Has Collingwood expressed their view? 

Edited September 28, 20177 yr by Ethan Tremblay

18 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Has Collingwood expressed their view? 

In their own special way, yes.

 

10 hours ago, faultydet said:

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.

I don't understand what this has to do with the question of whether gay men or women have the right to marry.

As they say in the classics, boys will be boys. What happened in the Ok mines has nothing to do with this question. Maybe that's why they were called Ok mines. I assume a Muslim could even eat pork there, if you get my drift...

7 hours ago, dieter said:

I don't understand what this has to do with the question of whether gay men or women have the right to marry.

As they say in the classics, boys will be boys. What happened in the Ok mines has nothing to do with this question. Maybe that's why they were called Ok mines. I assume a Muslim could even eat pork there, if you get my drift...

Nice one Deiter. And yes, that's pretty much how it goes.

My point is, i don't condemn people for their choices, but that doesn't mean I would vote to legitimise it.

I want Tony Abbott to keep opening his mouth until the very end of the postal survey.

Corey phoned me today. Here's the number:  03 91112387. The message is sheer bullshite and random and irrelevant fear-mongering. What a vile human being: he joins Tony Abbottoir and Dutton in my hierarchy of the lowest form of human life imaginable.

23 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I want Tony Abbott to keep opening his mouth until the very end of the postal survey.

I'd like him to keep opening it until the end of the Tory government. I've noticed my teenage daughters and their friends think he's getting seriously weird these days - looks like a skull with eyeballs, ego as big as a firetruck.  

11 hours ago, dieter said:

Corey phoned me today. Here's the number:  03 91112387. The message is sheer bullshite and random and irrelevant fear-mongering. What a vile human being: he joins Tony Abbottoir and Dutton in my hierarchy of the lowest form of human life imaginable.

I didn't understand that. One minute the right are going hysterical because the Yes-mob put out a randomised text-message - it's an intrusion, a denial of their rights, an abuse of their kids etc -  then they go and do the same thing. 

Corey should go into professional fundraising. He's good at that.

On 30/09/2017 at 10:03 AM, Jara said:

I didn't understand that. One minute the right are going hysterical because the Yes-mob put out a randomised text-message - it's an intrusion, a denial of their rights, an abuse of their kids etc -  then they go and do the same thing. 

I do find it intrusive - door knocking, phone calls and text messages and both sides of the debate have done it. 

However a guy I know said he was going to vote no purely based on being so angered that he received an unsolicited text message from get-up. I did ask him that if he banged his shin on a curb crossing the road would he then vote against all major freeway infrastructure programs ?

As intrusive as the campaigning might be  - the voting is not about intrusive campaigning - it's about same sex marriage.

 

Yes, it's like these idiots who you hear on 3AW or such places who say something along the lines of "I'm in favour of same-sex marriage but I'm so annoyed by the Yes campaign that I'm voting no." 

 

Subterfuge. Something tells me they never were in fact in favour of marriage equality, and were just looking for an excuse. 

 

I've still yet to see a single cogent argument against marriage equality. At worst, they're like the religious fellow who posted a page or two back saying the Bible was against it. At least folks like Faultydet are honest enough to say: "I just don't like it." 

 

Yes, it's like these idiots who you hear on 3AW or such places who say something along the lines of "I'm in favour of same-sex marriage but I'm so annoyed by the Yes campaign that I'm voting no." 

 

Subterfuge. Something tells me they never were in fact in favour of marriage equality, and were just looking for an excuse. 

 

I've still yet to see a single cogent argument against marriage equality. At worst, they're like the religious fellow who posted a page or two back saying the Bible was against it. At least folks like Faultydet are honest enough to say: "I just don't like it." 

Couldn't agree more.

On issues like climate change and refugees, whilst I have a stance, I can make a logical argument against my stance. I can argue both sides of the coin.

On SSM - I am yet to hear an argument for the no case that makes any logical sense whatsoever.

On 30/09/2017 at 10:03 AM, Jara said:

I didn't understand that. One minute the right are going hysterical because the Yes-mob put out a randomised text-message - it's an intrusion, a denial of their rights, an abuse of their kids etc -  then they go and do the same thing. 

I thought the same thing when I first read about Bernard's plan.

I'm pretty sure the difference is the robocalls went to listed landline numbers but the "yes" SMS went to mobiles that were unlisted and on the do not call register.

I got the SMS and couldn't care less. I am not so flakey that a random SMS would influence or infuriate me.

The official line for the "yes" campaign is they used a random number generator to send out the SMS but anybody in the know will tell you that it is not cost effective to randomly generate numbers after the 04 . There are simply too many combinations not in use. So there is a suspicion they used a list that may have been obtained surreptitiously.

16 hours ago, nutbean said:

Couldn't agree more.

On issues like climate change and refugees, whilst I have a stance, I can make a logical argument against my stance. I can argue both sides of the coin.

On SSM - I am yet to hear an argument for the no case that makes any logical sense whatsoever.

Logic may lay in the eye of the beholder.

I think children should have the right to a mother and a father. This is not always possible but it is preferable.

understand ss couples and single people can adopt at the moment so marriage is not the be all and end all to parenting children.

By keeping traditional marriage we give more children the opportunity to have a mother and father and I believe that is for the greater good.

For me marriage was about wanting to start my own family. For ss couples their motive may be equality. I can understand that line of thinking but I believe a child's right to a mother and father like nature intended should outweigh the rights of a couple fighting for what they believe is their right on paper.

You gave a diagonal nod to the flaw in your argument, but you should have given it more - maybe a genuflection? Gay couples can already have children. Whether their parents are married or not is irrelevant - in fact,  if it influences the discussion at all, it should be an argument in favour of marriage equality - ie more community acceptance for the thousands of children being born to same sex couples = more positive outcomes.

 

When I asked for a cogent argument, I was hoping for something a little more objective than "I believe children have the right to a mother and a father..." Is there any evidence to support your view, or is it just prejudice? (I'm not saying there is no evidence that children would do better with a mother and father, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.  I may be prejudiced myself - the only same-sex couple I know raising a child seem to be doing a better job of it than most of the straights I know - their little two-year old is so cheery, he makes us all laugh). 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Logic may lay in the eye of the beholder.

I think children should have the right to a mother and a father. This is not always possible but it is preferable.

understand ss couples and single people can adopt at the moment so marriage is not the be all and end all to parenting children.

By keeping traditional marriage we give more children the opportunity to have a mother and father and I believe that is for the greater good.

For me marriage was about wanting to start my own family. For ss couples their motive may be equality. I can understand that line of thinking but I believe a child's right to a mother and father like nature intended should outweigh the rights of a couple fighting for what they believe is their right on paper.

I know many ss female couple who also WANT TO RAISE A FAMILY. There is absolutely no evidence that the children of these relationships are any worse off. Why? Because they still have two parents who love them and want the best for them.

6 minutes ago, Jara said:

You gave a diagonal nod to the flaw in your argument, but you should have given it more - maybe a genuflection? Gay couples can already have children. Whether their parents are married or not is irrelevant - in fact,  if it influences the discussion at all, it should be an argument in favour of marriage equality - ie more community acceptance for the thousands of children being born to same sex couples = more positive outcomes.

 

When I asked for a cogent argument, I was hoping for something a little more objective than "I believe children have the right to a mother and a father..." Is there any evidence to support your view, or is it just prejudice? (I'm not saying there is no evidence that children would do better with a mother and father, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.  I may be prejudiced myself - the only same-sex couple I know raising a child seem to be doing a better job of it than most of the straights I know - their little two-year old is so cheery, he makes us all laugh). 

I realise the argument is imperfect. I don't believe there is a perfect solution.

As for evidence, I can link to any number of articles reporting to show a benefit of upbringing because of a mother and a father. You could link to any number (just go to the ABC) of articles reporting to show there is no difference.

We live in a world where news, science and statistics are published to get web traffic, likes and google preferencing. 

I'll go with my gut feeling and biology on this.

 

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Logic may lay in the eye of the beholder.

I think children should have the right to a mother and a father. This is not always possible but it is preferable.

understand ss couples and single people can adopt at the moment so marriage is not the be all and end all to parenting children.

By keeping traditional marriage we give more children the opportunity to have a mother and father and I believe that is for the greater good.

For me marriage was about wanting to start my own family. For ss couples their motive may be equality. I can understand that line of thinking but I believe a child's right to a mother and father like nature intended should outweigh the rights of a couple fighting for what they believe is their right on paper.

Sorry but again logic is escaping you - Your argument has zero bearing on same sex marriage argument. We are not voting on whether same sex couples can have children. Same sex couples can have children by surrogacy, or adoption or in the case two women by natural means. I believe that debate has already been decided. And just to dilute the argument even more - we are approaching 40% of children in Australia being born to unmarried parents. To dilute it even further ( figures from 2011 ABS) - 33,700 same sex couples in Australia - with 6300 children in these families. How about this little stat "Children in same-sex couple families make up only one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1%). And just so you are clear - children born to married couples has been rapidly decreasing. "But to repeat  - this vote is not about children having a mother and father because as you can see - the ability for same sex couples to raise children is already legal and happening. 

Every argument offered up by the no campaign has been peripheral nonsense.

Lets make it simple.

Tell me exactly how you believe SSM will affect you.

 

(edit - it is not peripheral nonsense - as some of the issues are important and are worthy of debate and discussion - however the arguments are peripheral and irrelevant to the SSM debate)

Edited October 5, 20177 yr by nutbean

The argument is more than imperfect - it's fatally flawed. Babies are being born to same sex couples every day, with or without marriage. That question has already been resolved. This debate is about whether we choose to give those families the emotional support that comes from being able to say you're "married". 

 

I suppose gut feeling is on your side, because it's your guts, but I don't know that biology is.  Social mores - and technologies - are constantly evolving. Are you also opposed to IVF? Caesarians? 

 

PS - Nutbean and I crossed in mid-air. He was saying similar things, but better. 

Edited October 5, 20177 yr by Jara

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I am not so flakey that a random SMS would influence or infuriate me.

 

Spot on ! ( well...maybe infuriate and irritate  but certainly not an influencing factor on my decision)

3 minutes ago, Jara said:

 I suppose gut feeling is on your side, because it's your guts, but I don't know that biology is.  Social mores - and technologies - are constantly evolving. Are you also opposed to IVF? Caesarians? 

Pre 1956 in Western Australia. 1957 in South Australia and 1942 in Tasmania,  girls could get legally married at age 12. I have no understanding of why that law was changed. (sarcasm intended).

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

Pre 1956 in Western Australia. 1957 in South Australia and 1942 in Tasmania,  girls could get legally married at age 12. I have no understanding of why that law was changed. (sarcasm intended).

More surprising was the fact that the change didn't first get put to a public vote!

.

I'm not going to waste my time or yours justifying my argument.

The "yes" campaign will almost certainly win. It is against my better judgement to back it but I will embrace the result.

I hope the small percentage of homosexuals who benefit from it enjoy it. I hope the Marxists and antifa's trip over on their next cause.

24 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I hope the small percentage of homosexuals who benefit from it enjoy it. 

Now we agree on something. Just can't understand why we needed a public non binding survey that costs millions of tax payers dollars that will almost , as you succinctly put it, "affect a small % of homosexuals" and "will almost certainly win".

24 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Now we agree on something. Just can't understand why we needed a public non binding survey that costs millions of tax payers dollars that will almost , as you succinctly put it, "affect a small % of homosexuals" and "will almost certainly win".

Would you prefer we just stuck with the status quo? That is what the previous Rudd / Gillard / Rudd Government did. Penny Wong even endorsed that stance.

There is so much hate in the left side of politics they cannot stand that the Liberals have bought about the mechanism to change marriage to accept homosexuals and marriage equality.

Do you begrudge the spending of tax payer money for equality?