Marriage equality debate - Pt.3 - Australia votes yes

[Lethality]

There are that many islam threads, they've had to be consolidated into one thread. Your comparison is stupid.

I didn't say anything about simply creating a thread about Islam, the taboo is on criticising Islam. The one thread that exists has its premise that all criticism is scapegoating, so it fits the controlled narrative well enough.

Feel free to make a critical thread about Islam and its history of misogyny, homophobia, weird superstition, sex slavery, anti-semitism and so on and so on, similar to Perfidious Albion. I'll be sure to join in.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I didn't say anything about simply creating a thread about Islam, the taboo is on criticising Islam. The one thread that exists has its premise that all criticism is scapegoating, so it fits the controlled narrative well enough.

Feel free to make a critical thread about Islam and its history of misogyny, homophobia, weird superstition, sex slavery, anti-semitism and so on and so on, similar to Perfidious Albion. I'll be sure to join in.

There have been that many that it killed the forum.

You're in a thread about gay marriage able to criticise islam.

Can you comprehend you refute your own argument? Even the stupid one comparing online football moderation to theocracies.

 

[Pie eyed]

With our welfare system as it stands, when it comes to polygamy, I can honestly see people, in particular men, making a career out of it. Multiple wives, keep the wives pumping out the kids, if they brood mares start getting a bit old for reproduction, just get them to go out and scout for some younger ones of breeding age.

It's stupid but how can we honestly now say no to it?

Consenting adults...
Why should we say no to it?
Even many religions would support it.
damn the welfare system. it changes to suit the society.
It's not like it's a universal law, like gravity.
Are you people all idiots?

 

[Lethality]

There have been that many that it killed the forum.

lol

You're in a thread about gay marriage able to criticise islam.

So? I said it was a liability to be banned. And I have been, for far less.

Can you comprehend you refute your own argument? Even the stupid one comparing online football moderation to theocracies.

That isn't the argument, as I've already reiterated. It says a lot that you have to try and put words in my mouth rather than post honestly.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That isn't the argument, as I've already reiterated. It says a lot that you have to try and put words in my mouth rather than post honestly.

And the backpedalling begins.

You can't back up one thing you say.

 

[Pie eyed]

LOL
Bolt is a Liberal fist humper.
Did we give hands marital rights?

 

[Lethality]

And the backpedalling begins.

You need a push? 'As I've already reiterated' meaning I already specifically corrected you on this, in this very conversation.

 

[Procrastinator35]

It's hard to get a thread criticizing Islam off the ground, other than the one whose premise is that Islam is merely unfairly targeted. It's been tried, too.

That's all half you blokes on the SRP board want to bang on about....That Islam is to blame for all the world's ill's, which is just idiotic.

Seems Margaret Court is officially bat s**t crazy.

There's no Seeming about it.

 

[Lethality]

That's all half you blokes on the SRP board want to bang on about....That Islam is to blame for all the world's ill's, which is just idiotic.

You'd fit right in that thread if it wasn't for your Zionist conspiracies.

 

[TimmeT]

It was not a postal vote. It was not a vote.
It was an expensive opinion poll.
the 20% who did not bother to say no, did not bother to say no.
The yes vote was at least 80% by default.
The whole thing should have been decide by a parliamentary vote years ago.
The Libs are simply cowards.
At least Turnbull has the nous to realise he has Abbott cold now and is forcing his hand.
Abbott's idiotic claim that anything over 42% (which he did not garner) would be a "moral victory" is no more than concession his dark ages beliefs are in the minority now and forever more.
The only "moral victory: would be if Abbott got to meet his god tomorrow.

LOL you can't say that the yes vote was 80% by default. Abstinence doesn't mean automatic approval for something. See all the pshychs who abstained from the vote when transgender was removed from the DSM out of protest.

 

[Procrastinator35]

You'd fit right in that thread if it wasn't for your Zionist conspiracies.

Yep....It's all the Jews fault that SSM has been illegal up till now.

Stick with fundy right-wing conservative Christians & you might actually be closer to the mark.

Unlike you, I try to stay germane to the topic.....Though I'm use to people who are losing the argument based on facts, resorting to school-yard name-calling as a means to deflect....It's all the rage on Telly & social-media....Or so I hear.

 

[Lethality]

Yep....It's all the Jews fault that SSM has been illegal up till now.

Not this thread, P.

 

[TimmeT]

How bout this sour crone.....


Another 20th century artifact

Bye Bye Margaret. Happy to see you depart.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Not this thread, P.

A tad late to try & resemble the voice of reason now Podgey.....Even with your selected editing.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Absolutely not. The electoral college system simply stops super states like California being able to decide the election on the size of their populace. If they went with the result of the electoral college then they might as well just hold an election in somewhere like California and be done with it where Trump lost by 4 million votes.

This system is no different to the seat type system in Australia.

I think our population variance per seat is less than the variation between college votes and state population. Will look it up

Edit we have a factor of 2.5 between smallest (lingari with 60k voters and Canberra with 140 k) while US vary between Texas (24 million for 34 votes vs Wyoming 500k for 3 votes so each Wyoming person is worth 5 Texans)

 

[Crankyhawk]

P

hahahah.

He called him a monkey, a terrorist and told him to **** off to where he came from. He is a neo nazi, and you're trying to rationalise why he wasn't being a racist.

le of better ways to hang it on dastayari eg Chinese bribes and influence

 

[darth_timon]

Comparing polygamy to relationships that involve an absolute lack of consent is pretty disgusting.

This happens to homosexuality all the time. I frequently see it compared to bestiality and paedophilia.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It was not a postal vote. It was not a vote.
It was an expensive opinion poll.
the 20% who did not bother to say no, did not bother to say no.
The yes vote was at least 80% by default.
The whole thing should have been decide by a parliamentary vote years ago.
The Libs are simply cowards.
At least Turnbull has the nous to realise he has Abbott cold now and is forcing his hand.
Abbott's idiotic claim that anything over 42% (which he did not garner) would be a "moral victory" is no more than concession his dark ages beliefs are in the minority now and forever more.
The only "moral victory: would be if Abbott got to meet his god tomorrow.

The moral victory comes when tony goes to meet what he thinks is his God who then condemns him for being a campaigner.

 

[Lethality]

A tad late to try & resemble the voice of reason now Podgey.....Even with your selected editing.

"Not this thread" meaning I wasn't talking about this thread. I don't know what the selective editing is about.

 

[Elroo]

How bout this sour crone.....


Another 20th century artifact

Nope I hope Court stays in the Liberal Party, they are a good fit and the more she opens her mouth the better.

 

[sherb]

So you would be happy for the representative to vote NO if the electorate voted YES? For all the electorates that voted YES, if their representatives turned around and voted NO, you would be happy with that?

Given it was a postal vote they shouldn't be going against the constituents wishes. They should be doing their job and representing them, it wasn't a parliamentary conscience vote.

It was a non-binding postal survey. That was made very clear.

And if they were "doing their job", we wouldn't have had the bloody survey in the first place.

 

[madmug]

What about the smaller states who have their own needs? They should be subjected to whatever the high population states want? I dont have a plan in mind for what the US should change to but I definitely think they should at the very least give California more electoral votes. But popular vote will not work well there.

I don't see why not. They have the Senate to give voice to all states, two senators each. When is enough enough? When does actual democracy get a go?

 

[Gough]

We're seing the pitfalls of direct democracy here, imagine this tortured debate over everything. I doubt that this is an issue that too many people would change their vote over though, as we've been told ad nauseum there are far more important things to worry about.

 

[Showbags]

Absolutely not. The electoral college system simply stops super states like California being able to decide the election on the size of their populace. If they went with the result of the electoral college then they might as well just hold an election in somewhere like California and be done with it where Trump lost by 4 million votes.

This system is no different to the seat type system in Australia.

Just wrong.

The House of Reps and the Senate in the US are similar to Australia's Westminster system but the Presidential race is completely different.

You dont elect representatives other than the President in the electoral college. You dont have sitting MPs or anything.

Under the stupid and outdated electoral college system there are two problems:

(1) The amount of electoral college votes allocated to a State is often disproportionate to their actual population (giving them greater or lesser weight than they should be given compared to their population). Look at Wyoming, given 3 electoral college votes for a population of just over 500, 000.

(2) It has a winner take all state by state approach. For example, in Michigan Trump got 2,279,543 votes and Clinton got 2,268,839. Trump won by the skin of his teeth but due to the stupid electoral college system he picked up ALL the electoral college votes for Michigan and Clinton got nothing. Under a straight popular vote, both would simply have had the votes they received in Michigan tacked onto their total. A fair and proportionate allocation of the will of the people of Michigan.

 

[madmug]

What about the smaller states who have their own needs? They should be subjected to whatever the high population states want? I dont have a plan in mind for what the US should change to but I definitely think they should at the very least give California more electoral votes. But popular vote will not work well there.

I don't see why not. They have the Senate to give voice to all states, two senators each. When is enough enough? When does actual democracy get a go?