Same sex marriage debate...

General Social Discussion
formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3197
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Re: Same sex marriage debate...

Unread post by formerguest » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 2:04 pm

formerguest wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
hugh1954 wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm
How dumb is the league hierarchy putting this macklemore on at our grand final, I can see the crowd reacting negatively to this character with Booing, fights and abuse. Already this backing of the Yes vote has taken the spotlight away from the most important day on our Calendar which Greenberg had no right to Do. KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SPORT
It is entertainment and one of four songs to be performed, not a statement about SSM, nor political. Simply a song about love aimed at his fellow singers that a politician has put in the spotlight for his own purposes, just like our PM and the media photo from the recent Swans match.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the NRL to have an inclusive policy and then censor an entertainer to satisfy those that are trying tie separate issues into a simple single question topic about marriage.


Abraham
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon 25 Mar, 2013 1:09 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 23 times

Unread post by Abraham » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 2:54 pm

underdog wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 12:21 pm
No, not virtuous. In my own way I know I'm being narrow minded, as I can't see outside my own point of view here - however happy to hear reasoning that i doesn't involve either unfounded remarks about turning kids gay or anything beyond a "I just don't like it"

Evidence as to why It should be a No vote would be appreciated though. I'm still yet to see "evidence" that gives good reason to vote No - just a lot of people bothered about something that has nothing to do with them.
Its funny that you likened No voters to redneck hicks ... the only people i see acting like actual redneck hicks have been the Yes activists assaulting people, stealing campaign signs, tipping over tables, shouting in people's faces, and making quite violent and worrisome threats. Yet I don't go tarring all Yes voters with the same brush as these radical morons... its never a good idea to generalise.

As for the reasons for voting No, there is a wide range of opinions and worries about what a Yes vote will lead to without proper protections put in place. Maybe if you had a conversation with those people, minus the insults and feigned moral superiority, you would get a reasonable idea of the reasons behind their opinions.

User avatar
underdog
Member
Member
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue 27 Apr, 2010 5:25 pm
Location: Gold Coast
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 28 times

Unread post by underdog » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 3:35 pm

It will lead to Gay couples getting married..

Shocking, I know.
Image

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 58 times

Unread post by colmcd » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:37 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 10:03 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:18 pm
Harvey wrote:
Wed 27 Sep, 2017 5:20 pm
How is Macklemore even playing at the grand final, utter garbage? Compare to the killers at the AFL and know which I would prefer
Eh, The Killers are garbage
QFT
OK Please guys this is important:
The Killers do beat Macklemore, but that is because their a Great rock band.
Being honest though the killers have never topped "Hot Fuss" as an album. Occasional hits but they have never ever pushed past the "hot Fuss" peak with "somebody told me", "Mr Brightside", "danny was a friend of mine". (I can't remember the real names. seriously Hot Fuss is their best album ever).

Macklemore though is one of the few rappers who deserves respect. "thrift shop heart" should be played at every NRL board meeting till they understand why we need 1 Jersey for our clubs. I have total respect for his back albums and I HATE RAP! Yes I hate rap, rap is awful. Rap is absolutely horrible, Jay Z, snoop dag and any of those other dropkicks I hope never walk into a NRL game ever.

But I will give Macklemore the time of day.

User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 84 times

Unread post by Harvey » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:53 pm

formerguest wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 2:04 pm
formerguest wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
hugh1954 wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm
How dumb is the league hierarchy putting this macklemore on at our grand final, I can see the crowd reacting negatively to this character with Booing, fights and abuse. Already this backing of the Yes vote has taken the spotlight away from the most important day on our Calendar which Greenberg had no right to Do. KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SPORT
It is entertainment and one of four songs to be performed, not a statement about SSM, nor political. Simply a song about love aimed at his fellow singers that a politician has put in the spotlight for his own purposes, just like our PM and the media photo from the recent Swans match.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the NRL to have an inclusive policy and then censor an entertainer to satisfy those that are trying tie separate issues into a simple single question topic about marriage.
But he has been censored. He has promised not to use some of the colourful language that are part and parcel of his songs


colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 58 times

Unread post by colmcd » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:59 pm

An older article but on topic. This is George Brandis defending the proposed SSM legislation as put by Sen Dean Pay.
"Senator Brandis added there were already constitutional and legal protections for religious freedom.

“Although we don’t have a bill of rights in Australia, unusually there is actually a constitutional protection of religious freedom of section 116 of the Constitution,” he said.

“There are also protections in way of exemption for religious opinion and faith in the discrimination statutes.”"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... fd7bf16862

Section 116:
Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3197
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 5:36 pm

Harvey wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:53 pm
formerguest wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 2:04 pm
formerguest wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:51 pm
hugh1954 wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:34 pm
How dumb is the league hierarchy putting this macklemore on at our grand final, I can see the crowd reacting negatively to this character with Booing, fights and abuse. Already this backing of the Yes vote has taken the spotlight away from the most important day on our Calendar which Greenberg had no right to Do. KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SPORT
It is entertainment and one of four songs to be performed, not a statement about SSM, nor political. Simply a song about love aimed at his fellow singers that a politician has put in the spotlight for his own purposes, just like our PM and the media photo from the recent Swans match.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the NRL to have an inclusive policy and then censor an entertainer to satisfy those that are trying tie separate issues into a simple single question topic about marriage.
But he has been censored. He has promised not to use some of the colourful language that are part and parcel of his songs
Different kettle of fish. Age of audience and time slot is a separate issue and matter of law or rules.

coivtny
Member
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 9:18 am
Location: Central Coast
Been liked: 14 times

Unread post by coivtny » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 6:51 pm

colmcd wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:37 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 10:03 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:18 pm
Harvey wrote:
Wed 27 Sep, 2017 5:20 pm
How is Macklemore even playing at the grand final, utter garbage? Compare to the killers at the AFL and know which I would prefer
Eh, The Killers are garbage
QFT
OK Please guys this is important:
The Killers do beat Macklemore, but that is because their a Great rock band.
Being honest though the killers have never topped "Hot Fuss" as an album. Occasional hits but they have never ever pushed past the "hot Fuss" peak with "somebody told me", "Mr Brightside", "danny was a friend of mine". (I can't remember the real names. seriously Hot Fuss is their best album ever).

Macklemore though is one of the few rappers who deserves respect. "thrift shop heart" should be played at every NRL board meeting till they understand why we need 1 Jersey for our clubs. I have total respect for his back albums and I HATE RAP! Yes I hate rap, rap is awful. Rap is absolutely horrible, Jay Z, snoop dag and any of those other dropkicks I hope never walk into a NRL game ever.

Uh-huh.
But I will give Macklemore the time of day.

User avatar
Spook
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu 11 Aug, 2016 2:34 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times

Unread post by Spook » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 7:24 pm

colmcd wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:59 pm
An older article but on topic. This is George Brandis defending the proposed SSM legislation as put by Sen Dean Pay.
"Senator Brandis added there were already constitutional and legal protections for religious freedom.

“Although we don’t have a bill of rights in Australia, unusually there is actually a constitutional protection of religious freedom of section 116 of the Constitution,” he said.

“There are also protections in way of exemption for religious opinion and faith in the discrimination statutes.”"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... fd7bf16862

Section 116:
Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
As usual the far left (Brandis included) are doing a lot of supposing on behalf of the rest of community. What makes them think only people affiliated with a religious organisation are voting No? Probably the vast majority of No voters aren't religious at all, and simply see marriage as between a man and a woman, and always will whatever Parliament decide.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18809
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 204 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 7:53 pm

Spook wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 7:24 pm
colmcd wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 4:59 pm
An older article but on topic. This is George Brandis defending the proposed SSM legislation as put by Sen Dean Pay.
"Senator Brandis added there were already constitutional and legal protections for religious freedom.

“Although we don’t have a bill of rights in Australia, unusually there is actually a constitutional protection of religious freedom of section 116 of the Constitution,” he said.

“There are also protections in way of exemption for religious opinion and faith in the discrimination statutes.”"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... fd7bf16862

Section 116:
Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
As usual the far left (Brandis included) are doing a lot of supposing on behalf of the rest of community. What makes them think only people affiliated with a religious organisation are voting No? Probably the vast majority of No voters aren't religious at all, and simply see marriage as between a man and a woman, and always will whatever Parliament decide.
And there was a time voting was only seen as something fit for white men.

madunit
Member
Member
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue 17 Jul, 2012 11:32 am
Location: Melbourne
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 3 times

Unread post by madunit » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 9:13 pm

I vote yes.

The marriage of two gay people has zero impact on my life and will in no way devalue my marriage.

It won't see about the end of the world or people marrying animals or any of the other kooky weird crap that's getting sprouted about.

It'll just mean more people being happy.
Image

tigerbalm
Member
Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sun 19 Feb, 2012 7:32 pm
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 5 times

Unread post by tigerbalm » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 9:34 pm

madunit wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 9:13 pm
I vote yes.

The marriage of two gay people has zero impact on my life and will in no way devalue my marriage.

It won't see about the end of the world or people marrying animals or any of the other kooky weird crap that's getting sprouted about.

It'll just mean more people being happy.

Perfectly stated. Thread winner! *




*no actual prizes...please gamble responsibly.

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3898
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 52 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 10:02 pm

tigerbalm wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 9:34 pm
madunit wrote:
Thu 28 Sep, 2017 9:13 pm
I vote yes.

The marriage of two gay people has zero impact on my life and will in no way devalue my marriage.

It won't see about the end of the world or people marrying animals or any of the other kooky weird crap that's getting sprouted about.

It'll just mean more people being happy.

Perfectly stated. Thread winner! *




*no actual prizes...please gamble responsibly.
Nothing like self praise - what about my line about never hearing of a boy getting kicked out of the family home for being a straight?
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)

TheHill
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:23 pm

Unread post by TheHill » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm

30 years I've followed Rugby league and to be honest I am very dissapointed that young children have to be exposed to such propaganda during tomorrow's "entertainment". SSM will not resolve mental health issues, if anything it's going to confuse kids even more hence more mental problems in the future. Kids should not be exposed to this crap.. let's be honest this is promotion not a debate.

Our Bulldogs friends must be silently laughing within whilst they walk around with their 8 kids around the Sth West whilst we promote and debate policies that are not in the interest of our nations longevity.. We are a nation that does not genuinely care about its future and are consumed with such trivial matters.

Whilst on the topic since yes people are so supportive of "equality" then why not approve and promote polygamy too?

100 years ago 15 year old brave kids fought for this country with bravery and honour in the most traumatic of circumstances. What are today's youth fighting for and what?

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18809
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 204 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:58 pm

TheHill wrote:
Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm
30 years I've followed Rugby league and to be honest I am very dissapointed that young children have to be exposed to such propaganda during tomorrow's "entertainment". SSM will not resolve mental health issues, if anything it's going to confuse kids even more hence more mental problems in the future. Kids should not be exposed to this crap.. let's be honest this is promotion not a debate.

Our Bulldogs friends must be silently laughing within whilst they walk around with their 8 kids around the Sth West whilst we promote and debate policies that are not in the interest of our nations longevity.. We are a nation that does not genuinely care about its future and are consumed with such trivial matters.

Whilst on the topic since yes people are so supportive of "equality" then why not approve and promote polygamy too?

100 years ago 15 year old brave kids fought for this country with bravery and honour in the most traumatic of circumstances. What are today's youth fighting for and what?
How?

Marshall_magic
Member
Member
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 5:33 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 3 times

Unread post by Marshall_magic » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 5:23 pm

Propaganda? Take a seat. It's a song. When Chisel did the grand final a few years back they played Khe Sanh, Flame Trees and Bow River. Why? They are three of their biggest songs. Same Love is one of Maccklemore's biggest songs (Macklemore himself is a big deal). I doubt the "young children" would even know what the song is about.

TheHill
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:23 pm

Unread post by TheHill » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 5:27 pm

Easy.

1) Growing up in the 80s you'd watch films with heterosexual content which is natural to most people statistically.

2) Todays kids are watching cartoons where stalks deliver babies to same sex couples or it's cool to have two dads which is not inherently normal to most people statistically. Confusing and no structure, no values, no morals. I can't think of anything more damaging.

You can't stop people from being gay. Though promoting it and encouraging it to children is not the answer.

Just ask minister Goebbels re the power of propaganda and social engineering and the end result?

Besides what is natural is natural and what is not is not. One day this law if approved will be reversed. You can ask the aboriginals for further feedback.

TheHill
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 30 Sep, 2017 4:23 pm

Unread post by TheHill » Sat 30 Sep, 2017 5:31 pm

Marshall_magic wrote:
Sat 30 Sep, 2017 5:23 pm
Propaganda? Take a seat. It's a song. When Chisel did the grand final a few years back they played Khe Sanh, Flame Trees and Bow River. Why? They are three of their biggest songs. Same Love is one of Maccklemore's biggest songs (Macklemore himself is a big deal). I doubt the "young children" would even know what the song is about.
Yes let's take a seat.. the song itself is rubbish, and the timing coincidental? Greenberg should take a walk and leave footy to the footy supporters.

Let him sing another song if it's jus a song..

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”