Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[tiger_rat]

Don't let these homosexuals brainwash you into the whole romantic idea that homosexuality is the beacon of freedom and humanity finally coming together in peace. It is all deception !!!

 

[Yossarian]

Btw there are the proposed changes. As per usual the changes are misrepresented by many. Unless you earn over 93k (individual) or $186k as a family, the rebate is only dropping from 30% to 20%. On a $100 a week premium that's $10! Yep the neocons want to cry poor over people earning $1600 (ind) or couples on over $3500 a week having to pay an extra $10\. It is only when you get to $124000 for individuals (that's over $2300 a week pre tax) or $248000 for couples/families ($4750+ pre tax) that the rebate goes to zero.

Singles
(annual income) Couples/Families (annual income) Current Rebate Proposed Rebate
Up to $80,000 Up to $160,000 30% 30%
$80,001 - $93,000 $160,001 - $186,000 30% 20%
$93,001 - $124,000 $186,001 - $248,000 30% 10%
$124,001+ $248,001+ 30% 0%

 

[underdog]

Btw there are the proposed changes. As per usual the changes are misrepresented by many. Unless you earn over 93k (individual) or $186k as a family, the rebate is only dropping from 30% to 20%. On a $100 a week premium that's $10! Yep the neocons want to cry poor over people earning $1600 (ind) or couples on over $3500 a week having to pay an extra $10\. It is only when you get to $124000 for individuals (that's over $2300 a week pre tax) or $248000 for couples/families ($4750+ pre tax) that the rebate goes to zero.

Singles
(annual income) Couples/Families (annual income) Current Rebate Proposed Rebate
Up to $80,000 Up to $160,000 30% 30%
$80,001 - $93,000 $160,001 - $186,000 30% 20%
$93,001 - $124,000 $186,001 - $248,000 30% 10%
$124,001+ $248,001+ 30% 0%

well that just validates the current argument even further. A less than ONE percent change? That's two latte's at an inner city coffee house…

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Fair enough mate , but just don't let me catch yar holding hands or kissing in public. GOD NO.!!!

Why will this matter to you? They are just people in love mate…exactly the same as you and your missus. I'll admit I take the mickey out of gay people a bit...but I certainly afford them no ill will whatsoever.

If the church has such a problem with them using the word 'marriage' then call it something else...but the same benefits that apply to you and me should apply to their coupling - otherwise it is just blatant discrimination.

The main reason society is letting gays marry is because it's "not hurting anyone"…...... **Morals, dignity, and basically our humanity has just gone out the window.**

It's rich that you say this.

It's morally wrong to discriminate, isn't it stated that God loves all his creations? Our dignity is being thrown out the window? What about gays, who are ostracised simply because they wish the government to recognise their union lawfully? You're right about our humanity though…

The vitriol and lack of compassion this debate generates against gays is reprehensible. They're asking for the right to be legally recognised as a married couple... No one is going to be shortchanged or at a disadvantage by allowing this, but we are shortchanging & disadvantaging them my not doing so.

Everyone acts like allows gays to marry will cheapen the sanctity of it... We're cheapening them by not allowing them to do so.

 

[Guest]

Before this thread degenerates any further, I will remind people to be cognisant of the forum rules. Racial vilification is not on, and if it continues, posts will be deleted and offending users dealt with appropriately.

 

[happy_tiger]

CB you are using the Bible to suit your argument

Yes God loves everyone Including people like Adolf Hitler ,Idi Amin etc etc etc

But whether he agreed with what they did is a totally different argument As I am a Catholic and feel for the plight of gays and lesbian in their wishes to become legally married until it is sanctified by the Church I can't condone it in the true sense of marriage as a man and woman .

 

[Yossarian]

CB you are using the Bible to suit your argument

Yes God loves everyone Including people like Adolf Hitler ,Idi Amin etc etc etc

But whether he agreed with what they did is a totally different argument As I am a Catholic and feel for the plight of gays and lesbian in their wishes to become legally married until it is sanctified by the Church I can't condone it in the true sense of marriage as a man and woman .

But (and this is a genuine question) can you separate marriage as recognised by the church and marriage as recognised by the state? I support gay marriage but I would oppose any move to compel a church to marry a gay couple if they did not agree to do so. To me they are different things. I'm Anglican for what it's worth…

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

CB you are using the Bible to suit your argument

Yes God loves everyone Including people like Adolf Hitler ,Idi Amin etc etc etc

But whether he agreed with what they did is a totally different argument As I am a Catholic and feel for the plight of gays and lesbian in their wishes to become legally married until it is sanctified by the Church I can't condone it in the true sense of marriage as a man and woman .

But (and this is a genuine question) can you separate marriage as recognised by the church and marriage as recognised by the state? I support gay marriage but I would oppose any move to compel a church to marry a gay couple if they did not agree to do so. To me they are different things. I'm Anglican for what it's worth…

Yeah, I'm talking in the eyes of the law. What annoys me is that the church is involving themselves in matters of the State. Sure they're entitled to their opinion, but we're talking marriage as a legality, not compelling a church to marry gays. It has nothing to do with the them.

 

[happy_tiger]

CB you are using the Bible to suit your argument

Yes God loves everyone Including people like Adolf Hitler ,Idi Amin etc etc etc

But whether he agreed with what they did is a totally different argument As I am a Catholic and feel for the plight of gays and lesbian in their wishes to become legally married until it is sanctified by the Church I can't condone it in the true sense of marriage as a man and woman .

But (and this is a genuine question) can you separate marriage as recognised by the church and marriage as recognised by the state? I support gay marriage but I would oppose any move to compel a church to marry a gay couple if they did not agree to do so. To me they are different things. I'm Anglican for what it's worth…

Depends I guess on what the states definition of marriage is Yoss .

This where it is going to get so messy in the future

People will challenge the right of the Church to get married in Church ceremonies or to be married under the Churches doctrinate

I honestly don't know what the answer is ladies and gentleman . I always thought the gay and lesbian movement could always start their own religion and get married under their own rules (and under the state and civil laws) which would not offend anyone
(Well i wouldn't be offended in any sense ) and they could marry under religious beliefs of their own choosing

 

[Yossarian]

There are some quite sincere Catholics who are also gay. I'm sure it would be an awful situation for them to decide between their faith and their beliefs.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

CB you are using the Bible to suit your argument

Yes God loves everyone Including people like Adolf Hitler ,Idi Amin etc etc etc

But whether he agreed with what they did is a totally different argument As I am a Catholic and feel for the plight of gays and lesbian in their wishes to become legally married until it is sanctified by the Church I can't condone it in the true sense of marriage as a man and woman .

But (and this is a genuine question) can you separate marriage as recognised by the church and marriage as recognised by the state? I support gay marriage but I would oppose any move to compel a church to marry a gay couple if they did not agree to do so. To me they are different things. I'm Anglican for what it's worth…

Depends I guess on what the states definition of marriage is Yoss .

This where it is going to get so messy in the future

People will challenge the right of the Church to get married in Church ceremonies or to be married under the Churches doctrinate

I honestly don't know what the answer is ladies and gentleman . I always thought the gay and lesbian movement could always start their own religion and get married under their own rules (and under the state and civil laws) which would not offend anyone
(Well i wouldn't be offended in any sense ) and they could marry under religious beliefs of their own choosing

And it will be up to the Church to say yes or no to these people. I agree that the Church should be able to turn down wedding gays if it conflicts with their doctrine, but that does not mean they cannot be legally wed in the eyes of the State.

 

[system]

The churches have a legal right to refuse marriage if it breaches their covenants. This has been upheld before if memory serves me correctly.

Certain churches would welcome the opportunity to marry gay and lesbian couples. Even factions of the Catholic Church (usually refferenced as "rogue factions") overseas have married same sex couples

The time of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches setting the moral compass in this nation has long since passed on. Their power as a moral influence was lost with sexual scandals and caving to public opinion on marrying divorced people which was strictly forbidden until they started losing paritioners in droves.

Any shift that occurs will be no different from any other occasion in history where the major churches have reinterpreted the Bible in order to go with the times and please the source of their income.

FTR The word marriage only appeared in the Bible after historical revision (King James revision in 1769 from memory.) It appears nowhere in the original text so the church claiming ther term for their own end is pretty sad

 

[happy_tiger]

There are some quite sincere Catholics who are also gay. I'm sure it would be an awful situation for them to decide between their faith and their beliefs.

Yoss it wouldn't be the first time that people have started their own religion because their faiths and beliefs don't concur

Sure there some quite sincere Anglicans that are in the same boat too

 

[Yossarian]

There are some quite sincere Catholics who are also gay. I'm sure it would be an awful situation for them to decide between their faith and their beliefs.

Yoss it wouldn't be the first time that people have started their own religion because their faiths and beliefs don't concur

Sure there some quite sincere Anglicans that are in the same boat too

Some Anglican churches will marry gays and lesbians. Especially the Episcopalians… Unlike the Catholic church there is no doctrine imposed from above and so there is a much greater autonomy in the individual diocese. Sydney wouldn't allow it.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The churches have a legal right to refuse marriage if it breaches their covenants. This has been upheld before if memory serves me correctly.

Certain churches would welcome the opportunity to marry gay and lesbian couples. Even factions of the Catholic Church (usually refferenced as "rogue factions") overseas have married same sex couples

The time of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches setting the moral compass in this nation has long since passed on. Their power as a moral influence was lost with sexual scandals and caving to public opinion on marrying divorced people which was strictly forbidden until they started losing paritioners in droves.

Any shift that occurs will be no different from any other occasion in history where the major churches have reinterpreted the Bible in order to go with the times and please the source of their income.

FTR The word marriage only appeared in the Bible after historical revision (King James revision in 1769 from memory.) **It appears nowhere in the original text so the church claiming ther term for their own end is pretty sad**

And yet, unsurprising.

 

[stryker]

The real problem is that these kind families want to live in a 45sq 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom home close to the city, go out to dinner every other night, have foxtel in every room of the house, and drive 2 big, fuel hungry, expensive cars, THEN they have the audacity to whinge and moan that they are poor? :crazy

That is a very silly and ill-informed generalisation underdog. You forgot to add they eat lobster and caviar and consume imported booze as well.

Thats ok, we'll see who the ones whinging and moaning are when a heap of them say bugger private health, I'll just go back and bludge off the system like everyone else.

"170K per year is a heck of a lot of money"…. :laughing: for an indivbidual yes, for a family not so much.

 

[stryker]

Btw there are the proposed changes. As per usual the changes are misrepresented by many. Unless you earn over 93k (individual) or $186k as a family, the rebate is only dropping from 30% to 20%. On a $100 a week premium that's $10! Yep the neocons want to cry poor over people earning $1600 (ind) or couples on over $3500 a week having to pay an extra $10\. It is only when you get to $124000 for individuals (that's over $2300 a week pre tax) or $248000 for couples/families ($4750+ pre tax) that the rebate goes to zero.

Singles
(annual income) Couples/Families (annual income) Current Rebate Proposed Rebate
Up to $80,000 Up to $160,000 30% 30%
$80,001 - $93,000 $160,001 - $186,000 30% 20%
$93,001 - $124,000 $186,001 - $248,000 30% 10%
$124,001+ $248,001+ 30% 0%

well that just validates the current argument even further. A less than ONE percent change? That's two latte's at an inner city coffee house…

The figures are irrelevant. It is the mindset of Labor (displayed here by the both of you), that is upsetting people.

If the government wants more money, tell them to take it from their ridiculously overpriced projects involved with NBN, climate change etc….stop taking it off those who have studied hard and worked their backside off to get where they are. The public health service is an absolute shambles. People should be encouraged to take up private health so those who earn bugger all have some chance in the public system.

 

[system]

The demise of the concept of working for the greater good is what is truly demonstrated through all of this.

There is no one source of blame either. It can be attributed to the erosion of trust in government funded projects through years of let downs and wasted money pork barrelling right through to people who take the attitude that they have no responsibility to society.

Austalian society is ceasing to be "we" there is no greater outlined purpose because of a short sighted, selfish electorate and a system of government dedicated to lining politicians pockets and grabbing their place in history with lofty, ill conceived ideas that are never truly debated or explained.

There is so much talk of ecconomic management as being the priority for the next government. If we had kept even 50% of our established tarrifs and regulative legislation such interfernce would not be needed.

Instead we live in a society that is willing to see a retail sector and all of its jobs fall away because they can grab something $50 cheaper online. Rather than save the extra $50 ansd wait a fraction longer they take the cheap option.

Anyway this rant could go on for a while so I will stop now

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The demise of the concept of working for the greater good is what is truly demonstrated through all of this.

There is no one source of blame either. It can be attributed to the erosion of trust in government funded projects through years of let downs and wasted money pork barrelling right through to people who take the attitude that they have no responsibility to society.

Austalian society is ceasing to be "we" there is no greater outlined purpose because of a short sighted, selfish electorate and a system of government dedicated to lining politicians pockets and grabbing their place in history with lofty, ill conceived ideas that are never truly debated or explained.

There is so much talk of ecconomic management as being the priority for the next government. If we had kept even 50% of our established tarrifs and regulative legislation such interfernce would not be needed.

Instead we live in a society that is willing to see a retail sector and all of its jobs fall away because they can grab something $50 cheaper online. Rather than save the extra $50 ansd wait a fraction longer they take the cheap option.

Anyway this rant could go on for a while so I will stop now

You can thank a culture of instant gratification and apathy for this.

 

[underdog]

The demise of the concept of working for the greater good is what is truly demonstrated through all of this.

There is no one source of blame either. It can be attributed to the erosion of trust in government funded projects through years of let downs and wasted money pork barrelling right through to people who take the attitude that they have no responsibility to society.

Austalian society is ceasing to be "we" there is no greater outlined purpose because of a short sighted, selfish electorate and a system of government dedicated to lining politicians pockets and grabbing their place in history with lofty, ill conceived ideas that are never truly debated or explained.

There is so much talk of ecconomic management as being the priority for the next government. If we had kept even 50% of our established tarrifs and regulative legislation such interfernce would not be needed.

Instead we live in a society that is willing to see a retail sector and all of its jobs fall away because they can grab something $50 cheaper online. Rather than save the extra $50 ansd wait a fraction longer they take the cheap option.

Anyway this rant could go on for a while so I will stop now

**You can thank a culture of instant gratification and apathy for this**.

Zing. Nailed it CB, and couldn't have put it any more succinctly myself.