the bible with the  Da Vinci Code which is pure fiction.

whooley dooley...

Any sense of authority went down the gurgler when you decried people  "making up stories" and then mentioned the word "truth".

Most biblical scholars (except those at the very conservative end) prefer to think of the bible as a book of teaching rather than a book of facts.

But maybe this is a debate for a different day.....