Marriage equality debate - Pt.3 - Australia votes yes

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorted said:
This is incorrect. Labor's 2011 national conference voted to give MPs a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage. The policy was pushed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard who opposed same sex marriage.

"You all know what my views on this debate are and I know many in this hall do not agree with my views on this debate," she told delegates.
"But what is the most important thing is that as we have this debate in this hall we have this debate in a climate and atmosphere of respect."
​
Yet if you maintain the same views as Prime Minister Gillard a mere six years ago (or Rudd four) you are accused of being a bigot.
Click to expand...
No, the position was changed to support SSM, but as a compromise allow a conscience vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/03/gay-marriage-australia-labor-party-endorse
 
TimmeT said:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...of-samesex-marriage-poll-20170825-gy49ea.html

The 4,000 figure was a typo, should have been 5,000 (also when you see approximately in relation to statistics do not take it as absolutely accurate).

8% of Bruce is 12,000 people. Simple maths shows that if you subtract 12,000 from 49,000 and add 12,000 to 30,000 then suddenly you got yes 37,000 and no 42,000 meaning the seat will have a result of no.

So in regards to Nallah and his followers you simply made a ridiculous assertion in relation to their impact on the result.
Click to expand...
Nope. But if you feel you have to 'win' an argument online by pretending I said that then feel free.

And regarding your claim that you are now hypothsising that every Muslim in Bruce, including children, voted No and would be swapped with only Yes voters, which is an intriguing new twist to your attempts to talk for large groups of Australians from the comfort of your own mind, then I guess your original statement makes more sense (except for the bit where you didn't stipulate that and instead just said it would only require we place Bruce's Muslims in Chisholm). Oh, and for the record, such a scenario where you sat in the tally room and directly swapped 12,000 Yes voters for 12,000 No voters would alter every decision where the result was under 2 thirds. That should save time for future scaremongering.

How are you going with finding the link to your claim that "The evidence prior to survey results demonstrated that Catholics were the biggest backers of same sex marriage"?

And while we're clarifying your attempts to sound knowledgeable, you are still getting Labor policy wrong, despite your claim to know someone who was there. The decision at the national conference still has not made SSM binding policy. A tiny number of hard Catholic Labor MPs are apparently still going to vote against it when it comes up before Christmas. FYI. The binding rule comes after the next election.
sorted said:
This is incorrect. Labor's 2011 national conference voted to give MPs a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage. The policy was pushed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard who opposed same sex marriage.

"You all know what my views on this debate are and I know many in this hall do not agree with my views on this debate," she told delegates.
"But what is the most important thing is that as we have this debate in this hall we have this debate in a climate and atmosphere of respect."
​
Yet if you maintain the same views as Prime Minister Gillard a mere six years ago (or Rudd four) you are accused of being a bigot.
Click to expand...
In case you missed her entire Prime Ministership, Julia Gillard doesn't rate marriage highly of any regard. She is not married to her partner. She also, allegedly, didn't believe in having a fruit bowl teeming with fruit. It was a major controversy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

shellyg said:
So much pot kettle here it's outrageous
Click to expand...
So much weak mimicry of an actual debate here.

You may notice my profligate use of the 'quote' function. I also like to link to external things when I quote them if I think it will be up for debate. There wasn't much need for that in the above chat as TimmeT & FP were already looking at the ABS stats. I'm happy to provide clarification on other things. e.g. You stating Gillard didn't believe in SSM as being the same as those who are labelled a 'bigot' for saying the same thing is disingenuous. Gillard's thinking is derived from a feminist position, not a religious or socially conservative position. Labor removed legislated discrimination against same-sex couples under Rudd in 2007.

So, you can carry your straw man off somewhere else. Or better yet, make your position without requiring it.
 
roscreasl98 said:
You can't pick and choose when to be racist.....
Click to expand...

I'm very consistent on that front.

Clearly this poor fellow was obviously too traumatized & triggered by that poster of George....It's almost as if he had an obsession with it & was magnetically drawn to it in such a way, that he had to go out of his way to deface it; So as to stave off it's magnetic affect upon his psyche.

My bet is that George was triggering some naughty & unholy feelings within said perp, to such a degree that he just couldn't cope or was unable avert his eyes whenever he saw it....That's right....Our perp has deeply suppressed homo-erotic feelings & his super-ego - in order to cope with them - couldn't help but bedaub that demon with his religious veil of nay-say.:)
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
So much weak mimicry of an actual debate here.

You may notice my profligate use of the 'quote' function. I also like to link to external things when I quote them if I think it will be up for debate. There wasn't much need for that in the above chat as TimmeT & FP were already looking at the ABS stats. I'm happy to provide clarification on other things. e.g. You stating Gillard didn't believe in SSM as being the same as those who are labelled a 'bigot' for saying the same thing is disingenuous. Gillard's thinking is derived from a feminist position, not a religious or socially conservative position. Labor removed legislated discrimination against same-sex couples under Rudd in 2007.

So, you can carry your straw man off somewhere else. Or better yet, make your position without requiring it.
Click to expand...

You may notice yourself I don't give a rats for your apologist agenda and smeary insinuations. So much weak mimicry of intellect and pretending you're not a twisted misogynistic game playing twat.
 
shellyg said:
You may notice yourself I don't give a rats for your apologist agenda and smeary insinuations. So much weak mimicry of intellect and pretending you're not a twisted misogynistic game playing twat.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha. "Apologist". "Misogynistic". Providing stats that both backed up TimmeT's claims and pointed out to the flaws in his arguments is not apologising for anything. As FP's reply to it showed.

And, no, it's not "misogynistic" to point out when you are wrong, even if you are a woman. But I recall you playing that card previously as well.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Hahahaha. "Apologist". "Misogynistic". Providing stats that both backed up TimmeT's claims and pointed out to the flaws in his arguments is not apologising for anything. As FP's reply to it showed.

And, no, it's not "misogynistic" to point out when you are wrong, even if you are a woman. But I recall you playing that card previously as well.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, I think you're a liar. I have to block you, this is twice you've attempted to smear me with insinuations that simply are not true and misrepresented what I've said.
 
shellyg said:
Bullshit, I think you're a liar. I have to block you, this is twice you've attempted to smear me with insinuations that simply are not true and misrepresented what I've said.
Click to expand...
Yes, blocking me makes sense, because twice you've failed in your attempts "to smear me with insinuations that simply are not true". It will save the board from pointless posts and save you from imagining you are under assault from me. Best of luck.
 
Hoops said:
No, the position was changed to support SSM, but as a compromise allow a conscience vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/03/gay-marriage-australia-labor-party-endorse
Click to expand...

As the article says it will "have little practical effect on the chance of gay marriage being legalised in the country". Having a party policy position that MPs can dissent from was pure spin. As was the 2015 conference decision that meant Labor MPs and senators could vote with their conscience and were not bound to vote for same-sex marriage until 2019.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Yes, blocking me makes sense, because twice you've failed in your attempts "to smear me with insinuations that simply are not true". It will save the board from pointless posts and save you from imagining you are under assault from me. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

I haven't failed at all, so don't bother trying to pump your chest up on that with self congratulations.

ps. where's the block button?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sorted said:
As the article says it will "have little practical effect on the chance of gay marriage being legalised in the country". Having a party policy position that MPs can dissent from was pure spin. As was the 2015 conference decision that meant Labor MPs and senators could vote with their conscience and were not bound to vote for same-sex marriage until 2019.
Click to expand...
So how will they get SSM through this year then?
 
Procrastinator35 said:
I'm very consistent on that front.

Clearly this poor fellow was obviously too traumatized & triggered by that poster of George....It's almost as if he had an obsession with it & was magnetically drawn to it in such a way, that he had to go out of his way to deface it; So as to stave off it's magnetic affect upon his psyche.

My bet is that George was triggering some naughty & unholy feelings within said perp, to such a degree that he just couldn't cope or was unable avert his eyes whenever he saw it....That's right....Our perp has deeply suppressed homo-erotic feelings & his super-ego - in order to cope with them - couldn't help but bedaub that demon with his religious veil of nay-say.:)
Click to expand...
Yes, and he'll pay the penalty.

Nice rant however, made in an attempt to deflect the fact that you made a racist comment.

End of....
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
You may notice my profligate use of the 'quote' function. I also like to link to external things when I quote them if I think it will be up for debate. There wasn't much need for that in the above chat as TimmeT & FP were already looking at the ABS stats. I'm happy to provide clarification on other things. e.g. You stating Gillard didn't believe in SSM as being the same as those who are labelled a 'bigot' for saying the same thing is disingenuous. Gillard's thinking is derived from a feminist position, not a religious or socially conservative position.
Click to expand...

That moment when you realise your mansplaining is letting you down.

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard revealed yesterday that her personal stance against gay marriage was due to her conservative upbringing.
Ms Gillard said she was "on the conservative side" of the gay marriage issue "because of the way our society is and how we got here", the Daily Telegraphreports.

"I think that there are some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future," she said. "If I was in a different walk of life, if I'd continued in the law and was partner of a law firm now, I would express the same view, that I think for our culture, for our heritage, the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status.

"Now, I know people might look at me and think that's something that they wouldn't necessarily expect me to say, but that is what I believe.

"I'm on the record as saying things like I think it's important for people to understand their Bible stories, not because I'm an advocate of religion - clearly, I'm not - but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture."

Ms Gillard said she had a "pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values".​

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/pm...g/news-story/2d7153fcb8cc968fb6648da6d89c00ce


Like I said, if you maintain the same views as Prime Minister Gillard a mere six years ago (or Rudd four) you are accused of being a bigot. It is absolute nonsense.
 
It was Jamila Rizvi who said the figure was larger than the 2.6% Census result. Take accusations of conspiracy theory to her.



In the three years since graduating from ANU, Jamila has taken the Australian political and media world by storm. She is fast becoming the leading voice for young Australian women, breaking down barriers in the media to promote her own very modern brand of feminism and to advocate for a more harmonious and multicultural Australia.

While still studying at ANU Jamila worked in then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's media unit and as a youth policy adviser in Minister Kate Ellis's office, where she was the driving force behind Australia's first ever National Youth Strategy. She was soon promoted to the position of Media Adviser and then Deputy Chief of Staff to Minister Ellis. At the age of 25, Jamila was one of the youngest people ever to work as a Chief of Staff to a Federal Minister.

In 2012, Jamila made the difficult decision to leave working in a political office and make a move to the media industry. She has always had a deep passion for progressive causes and was thrilled to take the reins of progressive political opinion website Mamamia.com.au as the Managing Editor.

etc. etc.,

http://www.anu.edu.au/alumni/our-alumni/spotlight/jamila-rizvi
 
shellyg said:
You were both doing it on each other's posts. That's what dafug.
Click to expand...

Who f***ing cares if I like a few of RoT's posts? Have I commented on you liking a certain poster's posts, much less denigrated you for doing so?

Christ almighty and Lord Jesus the saviour.

Re: Jamila Rizvi - fair enough if she holds that view but without any evidence behind it then I will take the census' figures as gospel, since, you know, it is a poll of the entire Australian population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Cap
Cap
Seeds
Australias tax system takes from the young to give to the old
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Syd
Syd
QuietB
Inequality is out of control in Australia
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
nut
Stage 3 tax cuts
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Caesar
Caesar
Aristotle Pickett
Australian politician ‘sold out’ to foreign regime after being recruited by spies, Asio boss says
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
6K
Rob R
R
anchor man
7:30.. a LNP weakness.
Replies
0
Views
216
anchor man
anchor man

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top