Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 95 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by jirskyr » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:50 pm

Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 5:56 pm
I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.
I just hope you realise the tremendous irony that you are apparently tired of presenting your examples, but then you go on to say it's hilarious how nobody has refuted you.

I offer to refute you, please restate your clear and irrefutable examples. It would take 5 mins of your time max, then 5 mins to read my response.


User avatar
Tigerdave
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 10352
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 21 times

Unread post by Tigerdave » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:52 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:06 am
Tigerdave wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:15 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 6:41 am
Tigerdave wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 12:09 am


So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway



because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.
Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.
I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.
We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.
for some it's about the definition, for others it's about rights.

User avatar
Tiger_Pete
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu 21 Jul, 2016 5:39 pm
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 6 times

Unread post by Tiger_Pete » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:08 pm

Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 5:56 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 3:27 pm
Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 1:16 pm

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.

If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.
I'm glad you said "reality". Your sentence above that I've highlighted is the reality.

I'm not even clear about what specifically your objection is, and I've read a lot of your stuff over these 25 pages. I mean specifically, not vague future "catch-all" comments about freedoms and rights.

Can you actually be specific about a single right or freedom that could possibly be rescinded, threatened or overturned for Australians if a certain group of Australians are given a right (such as same-sex marriage)? Is this based on predictions, fear or experience?

Did something happen to "ordinary" Australians when women were allowed to vote across the Commonwealth in 1902, or indigenous Australians in 1962? What were the negative consequences for personal liberties when same-sex unions were deemed as de facto relationships under the Family Law Act 1975?

The government hasn't even proposed or debated legislation and you are saying they will allow freedoms to be impeded?

This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

The ABS are asking you should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. They aren't asking for your opinions about long-term consequences, future legislation, nation-wide civil liberties. You have to simplify these things because the vast majority of Australians are not qualified to develop, advise, or introduce legislation changes.
I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.
God know why I bother replying, as I know you'll only misconstrue whatever I write, but here goes nothing-

First, you ask for someone to "outright refute the claim" and them you use an emotive and subjective term like "stomped". The problem is, I don't think our definitions of "stomped" are the same.

If you think a handful of cases where anti-discrimination laws have been tested as stomped, then you are correct. If however, you look at it more realistically, what you have is a tiny number of people who have rightly or wrongly been affected out of 760 million people who live in countries where same-sex marriage has been made legal. An irrelevant blip in the scheme of things.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3023
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by formerguest » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:09 pm

old man tiger wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 7:24 pm
Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.
Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years. I am nearby at the moment and was planning on taking my family there on this trip, but the latest crackdowns have influenced us to give it a miss and might head to the Malaysian GP instead.
Last edited by formerguest on Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
old man tiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:37 am
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 25 times

Unread post by old man tiger » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:14 pm

formerguest wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:09 pm
old man tiger wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 7:24 pm
Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.
Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years.
The money is part of what bugs me mate. It's probably petty on my part, my mini protest.


formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3023
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by formerguest » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:19 pm

old man tiger wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:14 pm
formerguest wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:09 pm
old man tiger wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 7:24 pm
Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.
Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years.
The money is part of what bugs me mate. It's probably petty on my part, my mini protest.
It bugs me alright as well. Could have passed the law and spent the cash on education of the bill, or anything else with some return.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18489
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 152 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:35 pm

Go You Good Things wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 5:32 pm
Yossarian, I call the gays un natural based on mother nature's decision to give us sex organs designed for a specific purpose.( and being straight or gay is pretty much a sex issue ) It is natural for a vagina to accept a penis. It is against nature to stick your penis in a donkey, chicken, or a man's bumhole. ( the donkey and chicken were just red herrings. What the F, it's also un natural to have sex with a herring, and bloody hard to use one to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest )THAT is why gays are un natural. Because a large part of what defines them as gay involves them having un natural sex. That is my opinion. If you think otherwise, that's just super. I don't think I'm alone. But I won't call you a moron for thinking that way, because I am tolerant of other's opinions, even though I might not agree with them.
Right there is a concept that you might consider.
Which goes towards the left being truly intolerant of any opinion that differs with theirs. See your responses. See Byron's responses. Nothing further, your honour.
Oh, btw . . . I'm sure the Hillary supporters would have thought the Trump voters were increasingly in the minority too. And THERE was a lesson in being tolerant of others that might disagree with you.
One more thing . . . a few have mentioned the ripple effect, but have amazingly been booed down. IF the gays only want "marriage" equality, they would have gotten a lot more positive result if there were iron clad guarantees that nothing further would eventuate. Like the Catholic Church being forced to marry gays if the law is passed. That 7 yr old kids would not be forced to learn in school that homosexuality is natural, or reading books about jack and Bob going up the hill. That those same kids would not be forced to use gender neutral toilets because of some whacko kid who has had his head messed up on gender definition by his progressive thinking parents. So basically that absolutely nothing else would change, except for gays being allowed to marry. After all, that IS what you all are spouting, yes ?
Donald lost the popular vote and has a current approval rating in the 30's, which will only get lower now he's outraged his base by making deals with the Democrats that takes the big beautiful wall off the table.

Nelson
Member
Member
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sat 31 Oct, 2015 11:17 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 51 times

Unread post by Nelson » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:42 pm

Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:43 am

So do you think that Australia will be the one exception out of alllll the countries in the world that have legalised SSM, even though our existing 'free-speech' protections barely exist?

So you obviously don't think that it's worth exploring what happened overseas, before Australia potentially goes down the exact same path. Let's all just go in blind and hope that it works out for the best hey... because you know, she'll be right mate.
No I don't think it's worth exploring what happened overseas because I can't be bothered exploring it in the level of detail that would be required to actually inform my decision. You haven't looked at in detail either, you've just read sporadic anecdotal evidence that is written with an agenda in mind. I'm content to make my own moral choice on the question itself and then leave the consequences to the parliament. That's their job in a representative democracy.
Abraham wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:43 am
I don't think our federal politicians have either the will or the ability of putting in place the necessary free-speech protections. You seem to have an exaggerated opinion as to the capabilities of our politicians it seems. I don't share your glowing recommendation, because again, there is no evidence to suggest what you're saying will happen.

On a side-note, I find your second-last line to be of special importance: "So without any legislation having been put forward you don't know that any of those things will happen".

WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know that the SSM legislation will even look like. How on Earth can you vote for something when the lazy bastards haven't even put forward any draft legislation for us to look at first! This has been a ham-fisted debacle from the start, and people looking to virtue signal and boast about voting 'yes' to legislation that haven't even seen is a perfect example of why i will be voting No.
The question is a simple one. You are not being requisitioned into the parliament to have your input on the legislation, that is not our political system and that is not this process. You are being asked what your view is on the question as framed. You can obviously use the lack of information as a justification for your vote but I personally do not think that is the spirit in which the question is being asked.

User avatar
Spud Murphy
Member
Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat 13 May, 2017 5:04 pm
Location: Second Heaven
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 63 times

Unread post by Spud Murphy » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:06 pm

Just found this....some of you may find it interesting.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/37141103/sa ... r-vote-no/

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18489
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 152 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:22 pm

I don't think that everyone who votes no is homophobic, but there is certainly a significant element. There's a pretty good example of it in this thread. As much as anything, i think its a generational thing. A lot of the older generation come from a time where it was not the norm, and if you live your whole life like that, i can understand why the idea might take some getting use to. But when people don't like it because they don't want gay marriages to fall under the same umbrella as their marriage, as an example of an argument i have seen put forward recently, then i can't understand that. There is also the element of no voters who try and play the victim card, claiming people are telling them they can't have an opinion. Apart from it being my pet hate in a debate to complain that anyone who challenges your opinion is telling you you aren't entitled to it, there is also the added irony that you are complaining about not being allowed to an opinion, when you are complaining about others potentially having equal rights.

TrueTiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 4941
Joined: Thu 14 Aug, 2014 11:22 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 43 times

Unread post by TrueTiger » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:50 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:22 pm
I don't think that everyone who votes no is homophobic, but there is certainly a significant element. There's a pretty good example of it in this thread. As much as anything, i think its a generational thing. A lot of the older generation come from a time where it was not the norm, and if you live your whole life like that, i can understand why the idea might take some getting use to. But when people don't like it because they don't want gay marriages to fall under the same umbrella as their marriage, as an example of an argument i have seen put forward recently, then i can't understand that. There is also the element of no voters who try and play the victim card, claiming people are telling them they can't have an opinion. Apart from it being my pet hate in a debate to complain that anyone who challenges your opinion is telling you you aren't entitled to it, there is also the added irony that you are complaining about not being allowed to an opinion, when you are complaining about others potentially having equal rights.

I come from an era where free love,peace, goodwill and Buddha stix were the norm....the sixties and seventies...wow what a time ...homosexuality was frowned upon,it wasn't right I was told,its unnatural,man and woman have healthy loving relationships and make babies.....gee I have come along way since then,now Iam more TOLERENT of peoples feelings and accept that homosexuality is amongst us,we all have to deal with it in a manner where we can still remain caring human beings, after all isn't life precious and we need to live it the best we can,how we can..each to their own I say... :|
You may see me struggle...but you will never see me quit... :D

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5313
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 41 times

Unread post by goldcoast tiger » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 11:04 pm

Tigerdave wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:52 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 9:06 am
Tigerdave wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 8:15 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 6:41 am


Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.
I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.
We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.
for some it's about the definition, for others it's about rights.
Years ago , procreation was one of the biggest Reasons to get married. There was a big stigma around any girl who became pregnant without being married first. Girls were going to great lengths to cover up the signs of a pregnancy. Many Australian country girls were sent to stay with relations in the cities and abortions were another way out.
These days you do not have to get married before having kids. On the contrary, there are lots of girls now walking down the isle with various baby bumps every day , or with their Children being involved in the ceremony.
There are others who decide to have a full family and may not EVER get married, that's their choice
On the other hand there are those who get married and never want to have any kids at all.
Marriage has changed, procreation has a much smaller reason for it

The word " marriage" has already evolved into different meanings to different people. And no one owns it.
People couldn't get married to a Protestant if they were a Catholic. And vice versa,
I had first hand knowledge of that stupid custom. when my Father would not let me to go to my two sisters weddings, and didn't speak to them for about 5 yrs.afterwards.

marriage and the reasons for ithave already changed a lot in EVERY church and most country's. Yet we still have some people who want to tell others that they can't marry whoever they like. Why do they still hang on to an outdated outlook on people getting married when so much has already changed.
It's marvellous how the hypocrisy eventually comes to light over the years about the ridiculous superstitions that they try and hold on to around religion, the church and marriage
My Catholic brother in law ( years ago very devout) spent ages trying to get me to not eat meat on Friday , then with a stroke of the Popes pen, it was over.
One day you'd go to hell if you had a prawn, the next day it was open slather.
I think that the yes voters should take a chill pill. Gays don't want to marry you, just other gay people

Earl
Member
Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat 18 Feb, 2017 9:21 am
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 75 times

Unread post by Earl » Tue 19 Sep, 2017 11:12 pm

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who get married and don't have kids. Should that be outlawed as well.

User avatar
marzie
Member
Member
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2014 8:43 pm
Has liked: 1 time

Unread post by marzie » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am

Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3618
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 30 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 5:36 am

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendez ... =editorial

YES CAMPAIGNERS SHOW THEIR TRUE COLOURS
MIRANDA DEVINE

September 17, 2017 12:00am
SO now we see why rainbow warriors didn’t want a people’s vote on same-sex marriage.

It was because they knew we’d see their true, intolerant colours.

Yes campaign HQ knows thuggery won’t win over Middle Australia, but their foot-soldiers are revealing themselves as fascistic bullies who vilify and intimidate anyone who dares to disagree.

Last week’s abusive exhibition by same-sex marriage activists at Sydney University was the clearest example yet.

On Thursday, about 15 students, including members of the uni’s Catholic Society, set up an information table on the main campus thoroughfare with placards saying: “It’s OK to Say No”.

They offered free kebabs and two large bowls of delicious Lebanese hummus made by one of their mothers.

It was the first time the No campaign has had a presence on campus where “Marriage Equality” stalls have featured almost every day this semester.

“The idea was pretty much to give the No campaign perspective on campus,” said 21-year-old IT student, Francis Tamer, one of the organisers.

“The message was that it’s OK to vote No. We weren’t looking to convince people how to vote. We’re just saying its OK to have your own opinion.”

After an hour 40 to 60 activists arrived with a megaphone, led by “Queer officers” of the Students’ Representative Council, which has an annual budget of $1.7 million.

For the next five hours they screamed abuse at the Catholic students, calling them: “homophobes” “bigots” “neo-Nazis” “gay-bashers” and chanting: “Bigot scum have got to go” and “We will fight, we will win, put the bigots in the bin”.

They up-ended the table of kebabs and threw bowls of hummus on the ground. They stole pamphlets and placards, threw condoms and glitter at the students, chalked “F..k off bigots” on the path, swore and yelled anti-Christian abuse:

“Go f..k yourself. Go wank yourself off at home with your f..ing Jesus picture”.

“You don’t belong on campus. You are bigots and haters:”

“Didn’t you know Jesus was bisexual?”

“Suck my d..k, bro”.


'
One activist in a yellow T-shirt, who we have chosen not to name, is seen shouting at Tamer: “I wish I could kick you in the f.. ing face. That would be so satisfying.”

“They wanted to provoke us,” says Tamer. “But I told our members don’t engage.

“A lot of people have now seen the Yes campaign for what it really is… If this is what’s happening now, what will happen later, after [same-sex marriage] is enshrined in law?”

Tamer, who is almost 6 foot 4, spent most of the day with his hands in his pockets, showing admirable restraint.

“I’m used to the verbal abuse,” said another organiser, Tony Mattar, 26.

“But I wasn’t expecting the violence… I didn’t think they’d go that far. We couldn’t even talk with them.”

It was Mattar’s mother who made the hummus which was thrown on the ground by the rainbow ferals.

They smeared it on his clothes, the back of his neck and his face. They also kicked him and others in the shins to get them to drop their placards.

Later in the afternoon, an activist ran full pelt at Mattar, while another male tried to grab his placard. He managed to stay upright but, at this stage, watching NSW police intervened.

“There were times I did get mad,” said Tamer. “It’s not easy to cope with that for five hours straight. But we knew we were representing more than just ourselves…

“I thought everyone who walked past, they’re going to rethink and reconsider — and see maybe it’s the Yes campaign that lacks love.”

“[The other side] are trying to convince people there is only one moral way and if you think any other way you are evil, you are a bigot, you are hateful.”

“But we don’t want anyone to think it’s not OK to vote No.

“You can’t make the whole country not vote No in their own homes. At the end of the day your vote is your vote.”


Yes campaigners berated No campaigners at Sydney University last week. (Pic: Facebook/Verum Media)
He says the Yes campaign assumes they have locked up the youth vote.

“But we want to show that the university and young people are not owned by the LGBTI agenda, we are not owned by the left. We can think for ourselves.”

The University’s Queer Action Collective issued a statement saying there was no violence, “aside from police aggression”, and claiming Catholic Society members had compared LGBTI relationships to “bestiality” and paedophilia.

Tamer and Mattar say that nothing of the kind was ever said. There is no evidence to the contrary in two hours of video I have seen, provided by Tamer and the university union.

What the videos do show is that members of the Catholic Society were subjected to vilification, intimidation, and threats “because of views they hold on the [marriage] survey or in relation to their religious conviction,” as defined by emergency legislation rushed through parliament last week.

Yet Attorney-General George Brandis’s office did not respond to questions on Friday about whether the legislation should apply.

Tamer and Mattar are deciding whether to take their complaints further. But the abuse they copped was a better advertisement for a No vote than any number of kebabs or pamphlets.

*********************************

IT’S OK for Ian Thorpe to front the Yes campaign for same-sex marriage.

It’s OK for the Wallabies, the NRL, the ARU, the AFL, Cricket Australia, Tennis Australia, Football Federation Australia to support a Yes vote.

It’s OK for the nation’s sporting bodies to bring politics into an arena which previously has been a haven from the troubles of the world.

It’s OK to disenfranchise a significant percentage of players and supporters in the process.

But it’s not OK for Wallaby star Israel Folau respectfully to disagree.

“I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions, but personally, I will not support gay marriage” he tweeted last week to a chorus of criticism, calling him, among other insults, a “bad human being”.

Nor is it OK for former tennis champion Margaret Court, admittedly less respectfully, to state her opposition to same sex marriage.

The backlash has now resulted in the Cottesloe Tennis Club ditching her as patron.

The club has cited various excuses for why it has disrespected its most accomplished hometown champion, but no one is fooled.

We recognise tyranny, even when it comes in rainbow colours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3618
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 30 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 5:56 am

Go You Good Things wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 5:32 pm
Yossarian, I call the gays un natural based on mother nature's decision to give us sex organs designed for a specific purpose.( and being straight or gay is pretty much a sex issue ) It is natural for a vagina to accept a penis. It is against nature to stick your penis in a donkey, chicken, or a man's bumhole. ( the donkey and chicken were just red herrings. What the F, it's also un natural to have sex with a herring, and bloody hard to use one to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest )THAT is why gays are un natural. Because a large part of what defines them as gay involves them having un natural sex. That is my opinion. If you think otherwise, that's just super. I don't think I'm alone. But I won't call you a moron for thinking that way, because I am tolerant of other's opinions, even though I might not agree with them.
Right there is a concept that you might consider.
Which goes towards the left being truly intolerant of any opinion that differs with theirs. See your responses. See Byron's responses. Nothing further, your honour................
So GYGT would you equate homosexual actions with smoking and illicit drugs as all being unnatural?
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:25 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:22 pm
I don't think that everyone who votes no is homophobic, but there is certainly a significant element. There's a pretty good example of it in this thread. As much as anything, i think its a generational thing. A lot of the older generation come from a time where it was not the norm, and if you live your whole life like that, i can understand why the idea might take some getting use to. But when people don't like it because they don't want gay marriages to fall under the same umbrella as their marriage, as an example of an argument i have seen put forward recently, then i can't understand that. There is also the element of no voters who try and play the victim card, claiming people are telling them they can't have an opinion. Apart from it being my pet hate in a debate to complain that anyone who challenges your opinion is telling you you aren't entitled to it, there is also the added irony that you are complaining about not being allowed to an opinion, when you are complaining about others potentially having equal rights.
Generational thing? Are we being ageist now? No it is about the definition of marriage and recognising that heterosexual relationships are different to homosexual relationships. Both are equal but for fundamental biological reasons are different. It is not complicated, it is not a rights issue despite the best efforts of the gay community and its supporters to muddy the waters.

People are entitled to their opinion and because they chose the No case does not mean it is open slather to abuse them or direct comments of homophobia or ageism towards them.

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:28 am

marzie wrote:
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:29 am
Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair
Out of interest, can you please detail the birth of the first child born via anal sex, oral sex or use of a vibrator in a homosexual relationship?

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”