http://www.news.com.au/national/sen...alise-bestiality/story-fndo4ckr-1226476963864
Now where do you start with that?
Now where do you start with that?
Cory Bernardi
- Thread starter Lach72
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 19, 2006
- 9,987
- 18,243
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I'd suggest to start at the bottom but I don't think Bernadi would approve...
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Even the most conservative in the Liberal party can't defend this nut case.
believe that he is up for re-election at the next election, would be extremely surprised if he got preselection in the top 3 for the Libs, basically ruling out any chance of re-election.
believe that he is up for re-election at the next election, would be extremely surprised if he got preselection in the top 3 for the Libs, basically ruling out any chance of re-election.
- Banned
- #6
The older I get (well not that old compared to the numerous middle-age and upper folk on here 
) the less I can respect social conservatism.
At its best it's simply wrong and at its worst it's about ******* with people's lives, such as stopping gay couples getting married (which is funny given how most delude themselves into thinking they're about 'small government').
Too many of these pure jerks in the Coalition (and Labor).
) the less I can respect social conservatism.At its best it's simply wrong and at its worst it's about ******* with people's lives, such as stopping gay couples getting married (which is funny given how most delude themselves into thinking they're about 'small government').
Too many of these pure jerks in the Coalition (and Labor).
Hey D_R...does Bernardi belong in that turd thread yet?
- Jun 19, 2006
- 9,987
- 18,243
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Well Abbott's forced him to resign because his comments showed "ill-discipline". Come on Tony the comments weren't ill-disciplined they were offensive and disgraceful. Abbott couldn't bring himself to say it though.
I'd love to see Turnbull resign as shadow minister so that he can cross the floor on the gay marriage debate and then challenge for the leadership.
I'd love to see Turnbull resign as shadow minister so that he can cross the floor on the gay marriage debate and then challenge for the leadership.
- Jul 31, 2011
- 5,441
- 2,016
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #9
What a CREEP
Why can't it end at gay marriage?
There is no logical sequence I can think of that says gay marriage will lead inevitably to polygamy and then to beastiality. We can move and stop anywhere we like.
There is no logical sequence I can think of that says gay marriage will lead inevitably to polygamy and then to beastiality. We can move and stop anywhere we like.
Why the objection to a consenting man and two wives, or two men and one wife? If the argument for gay marriage is about individuals consensually entering into legal marriage, why must the marriage be between two individuals only?
I have no issue with gay marriage, but it is valid to ask why gay marriage should be open for consideration, but other domestic arrangements are not. Why are gay marriages OK to be recognised, but not polygamy?
''They're views that I don’t share,'' he said.
''They are views many people would find repugnant.''
rayven
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 9,955
- 1,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PC racing
From Mr Turnbull in that article. There's animal pr0n freely available on the net, there's also people who leave there will to pets. It's fair to say they are a minority group.
Another cat amongst the pigeons.
There's a storm brewing with Mr Bernadi and that dutch polly campaining on anti islamic policies whose trying to get a visa here for a series of speaking engagements.
You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Consideration of the the gay marriage question need not lead to consideration of all other alternative domestic arrangements. We can debate the one question and redraw the line at a place that reflects the reality of our society as is today. I don't see that there is a sizeable polygamy lobby protesting on the streets at their percieved lack of rights compared to couples. The question on polygamy might not need to be debated for another couple of generations, or whenever it becomes a significant enough minority to have its voice heard.
I love it when politicians's say ridiculous things and then quit.
Weird sort of Russian Roulette esque kind of game, where they lose every time.
Weird sort of Russian Roulette esque kind of game, where they lose every time.
According to your own perception of the question.
Why not? Many Australians, rightly or wrongly, currently consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.
If we are to re-write the definition, why should we do it to include a single additional demographic, gay couples, and at that same time specifically draw a line to exclude other domestic arrangements?
If the basis upon which gay couples should have a right to marry is equality, discrimination, and adults willingly consenting to marriage, then there is no logical argument to exclude marriages involving more than two persons.
Of course you can, if that suits your political agenda. It has no basis is in logic though.
I don't see people in the streets marching for a Republic either, but I can see a very good argument for one. Agree?
For what it is worth, I don't see a significant number of Australians demanding gay marriage either. Just a significant proportion who don't really give a stuff either way.
The current definition of marriage is quite rigid: one adult consensual male, coupled with one consensual adult female. If we are going to consider re-writing the definition, it should be about what is OK, and what is not, rather than accommodating each interest group one by one as they raise their hands and ask for their recognition.
Just because nutters like Bernardi want to paint proponents of gay marriage as extremists, doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point re polygamy. His comments re bestiality are absurd, given that an animal can't give consent.
I don't have a political agenda, I'm neither gay nor polygamous.
I think it can be done on a pragmatic basis dealing with each group one by one. It need not be done all at once.
Theyll never get religions to alter their definition so whats the point ? - I know it wont stop them trying
And people will always refer to a gay marriage as a gay marriage, so whats the point
As I said in another thread expect Bernardi to be leading the liberals by 2021
And people will always refer to a gay marriage as a gay marriage, so whats the point
As I said in another thread expect Bernardi to be leading the liberals by 2021
For once pazza, I am in 100% agreement with you. He's a turd and a dangerous ****.
Is the Greens political position on this issue to support gay marriage, but not polygamy?
Are you not a member/supporter of the Greens?
I thought this was an issue of equality and discrimination, not pragmatism.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
He's been given that lemon and sarse because of his "indiscipline"!
No - never voted Greens in my life. Not likely to start.
Everything is about pragmatism as far as I'm concerned. I think the Australian community is ready for gay marriage, but not for polygamy.
I think an argument could be made that polygamy is too complex legally, and too open to potential abuse for purposes other than an expression of love between the people involved, that we can overrule the principle and rule it out on the grounds of practicality.
