Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 210 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by formerguest » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:36 pm

Kul wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 8:51 am
Has anyone actually voted yet? Mine is yet to arrived.

However the ABS said that it is important not to post pictures of your full survey form, particularly the barcode, as this is unique to you.
Got it. Two seperate pages including the cover/advice one. Crossed the yes box and placed in the provided return envelope to post this arvo.

Don't agree with the whole process, especially the ABS having to run it, but encourage all that agree SSM should not be illegal to not be complacent as the no voters will definitely be returning their forms.


Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:53 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:15 am

The irony of you complaining about someone not answering your question when you still won't answer mine. Even after i tried to the bigger person and try and clean the slate.
Not for the first time, you called me a religious bigot for no reason. At least this time you didn't do it via PM, you did it for everyone to see.

But yeah, your the "bigger person".

hobbo
Member
Member
Posts: 6894
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 5:03 pm
Has liked: 98 times
Been liked: 82 times

Unread post by hobbo » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:14 pm

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:53 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:15 am

The irony of you complaining about someone not answering your question when you still won't answer mine. Even after i tried to the bigger person and try and clean the slate.
Not for the first time, you called me a religious bigot for no reason. At least this time you didn't do it via PM, you did it for everyone to see.

But yeah, your the "bigger person".
Ouch :lol:
EPL 2014/15 Predict 6
Competition ...CHAMPION !
Winner of the 2016 $$$$
Work tipping comp !

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18695
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 62 times
Been liked: 185 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:53 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:15 am

The irony of you complaining about someone not answering your question when you still won't answer mine. Even after i tried to the bigger person and try and clean the slate.
Not for the first time, you called me a religious bigot for no reason. At least this time you didn't do it via PM, you did it for everyone to see.

But yeah, your the "bigger person".
I haven't used that word towards you in any context. You though have used it at least 6 times. You've used it so much its lost its meaning.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 210 times
Been liked: 65 times

Unread post by formerguest » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:39 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:53 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:15 am

The irony of you complaining about someone not answering your question when you still won't answer mine. Even after i tried to the bigger person and try and clean the slate.
Not for the first time, you called me a religious bigot for no reason. At least this time you didn't do it via PM, you did it for everyone to see.

But yeah, your the "bigger person".
I haven't used that word towards you in any context. You though have used it at least 6 times. You've used it so much its lost its meaning.
The plot thickens.


User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18695
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 62 times
Been liked: 185 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 2:08 pm

formerguest wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:39 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:53 pm
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 9:15 am

The irony of you complaining about someone not answering your question when you still won't answer mine. Even after i tried to the bigger person and try and clean the slate.
Not for the first time, you called me a religious bigot for no reason. At least this time you didn't do it via PM, you did it for everyone to see.

But yeah, your the "bigger person".
I haven't used that word towards you in any context. You though have used it at least 6 times. You've used it so much its lost its meaning.
The plot thickens.
He's bringing up stuff from over 12 months ago. As for this thread, im not sure why he can't put petty differences aside for the sake of discussion. Oh well, guess we move on.

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 50 times

Unread post by colmcd » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 2:27 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 6:47 pm
colmcd wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 5:25 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 3:47 pm
colmcd wrote:
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 3:11 pm


But as we have been arguing, the Holden fans will oppress our freedom of speech and wheel if we ever let them drive Holdens! If people own a Holden, we will never rid ourselves of the Marxist agenda being forced on our racetracks, cars and branding. You only have to change a few letters and Commodore becomes Communist!

*said by a person who owns a Honda, which once had Ford, Mazda and Toyota parts in it! IMHO if you can't die in it, it's not a fun car.
I drive a Camry, I take it that's the car equivalent of being a Libertarian in that no one likes you and thinks you're a danger to both yourself and everyone else around you?
No Way. The Camry is safe, reliable and 0 flare for a car. It is the voting equivalent of Bill Shorten I think.

Abbott I think is the VW range... No breaks. Maybe a VW crossed with a Ford Falcon..

Turnbull is definitely the Lexus of Australian Politics.. .looks great but not so good under the Bonnet.

Still waiting for the Holden Kingswood of Australian Politics to come roaring in... We probably haven't seen one of those since Hawke.

On Libertarianism... I have zero understanding why Libertarians are not Georgists.
It's basically Libertarianism without Inheritances and the tax is applied to Land instead of income.
I.e. no free ride from mum and dad. You make your own way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Haha I was referring more to Camry drivers not the car itself. I have an Atara SX and it's a great car.
Ha, Yea they are great cars actually. Drive a Honda Jazz and love it but used to drive a Camry... Sadly brought a lemon but once fixed it was good.

I think my friends old MX7 might be the Libertarian car. Rotary engine upgraded to 1.4 turbo. Nothing inspected/checked for safety. It flew. It would be a good car to die in.

User avatar
Tigerdave
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 10361
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Tigerdave » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 2:57 pm

Yeah got mine and the missus letters today, already sent back.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 3:48 pm

The Federal Government and Labor have agreed on new temporary laws to safeguard against hate speech during the same-sex marriage postal survey.

The bill, to be introduced to Parliament today, will restrict content published by the Yes and No campaigns and will apply until mid-November.

It includes measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period.

Anyone found to have breached those provisions could be hit with a $12,000 fine and a court injunction.

- ABC


We are officially a Nanny State.

TigerTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue 13 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 38 times

Unread post by TigerTiger » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 3:48 pm
The Federal Government and Labor have agreed on new temporary laws to safeguard against hate speech during the same-sex marriage postal survey.

The bill, to be introduced to Parliament today, will restrict content published by the Yes and No campaigns and will apply until mid-November.

It includes measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period.

Anyone found to have breached those provisions could be hit with a $12,000 fine and a court injunction.

- ABC


We are officially a Nanny State.
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm

TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?

Twodogs
Member
Member
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed 15 Jun, 2011 12:22 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Unread post by Twodogs » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:34 pm

colmcd wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:36 pm

I love how people categorize the Far Left..... From many I have met in the "far left", they are the most diverse group of people. Some Anarchists (aka Libertarians) believe in Zero Government. Some Communists believe in Max government, Some Minimal, others believe in Marajuwana, others I slowly back away. The Far left are incredibly diverse and different and different from each other.

The far right on the otherhand I often find suffer from Groupthink. Many say that they are Libertarian, then after stating an almost identical theology to Anarchism don't admit that they are Anarchists.

Many on the left I know have followed their ideas to their conclusions. Many on the right too, but we see some nice Hypocricy from many, recently from Ted Cruz. Ted opposed Bailouts of Hurricane victims, under any circumstances. Guess who asks for bailouts for Hurricane victims of Texas?

I will be interested to see if Tony Abbott votes with the result of the Plebiscite as he promised to do. (he was asked what's the point in a Marriage plebiscite when many against SSM said that they would vote against regardless).
I disagree with some of those assertions, but a few items for clarity.

Libertarians cannot be anarchists (neither can communists, except perhaps to strategically create a power vacuum to fill). Simply because taking ones' life and liberty is strictly anti libertarian.

It is often said that the far left and far right ultimately meet at the edges. This maybe true, because they are both authoritarian collectivists, however "far right" is a misnomer when talking about nazis.

No government is indeed anarchy, however most right wingers believe in limited government as opposed to the massive bureaucracy we have currently.

I guess from the outside, opponents see opposition as suffering groupthink, however you obviously haven't been where I hang out online, where arguments are constant.

As for hypocrisy, it's a human thing. Hypocrites are everywhere in politics on all sides.

Here's a libertarian argument re SSM. I don't think marriage is any business of the state. My marriage is between me and my family, and perhaps God if he exists, and one's religion, if any. Legal differences should not exist, but of course,such differences have already been eliminated in Australia. As such, this whole debate seems moot and more to do with making the state, and hence its citizens, provide blessing to the relationships of complete strangers. I find that weird.

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 83 times

Unread post by Earl » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:47 pm

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
All that drama over something that won't affect you at all. Does anyone have the moral authority to state that people who are homosexual shouldn't get married ?

TigerTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue 13 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 38 times

Unread post by TigerTiger » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm

Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
Mate, the government and the courts will decide that. Obviously. They already do.

Is it ideal? No. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a sh*t world where people are seen as lesser people because they are different. Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 53 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:05 pm

TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.
This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:48 pm

Earl wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:47 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm

So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
All that drama over something that won't affect you at all. Does anyone have the moral authority to state that people who are homosexual shouldn't get married ?
My arguement is that the government should NOT be the moral authority to decide who can and can't get married. It should be at the liberty of the individual.

And if you have read my previous posts in this thread, you will see the argument i have made concerning the effects this will have on everybody .

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:50 pm

TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:56 pm
Abraham wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:19 pm
TigerTiger wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm
I don't see what's wrong with that. Trying to reel in both sides is a good thing. Some of the disgusting stuff being said, from both sides, has been abhorrent.

Amazes me that when they want to, they can pass stuff almost instantly, but other stuff takes them seemingly forever.
So who decides what is 'hate speech' ?

I agree that incitement to violence should not be protected, but that should be the absolute extent of any speech laws.

I'm not saying this because i want people to be vile, simply that if you start to say you can't say 'X' or you can't say 'Y', then you start a really steep slippery slide where you rely on a single person who decides which people should go for jail for the terrible crime of talking.

Usually their decisions are reflections of their own political or ideological biases.

So if this is a good idea, which god-like moral authority do you think we should we appoint specifically to decide what people can or can't say before they are hauled before the courts and fined $12k?
Mate, the government and the courts will decide that. Obviously. They already do.

Is it ideal? No. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a sh*t world where people are seen as lesser people because they are different. Lucky for you that people believing in God is not in the minority, and people that are gay are not in the majority. Imagine how far up the creek you would be if it was up to people that are gay to decide if religious folk could get married.
Your talking about the human rights commission?

That proves my point beyond any doubt.

Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:53 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 14 Sep, 2017 5:05 pm
This is way out of line and it is time the thread is closed. If you can't be respectful in your reply then it is obviously a reply not worth making.
It might be out of line, but just beat him with a better arguement.

Censorship and shutting people down doesn't solve the issue or teach people why they are wrong for saying something.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”