Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Kurve]

Thought he meant adopted kids. My mistake.

Maybe he did, so much activity going on here I may have misunderstood rushing through it all. He won't really know though unless fathering an adopted child. I had an adopted brother of colour, he died when he was seven years old and the house was in grief for so long I'm sure my Dad never really got over it.

 

[Showbags]

Why is it you guys keep going on about safe spaces when I'm perfectly happy to engage in debate with you? I'm right here, not going anywhere and I certainly don't need protection from mental short people.

Its quite ironic considering that the mods had to create a conservative safe space because they couldnt handle their bullshite being questioned.

 

[DemonTim]

Lies and fears? I hope they are not going along the homosexual males are at more risk to HIV line, or making any other baseless claims

Depends on how you want to compare. If you're basing it on STI rates you're going to need to apply it universally, not just pick one group.
I like that you assume what they've said and attempt to refute based on your assumption, it's showing your hand drastically

 

[strung_out7]

COSENTING adults. Children and animals can't consent. Adults, whether straight, gay or interracial can. Did you miss the part where I said laws adjust with societal norms and expectations? Do you think laws should just stay the same and never change, no matter what advancements are made in how society feels and acts?

Should the indigenous not be allowed to vote? Women not allowed to vote? Should you be tossed into the sea for being a witch due to using this crazy internet technology that would have baffled people in the 1600s?

So, in the not so distant future, when the religion of peace becomes 20, 30, 40% of the population what happens? The law will adjust for, as you put it, societal norms. Their beliefs consists of chucking gays off of roofs, multiple marriages, arranged child marriages. We will have to change the laws to accept their beliefs and to not offend them

 

[strung_out7]

Depends on how you want to compare. If you're basing it on STI rates you're going to need to apply it universally, not just pick one group.
I like that you assume what they've said and attempt to refute based on your assumption, it's showing your hand drastically

I like it how you can't even tell me what lies they were spreading, meaning I have to have a stab in the dark

 

[Bradesmaen]

We should do away with marriage. Look what happened when we made marriage between a man and a woman (2004), all of the sudden the gays want to get married, next polygamy, after that beastiality, plant marriage and child marriage?! WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

 

[DemonTim]

I like it how you can't even tell me what lies they were spreading, meaning I have to have a stab in the dark

I wasn't the one who posted it...you responded to them, misconstruing the point (some claim about now wanting any discussion), and then tried to justify it by assuming the lies, weren't lies and responded as such.
You didn't have to stab in the dark, would've been much simpler (and would've shown you're actually up for discussion) if you asked what lies. Instead you didn't, and "stabbed in the dark" so you can justify your viewpoint.

So, in the not so distant future, when the religion of peace becomes 20, 30, 40% of the population what happens? The law will adjust for, as you put it, societal norms. Their beliefs consists of chucking gays off of roofs, multiple marriages, arranged child marriages. We will have to change the laws to accept their beliefs and to not offend them

So you're against interracial marriage then? Women's rights? Or is it only some changes that allow Muslims to take over and implement their laws in the future?

 

[funk44]

I like it how you can't even tell me what lies they were spreading, meaning I have to have a stab in the dark

Quoting Leviticus - saving your soul from hell utter nonsense, children of same sex couples are profoundly disadvantaged, same sex marriage paving the way for polygamy etc slippery slope fallacy

 

[Kurve]

Should the indigenous not be allowed to vote?

It wasn't so long ago it was a crime for Aboriginal men to marry white women.

That's just so repugnant now, as is the thought that women only in recent history were given the right to vote.

 

[Gough]

I like it how you can't even tell me what lies they were spreading, meaning I have to have a stab in the dark

Don't be the guy who starts talking AIDS mate, some of us lived through that, and we don't need you tell us about what it did. And it's got f*** all to do with marriage anyway.

 

[bigfarter]

So, in the not so distant future, when the religion of peace becomes 20, 30, 40% of the population what happens? The law will adjust for, as you put it, societal norms. Their beliefs consists of chucking gays off of roofs, multiple marriages, arranged child marriages. We will have to change the laws to accept their beliefs and to not offend them

None of those acts are between two CONSENTING adults and so I strongly believe there will not be a public outcry for the government to legalise or acknowledge such acts. There'd be a civil war before that were ever to take place. That is, assuming all Muslims do want gays thrown from buildings, multiple marriages and child marriages - the several in my friendship group don't but they may be lying. We all know how duplicitous the Muslims can be, don't we?

 

[RupieDupie]

I think we can rule out the possibility of there being any SJWs in here; too many triggers, it's like a trigger minefield.

Their heads would probably explode.

Average post from a certain viewpoint - "If gay marriage is legalised, mutant children will have interracial relations with a tree stump"

SJW - "Four of my trigger words! TRIGGERED! Raaaaargh! Triggered triggered triggered trigg..."
KABOOM!

 

[Bradesmaen]

I'm pretty sure strung_out7 is actually Cory Bernardi or George Christensen.

 

[strung_out7]

I wasn't the one who posted it...you responded to them, misconstruing the point (some claim about now wanting any discussion), and then tried to justify it by assuming the lies, weren't lies and responded as such.
You didn't have to stab in the dark, would've been much simpler (and would've shown you're actually up for discussion) if you asked what lies. Instead you didn't, and "stabbed in the dark" so you can justify your viewpoint.


So you're against interracial marriage then? Women's rights? Or is it only some changes that allow Muslims to take over and implement their laws in the future?

Usually when someone says people are at it again lying, they would include a picture of the pamphlet, some details, instead of a baseless claim.

I'm not saying I'm against those issues at all. I'm saying where does the line stop, while providing a likely scenario of the future

 

[NSWCROW]

" Beta-Ray Blair " keepin it real......






Captain Overcompensation..................

 

[DemonTim]

Usually when someone says people are at it again lying, they would include a picture of the pamphlet, some details, instead of a baseless claim.

I'm not saying I'm against those issues at all. I'm saying where does the line stop, while providing a likely scenario of the future

Usually when someone wants to discuss a topic, and find they don't have all the information, they request it. You can't blame the user because you jumped at shadows (they've now responded)

So not all change causes Muslims to take over Australia in the future? How does SSM cause this more, than say interracial marriage? Why is SSM a slippery slope, and not women's rights?

 

[RupieDupie]

I'm pretty sure strung_out7 is actually Cory Bernardi or George Christensen.

Nah they couldn't be, or else they would state something stupid like, gay marriage is a slippery slope leading to a marriage that everyone will find despicable, yet still Parliament will vote it in, resigned to a notion that now that gay marriage is legal everything else should be made legal as long as marriage is involved.

Judge - "Why did you shoot your wife?"
Murderer - "Uhm err, she wanted to marry a bullet"
Judge - "Oh, why didn't you say so, not guilty <gavel comes down with a bang> court dismissed"

 

[Bradesmaen]

" Beta-Ray Blair " keepin it real......






Captain Overcompensation..................


View attachment 402222

Did you expect much more from a racist leader of a racist group?

 

[tony dragun]

Relevance? Quoting two outraged articles about things doesn't exactly contradict my argument that laws adjust with societal norms. In fact the headline of that first article indicates punishment for a crime, not people saying "Well, slippery slope and that, let him free!"

Also, to react to your links as you have done to others': Pfft, the Herald Sun? Cory Bernardi?

Polygamy and child marriage are already happening. Probably more than we know about. Who needs your laws that 'adjust with societal norms'.

 

[strung_out7]

Did you expect much more from a racist leader of a racist group?

So somehow he is a racist for taking a dig at a religious group/ideology?

So when you attack the Christian thought of marriage being between a woman and man, you are also racist? Is this how racism works when it suits you?

 

[Bradesmaen]

So somehow he is a racist for taking a dig at a religious group/ideology?

So when you attack the Christian thought of marriage being between a woman and man, you are also racist? Is this how racism works when it suits you?

You answered your own question.

 

[sherb]

So somehow he is a racist for taking a dig at a religious group/ideology?

Hatemongering arsewipe instead then?

 

[bigfarter]

Polygamy and child marriage are already happening. Probably more than we know about. Who needs your laws that 'adjust with societal norms'.

Child marriage is still a crime, is it not? That's like saying "Burglaries and murders still happen - who needs laws regarding them?" And anyway, these things are happening BEFORE gay marriage has been given the go-ahead, so how are they relevant to the slippery slope argument?

 

[11sjw]

A quote from Penny Wong from a 2010 interview

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Source http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/w...etween-a-man-and-a-woman-20170810-gxt87w.html

 

[bigfarter]

So somehow he is a racist for taking a dig at a religious group/ideology?

So when you attack the Christian thought of marriage being between a woman and man, you are also racist? Is this how racism works when it suits you?

Are you aware of who Blair is? He's a racist because he literally leads a literal racist group, celebrates Hitler's birthday, speaks openly against various races - surely you're not going to align yourself with him?