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.
Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)
- Thread starter Showbags
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
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.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
Who in the hell are you to decide what is appealing to a gay man?
Do you actually know any gay people?
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Parents fans of Ultima III?
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
he he, Cuck machine
- Banned
- #3,555
Engage in debate? No you don't, you revert to name calling or simply making accusation without using any facts or quotes when someone disagrees with you.
I think this is your safe space. You have 4 other posters here with the same ideology and use bully tactics towards anyone outside this circle of safety
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,879
- 56,878
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #3,557
I don't really get it either personally but not gay so ... it's important for my cousin who has three kids in a long very stable SS relationship so that's good enough for me.
It's about their kids I think and inheritance, without the legal authority in union of marriage for example one of them may die and end up after a twenty year relationship totally sidelined, that piece of paper is quite important then. Kids can have it tough too at school, up for singling out in bullying and mocking when the others realise both parents are the same sex. It's not the kids fault. Legal union would go some way to respect.
I think it's very telling the only people to mention safe spaces in this thread over the last few days have been people on the anti-SSM side. Almost as if you've been, dare I say, triggered? And absolutely I'll resort to name-calling if I find something worthy of derision - to be against it seems very SJW-like behaviour and to err on the side of political correctness, doesn't it? Please, put forth your case? You've only really raised the slippery slope argument which has been and can be refuted with ease. If you raise a different point I'll do my best to counter it sincerely - or, if I think it's stupid, mock you for it. Don't like it, find a safe space.
- Banned
- #3,559
Luckily the yes voters will stay quiet over the next few weeks then?
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Wait, so you say " wahh Wah back to your safe space". Then whinge that this is a safe space and that he's a bully. The hypocrisy is amazing
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I think you're missing the point. It's pretty explicitly stated what the issue is...
- Banned
- #3,562
Refuted with ease? You a time traveller?
- Banned
- #3,563
People can have a differing opinion? Well I'll be shocked
- Banned
- #3,564
I would suggest reading the last 50 odd pages
Simply put, the slippery slope argument is nonsense because marriage laws will only be adjusted if and when there is a public outcry for it to happen. As we're seeing now. If in the future polygamy became so wide-spread and accepted by mainstream society that there was a public call for the marriage act to allow for it, that would be a hurdle to jump then. The extreme examples used such as marrying kids or animals is self-evidently ludicrous because it's unforeseeable that society would ever get to the point where those things were deemed acceptable - allowing gays to marry certainly wouldn't be the thing to sway the public's thoughts that way. Honestly, sincerely, do you think if two blokes or two ladies are allowed to get married, it could or will lead to society in, say, twenty years, saying "Yeah, let's all bang children!"?
- Banned
- #3,566
And 50 years ago, the same thing would of been said about today's issue. Thanks for proving what I've been going on about in just 1 post
Showbags
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 21, 2013
- 5,366
- 5,574
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- West Ham Utd
- Thread starter
- #3,567
Surely the anti SSM brigade can agree that the default position of any society should be that all citizens should be given equality and equal protection under the law?
Society should only exclude people from equal access for a valid reason. For instance, criminals who are convicted of an offence lose their rights and protections under the law for a valid reason.
Therefore, if you accept the original premise of equality before the law as society's default position, then the onus is on those opposing SSM to put forward valid reasons.
Im sick to death of those against SSM pretending like the onus in on gay rights advocates to prove why gays should have the same rights. No the onus is on you to prove why they should not.
Society should only exclude people from equal access for a valid reason. For instance, criminals who are convicted of an offence lose their rights and protections under the law for a valid reason.
Therefore, if you accept the original premise of equality before the law as society's default position, then the onus is on those opposing SSM to put forward valid reasons.
Im sick to death of those against SSM pretending like the onus in on gay rights advocates to prove why gays should have the same rights. No the onus is on you to prove why they should not.
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?
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,879
- 56,878
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #3,569
I think Fryman was referring to as I was, moving into a relationship of step parenting. Step parents adore their step kids and do all the right things for them but it isn't quite the same as the bone deep love of raising your own child from infancy.
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
"Lies and fear"
It's very telling you needed it stated...
Why? It's of no relevance. You claim he needs a safe space and to return to it, then say he's a bully and this is his safe space.
tony dragun
Team Captain
- Aug 7, 2017
- 367
- 161
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
DemonTim
Cancelled
10k Posts
The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
- Jul 18, 2013
- 11,363
- 8,296
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
It's hardly a hard and fast rule though.
My best mates dad, left him and his mum, to marry a woman and raise her kids. He hasn't contacted his biological child in about 15 years.
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?
- Banned
- #3,575
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
- Status
Similar threads
