Same sex marriage debate...

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-campaigners-show-their-true-colours/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2?utm_source=Daily%20Telegraph&utm_mediam=email&utm_campaign=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.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

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?

 

[Pawsandclaws]

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]

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?

 

[TCL]

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, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon 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 ?

Nature is not a good argument.

Female hyena's have a penis. Dogs, monkeys and other animals engage in homosexual intercourse, many nanimals are promiscuios and many animals have multipal partners when breeding, many will eat their young and many will breed with their own.

I also don't believe that nature invented marriage.

I think nature dictates attraction and arousal

 

[Masterton]

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.

If you think he's being ageist, you can't read well. He was just sympathising with people who were raised with different attitudes.

I couldn't care less whether people procreate in their marriage. Fortunately, within the next decade or so SSM will be legal and I won't have to hear that argument again.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

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

So those who chose the No option have no right to their opinion?

You've written "yet we still have some people who want to tell others they can't marry whoever they like"

Isn't it more a case of No supporters wanting to have their say in the context of this survey? In recent cases (Sydney Uni, Skywriter, Israel Folau, worker sacked yesterday), it is the gay community and its supporters who want to shut down debate.

And it is so wrong that a heterosexual couple want to retain an institution that always has and hopefully always will be strictly a between a man and a women? That for obvious fundamental biological reasons this relationship is different to a homosexual relationship. Equal but different.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

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.

If you think he's being ageist, you can't read well. He was just sympathising with people who were raised with different attitudes.

I couldn't care less whether people procreate in their marriage. Fortunately, within the next decade or so SSM will be legal and I won't have to hear that argument again.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

 

[Snake]

A Young girl this morning sacked in Canberra for saying she was voting no ! I always DID believe that our for fathers died by there tens of thousands in wars to give every one of us a society of free speech and a democracy of freedom for us all!
Do not think for one moment that this vote is only if a gay couple can marry…this vote is about the freedom of expression and free speech that we all have taken for granted.
Fascism is alive a well in this country and hiding behind the rainbow flag wavers the perpetrators dressed in black with there faces covered like cowards they are attacking innocent people for a differing opinion .
When you vote just think about the young girl sacked for her opinion when she thought she had the right to do so ,this vote is NOT about gay marriage and after this has been ratified as it probable will all of us will find out very quickly that we do not in fact have freedom of speech or expression ..this is my opinion as I do and will always protect my constitution to have freedom of speech no matter what. If a gay couple want to marry good luck to them but this is not about that!

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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

Not only that. There are a lot of heterosexuals who shouldn't de allowed to be anywhere near a marriage , for a hundred different reasons.
Yet they're welcomed into the marriage club with open arms.
They'd admit every type except Gays,
Could it be that a Major double standard exists here.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

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.

So its being ageist to point out that people from other generations grew up with different beliefs? And that i can actually respect where they are coming from? You obviously don't have any concept of belief systems changing throughout history, that is an undeniable fact. Has for the whole procreation thing, its been told to you that that is irrelevant due to things like IVF and adoption. The world is a progressive, evolving place. Either move with the times or be left behind.

 

[Geo]

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?

There was a Woman who bore a Child without even having sex once..nor was she married…. they tell me ...so anything is possible

 

[Pawsandclaws]

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.

If you think he's being ageist, you can't read well. He was just sympathising with people who were raised with different attitudes.

I couldn't care less whether people procreate in their marriage. Fortunately, within the next decade or so SSM will be legal and I won't have to hear that argument again.

If you don't like it, don't read it. I read perfectly well. Did you read the question mark after what I wrote?

And the story of the young women sacked in the ACT for expressing her views as she is legally entitled to do.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/im-not-afraid-to-stand-up-for-my-beliefs-teen-party-entertainer-let-go-for-samesex-marriage-view-hits-back-20170919-gyktsv.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
\
\
\

 

[Abraham]

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.

Your statistics are wrong, but I'll let you discover that for yourself in due course.

Give me evidence of the tiny number you allude to.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

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.

So its being ageist to point out that people from other generations grew up with different beliefs? And that i can actually respect where they are coming from? You obviously don't have any concept of belief systems changing throughout history, that is an undeniable fact. Has for the whole procreation thing, its been told to you that that is irrelevant due to things like IVF and adoption. The world is a progressive, evolving place. Either move with the times or be left behind.

My beliefs system is perfectly fine and many would argue our older citizens are very tolerant in their views. And I know you wouldn't be suggesting that it is only older citizens who are for the NO case. Thanks for your advice on moving with the times.

 

[Yossarian]

A Young girl this morning sacked in Canberra for saying she was voting no ! I always DID believe that our for fathers died by there tens of thousands in wars to give every one of us a society of free speech and a democracy of freedom for us all!
Do not think for one moment that this vote is only if a gay couple can marry…this vote is about the freedom of expression and free speech that we all have taken for granted.
Fascism is alive a well in this country and hiding behind the rainbow flag wavers the perpetrators dressed in black with there faces covered like cowards they are attacking innocent people for a differing opinion .
When you vote just think about the young girl sacked for her opinion when she thought she had the right to do so ,this vote is NOT about gay marriage and after this has been ratified as it probable will all of us will find out very quickly that we do not in fact have freedom of speech or expression ..this is my opinion as I do and will always protect my constitution to have freedom of speech no matter what. If a gay couple want to marry good luck to them but this is not about that!

She should file a wrongful dismissal appeal at the FWC. And if that fails you should be directing your anger at the pissweak IR laws in this country. Because this is happening before the votes sorry surveys are even counted. How will changing the Marriage Act change this?

No doubt the same types who jump up and down about the rights of business owners to do whatever the hell they want will also say this is a terrible thing. FWIW I think the business owner over-reacted and everyone should be able to participate in political debates so long as they're not identifiable as staff members of a company.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

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.

So its being ageist to point out that people from other generations grew up with different beliefs? And that i can actually respect where they are coming from? You obviously don't have any concept of belief systems changing throughout history, that is an undeniable fact. Has for the whole procreation thing, its been told to you that that is irrelevant due to things like IVF and adoption. The world is a progressive, evolving place. Either move with the times or be left behind.

My beliefs system is perfectly fine and many would argue our older citizens are very tolerant in their views. And I know you wouldn't be suggesting that it is only older citizens who are for the NO case. Thanks for your advice on moving with the times.

No, but they are the only portion of no voters that i can at least understand their reasoning.

 

[Abraham]

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.

Really?? How can you offer to refute something, when you apparently don't know what it is yet?

Unless you are more concerned with winning a debating point, than actually engaging in factual discussion.

Usually if you join a thread 25 pages in, it is incumbent in you to get up to speed with the discussion. Not on me to repeat myself every-time someone new joins in. But because i am a really really really nice guy, i will spell it out for you again … because i am a really nice guy.

I have said overseas, that:

- School curriculums have changed, forcing religious schools to teach LGBT issues.
- Churches have been either pressured or forced to marry same sex couples.
- Business Owners criminally charged for refusing to participate in gay weddings.
- Public Servants jailed for not personally signing off on gay weddings.
- People fired from government jobs for believing in traditional marriage.
- Christian couples banned from adopting children for believing in traditional marriage.

I could obviously go on and on ... there are other examples i also raised.

Now I am not interested in whether you personally think the above discrimination should or shouldn't be allowed, that is not the point of me raising them. The point is that freedoms have been curtailed in direct response to gay marriage being legalised in these countries, and it is reasonable to expect the same situations would apply in Australia if we legalised gay marriage also.

Now you said you were going to refute these examples, so please go ahead and explain how none of these are real and how i made the whole thing up.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

A Young girl this morning sacked in Canberra for saying she was voting no ! I always DID believe that our for fathers died by there tens of thousands in wars to give every one of us a society of free speech and a democracy of freedom for us all!
Do not think for one moment that this vote is only if a gay couple can marry…this vote is about the freedom of expression and free speech that we all have taken for granted.
Fascism is alive a well in this country and hiding behind the rainbow flag wavers the perpetrators dressed in black with there faces covered like cowards they are attacking innocent people for a differing opinion .
When you vote just think about the young girl sacked for her opinion when she thought she had the right to do so ,this vote is NOT about gay marriage and after this has been ratified as it probable will all of us will find out very quickly that we do not in fact have freedom of speech or expression ..this is my opinion as I do and will always protect my constitution to have freedom of speech no matter what. If a gay couple want to marry good luck to them but this is not about that!

These stories that come from both sides are a bit rubbery, and are pulled out whenever it suits their arguments.
It's happening on both sides and in the overall campaign are a miniscule but convenient occurrence.

 

[Abraham]

No doubt the same types who jump up and down about the rights of business owners to do whatever the hell they want will also say this is a terrible thing. FWIW I think the business owner over-reacted and everyone should be able to participate in political debates so long as they're not identifiable as staff members of a company.

I believe the employee has the right to espouse whatever view she likes.

I also believe the business owner can hire or fire whoever she likes, whenever she likes, for whatever reason she likes.

Its called freedom.