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

[WeetBixKid]

The headbutter's a charicature.

Wouldn't be surprised if he posted here. Anyone seen kiddvicious since the attack?

 

[Showbags]

I wonder if someone with a no campaign badge nutted Penny Wong would people on here be saying it was nothing to do with marriage "equality"

Actually no, I don't wonder.

The quotation marks tell us all we need to know.

 

[medusala]

The quotation marks tell us all we need to know.

The yes campaign is happy to maintain discrimination against polygamy so the notion of equality is a myth.

 

[medusala]

Wouldn't be surprised if he posted here. Anyone seen kiddvicious since the attack?

Mother took the basement fuse out of the power box as punishment.

 

[JackOutback]

The yes campaign is happy to maintain discrimination against polygamy so the notion of equality is a myth.

LOL, reverting to a simplistic, easily dismissed argument, I see.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Your hypocrisy is immense. You complain and criticise abuse and violence towards homosexual persons yet you think it is completely fine for Tony Abbott to have been assaulted. You're a low life.

In a way tony abbott also advocated violence in politics when the threatened to shirtfront putin. So he is getting the respect he deserves.

 

[medusala]

LOL, reverting to a simplistic, easily dismissed argument, I see.

Easily dismissed only by the usual pavlovian fanbois with a third rate Arts degree.

The core basis of the gay marriage argument is consenting adults. That logic hardly stops at two consenting adults.

Humour that you attempt to argue otherwise.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I wonder if someone with a no campaign badge nutted Penny Wong would people on here be saying it was nothing to do with marriage "equality"

Actually no, I don't wonder.

I think it would be called homophobia or gay bashing probably.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The yes campaign is happy to maintain discrimination against polygamy so the notion of equality is a myth.

That is a different campaign. If there was community support for the idea and can get the tax implications and consent issues sorted there is no issue. But demanding that the yes campaign also campaign for polygamy seems to be another stupid conflate and confuse tactic.

Oh wait thats the entire no case.

 

[JackOutback]

Easily dismissed only by the usual pavlovian fanbois with a third rate Arts degree.

The core basis of the gay marriage argument is consenting adults. That logic hardly stops at two consenting adults.

Humour that you attempt to argue otherwise.

Everyone is barred from polygamy equally. No minority group is being discriminated against when compared to the majority. Or do you think laws against murder discriminate against psychopaths?

Maybe you should have a look at that arts degree after all.

 

[Pessimistic]

Does make Abbott look extremely sad and trying to play politics at all costs, jumping to conclusions before the dust had even settled.

The prick is the worst thing to happen to Australian politics. He has brought the level of discourse down to such a base level that it will take years to recover (having said that, it still doesnt justify the actions of this guy in Hobart).

Like when he told the world a dude was his lost son, only to find he wasn't?

I mean, how do you get something like that so wrong and go public to boot?

Should never have been elected PM after displaying such awful judgement

 

[Bombermania]

Surely the AEC/ABS have received enough votes by now to finish this off.

 

[cartwright]

Easily dismissed only by the usual pavlovian fanbois with a third rate Arts degree.

The core basis of the gay marriage argument is consenting adults. That logic hardly stops at two consenting adults.

Humour that you attempt to argue otherwise.

The core basis of marriage equality is ending discrimination based on sexuality.

 

[Gibbke]

Takes a while for things to make their way to Mission Beach, so our postal surveys finally got done yesterday. I'm glad I got to express my precious opinion on other people's married lives. My wife was especially happy, because this time she didn't have to fork out $7 on battery acid quality bubbly to let loose...I was happy too - don't want to burn any bridges with friends, they might have things I need to borrow (which reminds me, must go through all that stuff in the shed and give it back)...

Here's the crux of it - noone is losing any freedom and Australian society will continue to be perfectly functional with a Yes vote. It is perfectly ok for you to vote No, because that's the democratic freedom we enjoy, and this one is legal. It is not ok for you to go around advertising the fact, because that makes you a c### towards other people. From radio shock jocks getting a laugh and a "too right" nod from their listeners at one end, through the spectrum to politicians legislating to kill off sections of their population Nazi style, the thought process that allows a group to discriminate for no other reason than surface differences is one of the reasons we invented quaint concepts only humans bother with, like law and manners and non-campaigneriness...

 

[HairyO]

That is a different campaign. If there was community support

I thought the reason to not have a plebiscite is because if something is right it shouldnt matter if there is community support. It should just be done.

Why do people keep changing the rules?

 

[Fire]

Everyone is barred from polygamy equally.

No one is barred from it anyway; the governmemt simply doesn't recognise it.

 

[DemonTim]

I thought the reason to not have a plebiscite is because if something is right it shouldnt matter if there is community support. It should just be done.

Why do people keep changing the rules?

Sorry can you link to where these rules have been established. It's been pretty common theme here when people have brought up other issues they've been told if they want them, they should start a campaign

All you're whinging about is "OMG why didn't MLK campaign more for Asian rights"

 

[HairyO]

Sorry can you link to where these rules have been established. It's been pretty common theme here when people have brought up other issues they've been told if they want them, they should start a campaign

All you're whinging about is "OMG why didn't MLK campaign more for Asian rights"

It was said over and over that a Plebiscite was wrong because Parliament should lead by example.

Have you just started paying attention?

 

[Gough]

For a guy he says he's returning a positive response you spend a remarkable amount of time arguing against the proposition.

 

[DemonTim]

It was said over and over that a Plebiscite was wrong because Parliament should lead by example.

Have you just started paying attention?

Sorry, how is that everyone saying "do what's right, not what has public support"?
Parliament should lead by example because that's their job...

The two things you're saying aren't mutually exclusive. Do you even understand your own point?

 

[HairyO]

Sorry, how is that everyone saying "do what's right, not what has public support"?
Parliament should lead by example because that's their job...

The two things you're saying aren't mutually exclusive. Do you even understand your own point?

Yep. You think Parliament should only lead by example when it is over something you want.

That is very clear.

 

[DemonTim]

Yep. You think Parliament should only lead by example when it is over something you want.

That is very clear.

Where did I say that?

I'd vote yes on polygamy as long as consent and tax implications were covered.

It's funny watching you flounder when asked for evidence, even going as far as telling me my stance on other issues

Are you tony Abbott?

 

[Showbags]

It was said over and over that a Plebiscite was wrong because Parliament should lead by example.

Have you just started paying attention?

The amount of bullshit thrown at the Yes campaign from backwards conservatives for such a no brainer of a change has made it nigh on impossible to do anything other than small incremental change.

I'd vote in favour of polygamous marriage as would many on the Yes side id suggest. But there is no great clamouring for it like there is SSM.

Parliament should decide these things. We've been saying that since day dot. The nastiness of the debate and mental health effects to LGBT people we warned about have proven to be spot on (despite the poo pooing of these concerns by the far right before the survey).

 

[DemonTim]

The amount of bullshit thrown at the Yes campaign from backwards conservatives for such a no brainer of a change has made it nigh on impossible to do anything other than small incremental change.

I'd vote in favour of polygamous marriage as would many on the Yes side id suggest. But there is no great clamouring for it like there is SSM.

Parliament should decide these things. We've been saying that since day dot. The nastiness of the debate and mental health effects to LGBT people we warned about have proven to be spot on (despite the poo pooing of these concerns by the far right before the survey).

He's just going to tell you what you think despite you explicitly stating otherwise mate.

Or he will shift it onto paedophilia or beastiality. This argument has been done to death.

 

[Numtums]

The nastiness of the debate and mental health effects to LGBT people we warned about have proven to be spot on (despite the poo pooing of these concerns by the far right before the survey).

Can someone explain to me why LGBT people are suffering mental health effects of this "debate"?
I haven't seen any business come out and not support SSM so I can't understand why they'd be depressed. Quite the contrary, surely the amount of public support being this "debate" would make them feel supported and backed?
And as a minor I can't recall even thinking about getting married let alone not being able to do it till I was 18.
Why is it distressing to people under the legal age to worry about get married or not?
You can love someone without marrying them surely?