Same sex marriage debate...

[goldcoast_tiger]

As an aside about the contractor being shafted over her religious beliefs, how do people feel about businesses being run by Plymouth Brethren that exclusively hire people from within the faith? If I were qualified and looked over merely for my atheism are we OK with that or is that wrong?

I cannot say there is anything particularly wrong with that. Not because i want people to be discriminated against, but if you believe in freedom then that needs to extend to most facets of life and society.

If i want to open up a business and only hire wholesome and virtuous Catholics, i should be allowed to.

The same should apply if you only want to hire heathen atheists.

:roll

I'd hire the best person for the job. Even if they were a religious zealot.
[/quote)

So If the Gays became religious zealots AND worked harder, would they THEN, be allowed to be married? Lol
Just another question.
If a Gay Man married a Gay woman, would that be ok to the "NO" Voters???

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Sorry CB my post was somehow fused with yours . I tried to separate them , but couldn't

 

[Yossarian]

Is this thread still going?

Hopefully we sign a gay player and this thread gets merged with the signing suggestions thread.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

I will explain the position of the Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim baker scenario you have not understood.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay person, they are homophobic.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are not homophobic.

I think you said you are a Christian, so you don't need me to explain that the Church says that the purpose of sex is an expression of married love with the open possibility of creating life. Homosexual sex does not fit this criteria, neither does extra-marital sex between straight couples. Therefore the baker does not want to promote what they believe is a sin.

Homosexual sex is not a person, it is an action. That is what the baker has a problem with. Not the person, the action. But as a Christian, you already know this.

Now you have the background, here is the concerning bit:

Australia is signatory to multiple international conventions enshrining freedom of religion as a human right. But these conventions appear not to be worth the paper they are written on, as overseas each time a baker has refused to participate in an event they see as against their faith, they are prosecuted by the state. So it seems that forcing a baker to bake a cake trumps the actual human right of freedom of religion. And you wonder why some of us who do pay attention to the world around us are up in arms about this?

"If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are not homophobic. "

Depends why the baker refused. I will assume that you are taking about a Religious baker, who's religion and religious belief objects to SSM for the reasons that you state.

But yes, they should be able to object on the grounds that their religious beliefs do not agree with the Ceremony. Personally I believe that they should show the couple good cheer, let them know their personal objection but wish them well and provide the best cake that they can provide.

Even so this objection is NEW and novel. No one has objected to the many trophy and sham marriages AND refused to provide them service (caterers not religious). If this objection is not centered on Homosexuality it should have been tested and brought earlier. Now because it hasn't it has entered the realm of Bigotry and discrimination and leads to the view that this is selective enforcement against the homosexuals (be that view true or otherwise).

Clearly the best way through this is a sensible modification to the proposed law stating that those businesses who participate in providing services to weddings. Having found a deep religious based reasons to not perform at certain weddings which conflict against their faith can choose to do so. I would add that they must state their objection in advance, on their website and in their shop, else tough.

That most of the proposed member bills have flagged exemptions, that a parliamentary committee has looked at it and unanimously agreed to wording around religious exemptions. If the Parliamentarians who have concerns are SO lazy that they must wait till last moment to air their concerns, then they are seriously neglectful in their duty. I honestly have not read the parliamentary report, but I cannot believe that this case would not have been considered.

That being said, I must consider the worst case scenario you present. In considering this, I would say that we should push for the better case scenario above.

I cannot however let the grounds of a baker, objecting to baking a cake (which they bake regularly) override a persons right to marry. Any Christian that understands Marriage, understands that Marriage counts ahead of any career or vocation. If roles were reversed and I had to change my job because of a moral objection I would be grieved, However If I was prohibited from marrying the person I love I would be Aghast.

H

We should ban the trade of Baking. Get rid of em!!!! Just a bloody bunch of flour covered homophobes. You may think these people are as white as the driven snow, when really that's just from last nights wedding cakes. They're Plain Evil!!
Most will be toiling away at night figuring out ways to embed IED's into a three layer sponge.without the little bride and Groom toppling off the top.

These people are damned dangerous, and should be weeded out of society as soon as possible, before they inflict carnage upon unsuspecting wedding guests. You may think that those Jaffa cakes are a delight to bite into, but it's too late when you bite into those ball bearings instead,

they have no boundaries. And are forever searching for more ways to root out (not the best use of words, I suppose ) those Gay guys, from society , simply because most of them are better cooks than most Bakers will ever be.

If this scourge of the banquet table isn't cut down very soon and eradicated , it will be a very brave person who will take that first bite into his or hers next Cream Lamington , and we'll forever be in fear of an attack by a flying squadron of Light and fluffy Croissants
That's when you'll know unbridled , cold FEAR !!!!!!'

Once they're gone , it's up to us all to be vigilant , and watch for the first signs that they are rising
again .
The moment the first Cheese and Bacon roll is sighted again we must ring the bells And unite and make sure that this remains a Baker free country, so we'll all be happy and Gay again.
Be vigilante!!!!!!!!!
And the world won't have this discriminatory Trade of terror to deal with ever again.
We will also never again have to have to fear a cleverly disguised Cream Bun.

 

[Abraham]

By the same token you can't state that things that occurred overseas under different legislative frameworks will definitely or probably occur in Australia or how any of this is directly linked to SSM rather than part of a broader shift towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

You've put forward examples asking for them to be refuted and I've replied citing current legislative framework and experiences. You seem to think the Marriage Act amendment is a vanguard to future changes that would limit people's rights to be homophobic. I don't see how that is supported.

Now to your sources. They were told a gay couple had been put forward to adopt the child they had fostered. They then made comments about that being a joke and the kid needing a mummy. They weren't defenders of traditional marriage, they were homophobes who objected to gay parenting. On that basis they were removed from the books. The article in the Christian paper is factually incorrect. They were turned down for adoption because their house was too small. Maybe that was a cover I dont know, but the official record is that they were not denied the chance to adopt because of the anti-gay comments. Again if you can point me to a single case in Australia let me know. We've had gay parents for some time and it is gay parenting not marriage that this issue related to.

I think we are going around in circles now. We have every right to fear the same stances will be taken in australia as they were in Europe and Nth America because there are no sageguards to suggest they won't.

My challenge to members to refute what i was saying, was in response to those telling me none of this had happened, like i was making it up or something. Its clear for everyone to see these are real life examples that i have referenced. Whether you think they will be repeated in this country is a matter of opinion which you and i disagree on.

Your response to the adoption issue is exactly what i fear will become liegislated for soon. People denied the right to adopt children they already care for, because they want the kids to have a mum and dad, and not a dad and a dad (or homophobia as you wrongly call it). This is the absurd slippery slide we are heading for.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

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.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah this kind of stuff is just not on! Along with the article link I posted yesterday about the girl losing her job because she simply said that it was ok to vote No. This stuff happening now just supports Abraham's argument, imo.

 

[Abraham]

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.

Haha I knew I could goad it out of you eventually.

It's not incumbent on me to do anything. It's like saying if you arrive late at a party you can't speak to anyone, because all the conversations have already started.

I stayed away from this thread because I wanted to make my vote without all the nonsense the "no" campaign has tried to dump on me, and then take a look at the subsection of society that exists in this forum. I know many of your online personas, so unlike other random forums, I have some sort of idea of what posters in here have been like over many years. I personally don't know anyone who is voting "no", so I have no direct spoken contact with the other side of the argument.

Now I know you are a really nice guy, I also know you appear unable to help yourself, you could have just ignored me, you've postured several times now about not repeating yourself, but here you are repeating yourself. There must be some part of you that is either enjoying debating with me, or cannot let my comments go unchallenged.

So I did read your posts generally speaking, lots of pages to cover of course, but my overall impression was that they were so wishy-washy that I couldn't boil down the pure facts behind your argument. All I could see were broad strokes of scare mongering and straw man arguments.

And it's been said to you already, the government didn't ask you to debate or discuss freedom of speech, nor legislation, they asked you to discuss marriage only. You of course are arguing that it goes beyond marriage into other aspects of society, but that is an endless argument that applies to anything in the whole world that is moderately complicated. Pawsandclaws is banging on about procreation, I have no idea why, and he's on your team, assuming that the point of all this is that you've voted "no".

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.

So the problem I have here is all you have done is provided more broad strokes about "things" that have "apparently" happened. Not how many, not where, not specific examples, just "take my word for it". I don't want to be patronising, but arguments like that don't hold any water at all, you need to provide facts and figures.

For example which churches have been forced to marry gay couples? Where and how many times?

Yoss does a great job a few posts ago, going through each of your "arguments" and dissecting them; I don't need to repeat it.

Tiger Pete pointed out to you that the countries that have passed SSM into law cover some 760 million people, and we globally are aware (and you are arguing about) single individual cases, perhaps totalling multiples of 10 (20, 30 events) covering every possible new anti-discrimination scenario including homosexuals in some 26 countries. That's important: we have to look at the change in rate of anti-discrimination events, not just the total number of events, because some countries may have already been aggressively enforcing their anti-discrimination laws prior to any SSM laws being passed.

Let's overestimate and say 100 events have occurred in these countries where freedom of speech was potentially (not even proven in law, just potentially) impacted in an anti-discrimination case involving homosexuals. That would be 100 events out of 760 million persons = 1 event for every 7.6 million persons = impact on 0.0000001% of the population. Apply that to the current Australian population approx 25M and we might see something like 3 new anti-discrimination cases involving homosexuals, noting that the law already prohibits anti-discrimination against gays.

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.

Well as I said, it's hard to show you how your examples aren't real when you can't even say specifically what these examples are. "School curriculums have changed" is too broad an argument - which schools where, how many, how often? When you make an argument you need to back it up with facts, with figures, not just "I heard" or "I read one time".

Indulge me, if I can give you an example of what I mean. I can do exactly what you did above and state a list of "examples" where freedom of speech was not impacted, without providing any specific facts, details or numbers:
- No schools have ever been legally compelled to teach LGBT issues.
- There has been no change in the rate of anti-discrimination cases involving homosexuals brought to court in countries where SSM has been approved.
- Churches in Australia are not bound by our anti-discrimination laws and have willfully fired, declined to hire, declined to serve mass to divorcees, homosexuals and de facto couples.
- Adoption services do not survey potential patients for their religious values and therefore have no capacity to determine whether or not they believe in traditional marriage.

Now how would you argue the validity of anything I said above? I haven't offered any figures or any examples, just sweeping comments about how things "are". Especially the third point, there are MANY anecdotal stories about religious groups being permitted to discriminate against persons, particularly in school employment, and not being subject to anti-discrimination laws. I actually don't know the figures for this, how many cases have been brought to court and the result of those cases, so it's not a strong argument to make - I just don't know the rates. It's likely that active anti-gay discrimination in christian schools is very limited compared to lack of discrimination - there are likely many gay teachers and students who do just fine in religious schools.

Personally, I'm non-religious but I am compelled to baptise my children in order to get them into the local private catholic schools. Technically that's discrimination and it's not even hidden, it's clear as day on their website enrolment conditions. But do I have a case in court to challenge the school? Not at all, it would not stand up. Yet you are telling me if we allow gay people to marry, somehow the school will have to start admitting non-Christians equal with Christians, public servants will be prosecuted for having opinions, and as the Kiwi MP said, droughts will be caused, the sun will stop shining and teenage daughters will rebel against their loving fathers.

Dont take offense to this, but after 2 mins of your psychoanalysis and self aggrandising i totally switched off.

I tried to be fair to you and went out of my way to bring you up to speed, since you kept pressing me. But my first instinct was right, your here to try and win a debating point and puff your chest out, rather than have an honest discussion.

Why else would you respond with a million word essay?

No normal person does that.

Ill know better than to take you seriously next time.

 

[Chainlink]

Is this thread still going?

Yeah it something about baking cakes now. Here I was just thinking we were being asked if other people have a chance to be as happy as others.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

Is this thread still going?

Yeah it something about baking cakes now. Here I was just thinking we were being asked if other people have a chance to be as happy as others.

Or be as unhappy, depending on which way you look at it :wink:

 

[Yossarian]

By the same token you can't state that things that occurred overseas under different legislative frameworks will definitely or probably occur in Australia or how any of this is directly linked to SSM rather than part of a broader shift towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

You've put forward examples asking for them to be refuted and I've replied citing current legislative framework and experiences. You seem to think the Marriage Act amendment is a vanguard to future changes that would limit people's rights to be homophobic. I don't see how that is supported.

Now to your sources. They were told a gay couple had been put forward to adopt the child they had fostered. They then made comments about that being a joke and the kid needing a mummy. They weren't defenders of traditional marriage, they were homophobes who objected to gay parenting. On that basis they were removed from the books. The article in the Christian paper is factually incorrect. They were turned down for adoption because their house was too small. Maybe that was a cover I dont know, but the official record is that they were not denied the chance to adopt because of the anti-gay comments. Again if you can point me to a single case in Australia let me know. We've had gay parents for some time and it is gay parenting not marriage that this issue related to.

I think we are going around in circles now. We have every right to fear the same stances will be taken in australia as they were in Europe and Nth America because there are no sageguards to suggest they won't.

My challenge to members to refute what i was saying, was in response to those telling me none of this had happened, like i was making it up or something. Its clear for everyone to see these are real life examples that i have referenced. Whether you think they will be repeated in this country is a matter of opinion which you and i disagree on.

Your response to the adoption issue is exactly what i fear will become liegislated for soon. People denied the right to adopt children they already care for, because they want the kids to have a mum and dad, and not a dad and a dad (or homophobia as you wrongly call it). This is the absurd slippery slide we are heading for.

No you're either misreading or misconstruing what I've said and what the articles said.

The couple was not denied the chance to adopt the child because they don't agree with gay marriage. They were denied because their house was too small.

Secondly they got them kicked off the books for fostering because they made objections to a gay couple adopting the child. Not because they hold a personal belief, because they commented on someone else being unsuitable for being gay. It is a small but subtle difference. In any case gays can adopt children now so the SSM amendment is meaningless to this example.

Thirdly their sole objection was that the other couple were gay. That's it. I think their homophobes. That's my opinion.

You can fear what you want based on cherry picked selective case. The case law in this country doesn't support your position. Your arguments are not applicable to gay marriage as a discrete thing, they're your interpretation of how tolerance towards gays and lesbisns at a broad level has undermined the rights of people to take an anti-gay position.

 

[dazza65]

Is this thread still going?

Yeah it something about baking cakes now. Here I was just thinking we were being asked if other people have a chance to be as happy as others.

Marriage equates to happiness? Ask the 43% of Australians who divorced last year.

Piece of paper is just a piece of paper - a successful partnership requires more than that

However having said that I am ambivalent - good on em if they feel this legitimises their relationship and they need that.

 

[Abraham]

As for the adoption example:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/christian-couple-blocked-from-adopting-foster-children-amid-gay-parents-row-a3388456.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/uk-christian-couple-barred-from-adopting-2-foster-kids-views-gay-parenting-171524/

Alright I followed your links, this example of people being discriminated against for traditional views. Let me tell you something Abe, which for all your intelligence, you seem to not see.

The reason why you're hitting against some backlash and opposition here is that you are putting forward your viewpoint as fact, and belittling people who don't agree with you. You are obviously very learned, smart, articulate, and you take the time to research and back up what you say with what can be called evidence. At best though, all you have is your opinion, and you come across opposition because of the way you put forward your opinion as an absolute, and if anyone doesn't agree, then they are wrong.

Vote yes, vote no, whichever. No side is right mate, it's all opinion.

Firstly, if i am coming accross as patronising, its not intentional. Alot gets lost in translation when your typing to someone rather than talking to them.

Obviously nobody can predict the future with certainty. But you can and should look to the world around you and take stock of what happens. Especially to countries with a similar culture who have already been through this.

People seem either not to care or are so eager to pass phantom legislation with no safeguards, that they overlook what anybody who cares about personal liberty or freedoms should judge as immeasurably important.

I judge personal freedom to be paramount, which is why i cant overlook this.

 

[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.

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

Does it not seem silly that you get fired up by someone else's comment, but say "If you don't like it, don't read it" when I respond? Fair go. It's a forum. People post opinions. Others don't agree with them. If that upsets you, you're in the wrong place.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah this kind of stuff is just not on! Along with the article link I posted yesterday about the girl losing her job because she simply said that it was ok to vote No. This stuff happening now just supports Abraham's argument, imo.

I thought that the telegraph couldn't be believed. And was a rag that wrote BS to suit their agenda. Now according to some of those people, they are the bringers of the truth and all that is good.
Remember that Guys when you next want to go accusing them of lying to suit themselves.
I'd love to know who started the ruckus ( if it happened) and what provacation was supplied by either / both parties.
It's in the No camps interest for these things to continue and get even bigger. Maybe rent a crowd is now working for Tony and his Cronies in the God Squad.

Isn't it strange that the article was written by Miranda Devine , the most ardent supporter of Tony and that fine gentleman Cardinal Pell, our favourite child abuser protector. Yes of course it's all true
Now if all gay people drove 4WD drives, Miranda could have even more reasons to vilify them.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Is this thread still going?

Yeah it something about baking cakes now. Here I was just thinking we were being asked if other people have a chance to be as happy as others.

Or be as unhappy, depending on which way you look at it :wink:

We all love Cakes!!!

 

[Black_n_White]

I thought that the telegraph couldn't be believed. And was a rag that wrote BS to suit their agenda. Now according to some of those people, they are the bringers of the truth and all that is good.
Remember that Guys when you next want to go accusing them of lying to suit themselves.
I'd love to know who started the ruckus ( if it happened) and what provacation was supplied by either / both parties.
It's in the No camps interest for these things to continue and get even bigger. Maybe rent a crowd is now working for Tony and his Cronies in the God Squad.

Isn't it strange that the article was written by Miranda Devine , the most ardent supporter of Tony and that fine gentleman Cardinal Pell, our favourite child abuser protector. Yes of course it's all true
Now if all gay people drove 4WD drives, Miranda could have even more reasons to vilify them.

https://youtu.be/fQJs0EmEDTk

GCT providing the lols yet again…

 

[240z]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

 

[GNR4LIFE]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

Beats me. I'm still trying to work out why the subject of what toilet Trans people use is relevant in a discussion about marriage.

 

[Yossarian]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

Well as I understand it, if they were legally the opposite sex at the time of the marriage they're sweet. If one makes the switch they're still married and because the legislation doesn't let gay divorce they're stuck together unless they go overseas

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

….........................

No you're either misreading or misconstruing what I've said and what the articles said.

The couple was not denied the chance to adopt the child because they don't agree with gay marriage. They were denied because their house was too small.

<big>**Secondly they got them kicked off the books for fostering because they made objections to a gay couple adopting the child. Not because they hold a personal belief, because they commented on someone else being unsuitable for being gay**</big>. It is a small but subtle difference. In any case gays can adopt children now so the SSM amendment is meaningless to this example.

Thirdly their sole objection was that the other couple were gay. That's it. I think their homophobes. That's my opinion.

You can fear what you want based on cherry picked selective case. The case law in this country doesn't support your position. Your arguments are not applicable to gay marriage as a discrete thing, they're your interpretation of how tolerance towards gays and lesbisns at a broad level has undermined the rights of people to take an anti-gay position.

I can understand the anti-gay couple being kicked off the books for fostering because imagine what could happen if a child they fostered or adopted turned out gay - it could be a disaster for the child.