Pages: 1 … 50 51 52 53 54 … 196

 

2011-12-05 00:28:21
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX
Yeah but its easy news.

Now then.

If Abbott can't gain any traction while the ALP is voting for gay marriage he isn't never going to.
Time to step aside mate.
Fuck Israel
2011-12-05 02:41:27
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6968|Canberra, AUS

Ty wrote:

A message to the Australian media:

Stop talking about the fucking boy who cocked up and ended up getting convicted on drugs charges in Bali. We know the story and it's fucking boring. The idiot got caught, the idiot got tried, the idiot got a minuscule sentence that he served in a week, the idiot came home. The amount we've heard about this non-event is fucking ridiculous and now that it's all fucking over can you just leave the little idiot the fuck alone. It's over, no-one wants to hear from the kid, we all know what happened and we all don't give a shit.

Shut.

The fuck.

Up.
so much this

Yeah but its easy news.

Now then.

If Abbott can't gain any traction while the ALP is voting for gay marriage he isn't never going to.
Time to step aside mate.
He's going backwards. Latest Newspoll is Gillard PPM by 7.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-12-05 02:44:00
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6442|'straya
Abbott should have been that in-between leader that reminded us that the other candidates weren't so bad

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2011-12-05 02:44:10)

2011-12-05 02:45:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX
An unmarried pom sheila with red hair and a bogan accent living with a hairdresser and promoting gay marriage is preferred PM over Abbott?

Times up mate.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-05 02:45:28)

Fuck Israel
2011-12-05 04:00:56
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6968|Canberra, AUS
Gillard herself is against gay marriage.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-12-05 04:36:21
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7068|Noizyland

Spark wrote:

Ty wrote:

A message to the Australian media:

Stop talking about the fucking boy who cocked up and ended up getting convicted on drugs charges in Bali. We know the story and it's fucking boring. The idiot got caught, the idiot got tried, the idiot got a minuscule sentence that he served in a week, the idiot came home. The amount we've heard about this non-event is fucking ridiculous and now that it's all fucking over can you just leave the little idiot the fuck alone. It's over, no-one wants to hear from the kid, we all know what happened and we all don't give a shit.

Shut.

The fuck.

Up.
so much this
It's ridiculous, today they interviewed some kid who was on the same flight into Australia. What the fuck? A kid shares a plane with another kid and suddenly his opinion on anything is relevant?

Sorry I'm going on about this but every time the media runs a story on this guy I have to note him down as "the Australian teenager who was convicted on drugs charges in Bali" which is far more annoying than even "the schoolgirl at the centre of the St. Kilda photo scandal". Fuck name suppression. I'll try to drop it now.

Tony Abbott's saying that the gay marriage is an issue that most Australians don't have a stake in. That's fair enough, the majority of Australians aren't looking to marry someone of the same gender but my point would be that it's this attitude that has led logical people to brush off the matter as 'something for later' while the Christian lobby, (mostly,) gets to smugly sit back and think everyone else is as backward-thinking as they are. Amend the Marriage Act, fuck the haters and rest easy in the knowledge that another bit of pointless discrimination can be done away with. Everyone wins except Christian fundamentalists and Julia Gillard who for reasons known only to herself opposes gay marriage.

I don't get that. I'd get why she might oppose marriage given that she doesn't seem to keen on the notion herself, (like former NZ PM Helen Clark and that's not where the similarities end,) but we're talking simple personal freedoms here and allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't have any relation to any feeling Gillard may have about the institution of marriage. Gillard's an atheist, it's not like she has any moral view on gay marriage driven by religious belief either. What else can it be?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-12-05 04:39:35
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6968|Canberra, AUS
Upbringing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-12-05 15:21:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

Gillard herself is against gay marriage.
And now she'll be putting it before parliament, terrific....
Fuck Israel
2011-12-05 15:23:57
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX

Ty wrote:

Tony Abbott's saying that the gay marriage is an issue that most Australians don't have a stake in. That's fair enough, the majority of Australians aren't looking to marry someone of the same gender but my point would be that it's this attitude that has led logical people to brush off the matter as 'something for later' while the Christian lobby, (mostly,) gets to smugly sit back and think everyone else is as backward-thinking as they are. Amend the Marriage Act, fuck the haters and rest easy in the knowledge that another bit of pointless discrimination can be done away with. Everyone wins except Christian fundamentalists and Julia Gillard who for reasons known only to herself opposes gay marriage.

I don't get that. I'd get why she might oppose marriage given that she doesn't seem to keen on the notion herself, (like former NZ PM Helen Clark and that's not where the similarities end,) but we're talking simple personal freedoms here and allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't have any relation to any feeling Gillard may have about the institution of marriage. Gillard's an atheist, it's not like she has any moral view on gay marriage driven by religious belief either. What else can it be?
I don't support the 'right' of gays to 'marry', which is a religious construct anyway.

They have a right to a civil union, as does everyone, to demand it be extended to 'marriage' is weird.

Why don't the Greens campaign for the right of muslims to have bar-mitzvahs? I just don't see the point.
Fuck Israel
2011-12-05 16:28:22
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7068|Noizyland

How is it weird? Marriage is a religious construct and gay people can be religious. Your example is ridiculous, the homosexual community isn't a separate group, that's one of the key points surrounding this issue. A same-sex couple may be religious, they may want to get married. Why should they have to be restricted to civil unions just because a few people have a backward view on the so-called sacred tradition of marriage? Additionally marriage, (while a religious construct,) is sanctioned by law not by the church.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-12-05 16:31:55
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6968|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Gillard herself is against gay marriage.
And now she'll be putting it before parliament, terrific....
No she won't.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-12-05 16:36:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX
Every religion defines marriage as between man and a woman.
Modern 'marriages' are effectively civil unions regulated by the state, religion has an almost irrelevant role for most people.

They have their civil unions, why the need for a change?
If anything everyone should have a civil union, the religious can go off and be married on top of that if they want.

The status quo is fine, govt time wasted on this issue is a scandal.
Fuck Israel
2011-12-05 18:50:07
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6446|what

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Gillard herself is against gay marriage.
And now she'll be putting it before parliament, terrific....
No she won't.
I think it will fail to pass the conscience vote. Due to most libs and a few labor voting against it.

The Labor party has a right wing which is far too powerful, but that is because the liberals are so far right at times its ridiculous.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-12-05 18:52:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6968|Canberra, AUS
ofc it'll fail. 10 alp will cross, more than the 5-7 libs max i reckon. wilkie + bandt will back it ofc but i'd bet against any of the three country indies doing the same.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-12-05 23:22:14
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7068|Noizyland

Tony Abbott isn't letting his party make it a conscience vote anyway and he's against it so it's most likely the whole Coalition will be.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-12-06 00:08:44
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|6733|Brisbane, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:

Every religion defines marriage as between man and a woman.
Modern 'marriages' are effectively civil unions regulated by the state, religion has an almost irrelevant role for most people.

They have their civil unions, why the need for a change?
If anything everyone should have a civil union, the religious can go off and be married on top of that if they want.

The status quo is fine, govt time wasted on this issue is a scandal.
The logical progression is making everything civil union but that is even less possible than passing gay marriage. Marriage became a state institution once it was adopted into law and benefits etc were applied to it. Gay marriage is about nothing more than equality. The marriage/civil union/being a religion thing is a separate debate and one that is not worth having because it goes nowhere.

The "time wasted" on this is ridiculous, but because it is so cut and dry and there is no non-bigotted opposition to making homosexuals more equal to heterosexuals. I say "time wasted" because at least it wasnt more fucking immigration bullshit, which is starting up again. 230 WHOLE PEOPLE came on boats today and it is apparently a massive problem for our giant empty country.

nth'ing the stupid bali kid stuff as well, what a farce.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
2011-12-06 00:17:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX
Really, everything is effectively a civil union - it just happens to be called a 'marriage' by most people and the govt.

That the 90% of people who don't practise religion often rent a church to solemnise their civil proceedings doesn't really make it a 'marriage' in the real sense.

While gas companies are injecting carcinogens and poisons into the aquifers by the thousands of tons the govt is wasting time on crap like this, and the media are absorbed with crap like Bali Boy?
Fuck Israel
2011-12-06 00:31:16
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|6733|Brisbane, Australia

Yes, "marriage" as a word is irrelevant but the fact is that if one section of society can marry and one cant (where marriage is not regarded as a religious thing but a cultural thing) that is unequal/discriminatory whatever. If we were robots no-one would care because civil union = marriage but we aren't so it does matter. Passing a gay marriage bill would also help (even in a tiny way) decrease discrimination against homosexuals by legitimising their orientation, I think that is another important part to it. Like I said, equality.

Anyway, gonna shut up about gay marriage because the bill isnt going to pass as Abbott will never allow a conscience vote and ALP didn't bind on it so there will be plenty of right wing ALPers crossing the floor.

I imagine it is almost impossible for mainstream media to do anything critical on mining companies, those sickening mining ads are a good example of the kind of shit they pull. And doesn't Gina Rhinehart or whatever own channel 10 now? lol@ that.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
2011-12-06 00:35:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX
All sectors of society can have a union, that only heterosexuals get it blessed by a religion and called a marriage is because thats how it is.
That people have got the words mixed up over the years shouldn't be an issue for government to waste time on.

The smart thing would be for Abbott to allow a conscience vote, it would still fail I think, then that should be the end of it.
If the Greens want to go harping on and on, as they will, they'll just expose themselves for what they are - gay marxists and not green at all.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-06 00:36:20)

Fuck Israel
2011-12-06 03:34:02
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|6733|Brisbane, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:

because thats how it is.
Nice.

If the Greens want to go harping on and on, as they will, they'll just expose themselves for what they are - gay marxists and not green at all.
What even is this?
https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
2011-12-06 04:55:00
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7068|Noizyland

Gay Marxists? Really Dilbert?

Gay marriage is about one thing and one thing only; equality. The simple fact is that the institution of marriage discriminates against same-sex couples in the same way it has done in the past against couples of different races. In the modern age we have the power and sensibilities to change this, you're saying that we shouldn't because why? It upsets the status quo? Because we've always done it one way? Hardly a convincing argument.

And I'm not sure, if a conscience vote was agreed to across all parties, that changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage would be agreed to.  However I don't think it's as clear cut as you say and would suggest that given Tony Abbott's reluctance to allow a conscience vote, (remember that Abbott is conservatively religious,) there is a fear among people of his ilk that a whole-house conscience vote would result in gay marriage being sanctioned.

Even if it doesn't I think eventually it will in the same way I think sane game ratings will eventually be a reality in Australia regardless of what Greg Smith does - sensibilities change and increasingly people aren't offended by the notion of gay marriage and are willing to say so. I get that you kind of think this is a non-issue and in the wider scheme of things you're right - Kevin Rudd made that very point at the ALP conference, (ignoring of course the the conference is generally to change party policy not talk about keystone issues like the economy.) That's what makes it so much more obvious to just agree to it instead of dragging it out - and let's be honest it will continue to be an issue as long as people stand in its way. As I see it it is an inevitability, if this current push doesn't work there will be others and eventually one will succeed.

Let me ask you this: Who loses if gay marriage is sanctioned?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-12-06 05:59:38
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6974|Disaster Free Zone

Dilbert_X wrote:

That people have got the words mixed up over the years shouldn't be an issue for government to waste time on.
You have the words mixed up. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a government institution and the government has the sole responsibility and power to manage, make and alter the rules involved.

A religious marriage or ceremony means sweet fuck all unless you sign the appropriate government documentation. Similarly you don't go to your local church to get divorced or your marriage annulled, you go to your local court house or council chambers.
2011-12-06 13:29:26
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5471|Sydney
As a heterosexual I can get married without ANY involvement of any religion whatsoever.

As a legal definition my state would then be considered married, not in a civil union.

Marriage really has nothing to do with religion unless you want it to be, and I for one would like to see same-sex marriage laws passed to further establish the separation between church and state, as well as for equality.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-12-06 13:31:53)

2011-12-06 13:43:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6399|eXtreme to the maX

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

because thats how it is.
Nice.
Go ahead and change the Christian, Jewish and Muslim definition - its not going to happen, changing the wording of the Australian marriage act is pointless.

Let me ask you this: Who loses if gay marriage is sanctioned?
No-one wins or loses, least of all gays, its wholly pointless to be getting hung up on a single word and demonstrates how trivial the 'Greens' and the ALP are.

Drunkface wrote:

You have the words mixed up. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a government institution and the government has the sole responsibility and power to manage, make and alter the rules involved.
Historically no it isn't, any more than Christmas is a govt institution.
That unions approved by the govt are called 'marriages' is a quirk.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-06 13:45:34)

Fuck Israel
2011-12-06 17:02:25
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7068|Noizyland

Dilbert_X wrote:

Let me ask you this: Who loses if gay marriage is sanctioned?
No-one wins or loses, least of all gays, its wholly pointless to be getting hung up on a single word and demonstrates how trivial the 'Greens' and the ALP are.
So you get to decide what people care about? Just because you find the situation as trivial as a difference of words doesn't mean everyone does, least of all those who would actually be effected by the change.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

 

Pages: 1 … 50 51 52 53 54 … 196

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard