Same sex marriage debate...

@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
On that note, the seats that voted no overwhelmingly are labour heartland but probably have many socially conservative people living there. Interesting times ahead. Might be a masterstroke from Turnbull, who has turned himself into a "Master bator" with his ineffective leadership.

If it gets to a vote in parliament, these labour members will have to vote yes, surely. I hope people don't care enough about the issue to vote out an incumbent on the basis of a single issue, but this is the risk when you ask the people to do the politician's job.

Tony must be held to his promise of voting with his electorate on the referendum result. He promised that he would vote "yes" if his electorate would vote yes.

I'm sure he will.

As will all the labour politicians whose electorates voted NO. I am sure they will vote no to the legislation.

:roll :roll :roll

Yes, and I'm sure it will prevent the bill from passing. Keep clutching.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You don't know how I voted.
 
The tigers should organise a mass gay wedding at one of their games next year. Massive chance to attract a large number of new fans
 
Sarah Hanson-Young as in tears last night in Parliament lamenting how Dr Bob Brown could not be in presence when the SSM bills were being debated and passed. I am sure Stryker would similarly be moved if only he was still with us in spirit.

They are debating religious attitudes and freedoms to be protected re these bills. People often drop and change religions but other people are denied rights based on the fleeting, whimsy and flimsy attitudes of backward and ignorant people.
 
@ said:
but other people are denied rights based on the fleeting, whimsy and flimsy attitudes of backward and ignorant people.
Click to expand...

Yep. Democracy is a funny thing. It's equal rights for people that are basically stupid. 40% of people voted to curtail the rights of other people because of who they have sex with. Crazy stuff.
 
What a day when established religions, interfering in affairs of state, copped two upper cuts on the same day - never before and maybe never again. Same sex marriage passing in the Senate today and House of Reps to follow and the Victorian Government passing voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Once upon time there was also consensus to tackle climate change but Abbott demolished that - but it is far more important that the other two issues competed today and it's time can't wait.
 
Start a Climate change thread and knock yourselves out..if need be..

Leave this one for the sanctity of Marriage..thank you..
 
Yeah, two unrelated topics that should not be married into one thread.

On topic, thought it was great that the Dean Smith bill was passed through the senate with only technical adjustment. As it rightly should have been per the clear wishes of the community. Over to those in the lower house as our local representatives to keep debate to a minimum and get on with running our country.
 
Pauline Hanson attempted some technical adjustment such as permitting secular marriage celebrants to also refuse to marry gays but when that failed she had the decency to abstain from voting. Rarely do I give her praise.
 
@ said:
Climate change content moved here –--------http://weststigersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30276&p=881473#p881473
Click to expand...

Thank you for SANE moderation.

Agreed with comments above, Pauline Hanson was far more reasonable then Brandis, Bernardi and a whole plethora of Spoilt Brats on the Liberal side. Yes, I support "Yes" and I think that the Dean Smith bill missed several areas. I do believe custom made wedding goods to be exempt if a person had a very serious personal objection… I do believe in religious freedom and I don't think school curriculum, etc will be effected (we have debated this above a LOT... if we start another 20 page discussion I am out). I would have liked the exclusions featured in the Smith bill to apply to religious followers, not just priests (hey many non priests have strong views... even strong views that I disagree with).

However if you want to change legislation post a "survey" you should argue politely and state the minimum of demands. Instead what we saw was a very rude grouping of every objection and tweak being pushed through. It wasn't serious and just media grandstanding. Clearly none of the B's respect their supporters or their concerns. They just grandstanded their objections, ignored the cross party committee and did not work constructively to modify the legislation. In fact I think they did not want their concerns heard to get a bill that would deliberately inflame and if so they should be shamed.

I am glad too see the "yes" bill passed. I hope that we can unite better as a country under it.
 
I was expecting by now that the contra side would be claiming that the severe Victorian floods this week are God's punishment for the passing of the legislation.
 
The thing that gets up my nose about the aftermath of the vote was all the squealing about what the no voters want to happen now. All the stuff about who can still discriminate against a group
Of people who have a different life than them.
You lost, just as happens in ANY election, or any open and fair vote,

Are we going to make allowances for whichever side loses the next election.
If Turnbull is returned, are we then going to fiddle with the result to pacify the losing voters.
Maybe we can get the liberal party to let Chris Pyne be PM on every third week of the term.
That would suit some people (probably not many, I hope) .
You Can’t have it both ways . You shouldn’t get to decide who is a second class person and who isn’t . We either have a no discrimination law or we don’t.
I can already hear the answer to that one.
“Gee that discriminates against the Bakers and florists who have a voice in the sky telling them
thet shouldn’t sell to ,or work for gay customer”.

Will Protestant bakers next want to not sell to Catholic customers , that would be as stupid as discriminating against The Gay community.

Face facts, theNo voters were soundly beaten, Pass the law and accept the majority decision,
 
We have another Black Wednesday - the day of the Double Uppercut. Could also be another Ash Wednesday when the Church's influence turned to ashes. They may respond with gated communities.
 
@ said:
The thing that gets up my nose about the aftermath of the vote was all the squealing about what the no voters want to happen now. All the stuff about who can still discriminate against a group
Of people who have a different life than them.
You lost, just as happens in ANY election, or any open and fair vote,

Are we going to make allowances for whichever side loses the next election.
If Turnbull is returned, are we then going to fiddle with the result to pacify the losing voters.
Maybe we can get the liberal party to let Chris Pyne be PM on every third week of the term.
That would suit some people (probably not many, I hope) .
You Can’t have it both ways . You shouldn’t get to decide who is a second class person and who isn’t . We either have a no discrimination law or we don’t.
I can already hear the answer to that one.
“Gee that discriminates against the Bakers and florists who have a voice in the sky telling them
thet shouldn’t sell to ,or work for gay customer”.

Will Protestant bakers next want to not sell to Catholic customers , that would be as stupid as discriminating against The Gay community.

Face facts, theNo voters were soundly beaten, Pass the law and accept the majority decision,
Click to expand...

I saw an interview with the leader of one of the Libreal Party groups who were pushing the No vote, the day the vote was announced and she said "I think the big thing here is 40% of the Australian public voted no". And I was like "and?" That means 60% voted yes. Majority rules.
 
@ said:
@ said:
The thing that gets up my nose about the aftermath of the vote was all the squealing about what the no voters want to happen now. All the stuff about who can still discriminate against a group
Of people who have a different life than them.
You lost, just as happens in ANY election, or any open and fair vote,

Are we going to make allowances for whichever side loses the next election.
If Turnbull is returned, are we then going to fiddle with the result to pacify the losing voters.
Maybe we can get the liberal party to let Chris Pyne be PM on every third week of the term.
That would suit some people (probably not many, I hope) .
You Can’t have it both ways . You shouldn’t get to decide who is a second class person and who isn’t . We either have a no discrimination law or we don’t.
I can already hear the answer to that one.
“Gee that discriminates against the Bakers and florists who have a voice in the sky telling them
thet shouldn’t sell to ,or work for gay customer”.

Will Protestant bakers next want to not sell to Catholic customers , that would be as stupid as discriminating against The Gay community.

Face facts, theNo voters were soundly beaten, Pass the law and accept the majority decision,

I saw an interview with the leader of one of the Libreal Party groups who were pushing the No vote, the day the vote was announced and she said "I think the big thing here is 40% of the Australian public voted no". And I was like "and?" That means 60% voted yes. Majority rules.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Of course that 40% will also have gays amongst their children to they either alienate their children or eventually give in and go with the flow for sake of family love. I have a gay first cousin once removed who was in a relationship for about 50 years and no one ever mentioned him in a derogatory manner or treated differently at all.
 
@ said:
The thing that gets up my nose about the aftermath of the vote was all the squealing about what the no voters want to happen now. All the stuff about who can still discriminate against a group
Of people who have a different life than them.
You lost, just as happens in ANY election, or any open and fair vote,

Are we going to make allowances for whichever side loses the next election.
If Turnbull is returned, are we then going to fiddle with the result to pacify the losing voters.
Maybe we can get the liberal party to let Chris Pyne be PM on every third week of the term.
That would suit some people (probably not many, I hope) .
You Can’t have it both ways . You shouldn’t get to decide who is a second class person and who isn’t . We either have a no discrimination law or we don’t.
I can already hear the answer to that one.
“Gee that discriminates against the Bakers and florists who have a voice in the sky telling them
thet shouldn’t sell to ,or work for gay customer”.

Will Protestant bakers next want to not sell to Catholic customers , that would be as stupid as discriminating against The Gay community.

Face facts, theNo voters were soundly beaten, Pass the law and accept the majority decision,
Click to expand...

The only question that was asked of me, was if same sex people could get married. The vote was "yes".

Fair enough.

I never noticed a question about people who do not believe in this concept, can be penalised for not supplying goods or services against their beliefs.

It would be interesting if they had another vote on this question. (not by the dopes in Parliament).
 
I don’t believe in the concept of the LNP at the moment, but if they win. I’ve just got to cop it
We dont need ,another vote,
We either have antidiscrimination laws or we don’t,
They can’t make different laws for every group of people that dislike a different group,
 
@ said:
I don’t believe in the concept of the LNP at the moment, but if they win. I’ve just got to cop it
We dont need ,another vote,
We either have antidiscrimination laws or we don’t,
They can’t make different laws for every group of people that dislike a different group,
Click to expand...

I don't go along with discrimination based on religion because many people change their religions and even lose their religion - then they want to conveniently forget the mischief they earlier caused.
 
@ said:
@ said:
I don’t believe in the concept of the LNP at the moment, but if they win. I’ve just got to cop it
We dont need ,another vote,
We either have antidiscrimination laws or we don’t,
They can’t make different laws for every group of people that dislike a different group,

I don't go along with discrimination based on religion because many people change their religions and even lose their religion - then they want to conveniently forget the mischief they earlier caused.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

True
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 988 (members: 41, guests: 947)
Back
Top