Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Realist90]

I'll Christmas you in a minute!

I’ll ‘x’mas you in a minute

 

[The DoggFather]

The use of the term fascist against Trump is more of a generalisation as many of his ideals border on fascism, e.g. shutting down media with "fake news", authoritarian tendencies (he HAS to operate in a democracy because that's what he is in), racism, etc

So I'd think that it's more used as an ease of reference in this case to the opposition of trumps tendencies that do border on fascism ideals.

Free speech has its roots in the government not punishing you and closing you down, ie book burning, erasing history, locking people up for views

And the whole socialist alternative attacking those extreme right wing groups comes from a whole history of conflicts in the past few years between those groups, it was always going to blow up given the history in Melbourne. It's gone past the stage of just peaceful protests between those groups.

Vice media actually recorded Neil eriksoon before he attended the rally and he stated right in front of the camera that his aim was to stir the leftys up.

Only point I can argue is the media is fake news, running an agenda.

A learned poster like you even know that.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I’ll ‘x’mas you in a minute

I'll Happy Holidays you in a minute

 

[CaptainJackson]

You speak the truth bro, as do I.

Have we ever done this? I don't think we have. I just hate these groups calling the other group a Nazi. You're all the same shit, justifying your hate.

Anyways beautiful day up here I'm off to the beach.

Bro the "hate" directed at milo and his supporters are a direct reaction to their views, It's not based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc if their views did not contain gross generalisations which are complete misrepresentations of whole sub sections of our communities then I don't think anyone would have a problem and there'd be no protests.

Saying things like ship all Muslims out of the country is just plain wrong, and is only supported by gross generalisations.

These gross generalisations that I speak of, what milo says about Islam, yes there is DEFINITE truth in it (it's part of the reason why I'm no longer Muslim) but to say that ALL Muslims follow that particular interpretation is a gross misrepresentation (being surrounded by Muslims I know this is a gross misrepresentation) and hence you are targeting innocents. They are innocents because they interpret their religion differently to what milo says, they have a peaceful interpretation just as every other religion has believers who ignore the vile bits of their religions and interpret it differently.

Fascism tends to use these very identity politics (that the alt right ironically are now attacking too) to target minorities that they don't want, Franco did it, Mussolini did it, And Hitler did it.

I seriously can't get my head around decent people not seeing the dangers of fascism/racism/bigotry/homophobia , it does not deserve the light of day and should be protested at every step of the way, opposed every step of the way.

As an example of their shit in this SSM debacle.

• Tony Abbott was the one who pushed for this plebisicite
• Tony Abbott stated that it was up to the people of Australia to decide on SSM in a democratic way and should not be in the hands of the ministers of parliament
• Tony Abbott's electorate returned a 75% Yes vote
• Tony Abbott left parliament for the vote and abstained

This is their quality, their ethics, their moral standing, their willingness to participate in "democracy"

I will oppose scum like that, full stop. They don't deserve an if, But or maybe. There are plenty of examples of their actions that these type of people aren't willing to listen to the people, that they have to force their morals on everyone else

 

[EXPLORER]

I'll Happy Holidays you in a minute

I'll raise you a fucking merry fucking Christmas very fucking soon

Lol

 

[Bob dog]

Seventy five percent of Newcastle voted 'Yes' so the haters are a minority in this part of the country.
The modern era is dawning.

 

[The DoggFather]

Bro the "hate" directed at milo and his supporters are a direct reaction to their views, It's not based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc if their views did not contain gross generalisations which are complete misrepresentations of whole sub sections of our communities then I don't think anyone would have a problem and there'd be no protests.

Saying things like ship all Muslims out of the country is just plain wrong, and is only supported by gross generalisations.

These gross generalisations that I speak of, what milo says about Islam, yes there is DEFINITE truth in it (it's part of the reason why I'm no longer Muslim) but to say that ALL Muslims follow that particular interpretation is a gross misrepresentation (being surrounded by Muslims I know this is a gross misrepresentation) and hence you are targeting innocents. They are innocents because they interpret their religion differently to what milo says, they have a peaceful interpretation just as every other religion has believers who ignore the vile bits of their religions and interpret it differently.

Fascism tends to use these very identity politics (that the alt right ironically are now attacking too) to target minorities that they don't want, Franco did it, Mussolini did it, And Hitler did it.

I seriously can't get my head around decent people not seeing the dangers of fascism/racism/bigotry/homophobia , it does not deserve the light of day and should be protested at every step of the way, opposed every step of the way.

As an example of their shit in this SSM debacle.

• Tony Abbott was the one who pushed for this plebisicite
• Tony Abbott stated that it was up to the people of Australia to decide on SSM in a democratic way and should not be in the hands of the ministers of parliament
• Tony Abbott's electorate returned a 75% Yes vote
• Tony Abbott left parliament for the vote and abstained

This is their quality, their ethics, their moral standing, their willingness to participate in "democracy"

I will oppose scum like that, full stop. They don't deserve an if, But or maybe. There are plenty of examples of their actions that these type of people aren't willing to listen to the people, that they have to force their morals on everyone else

Well you know how I feel about ***** that hate, especially that *** Milo, I'd say I'd love to get him in the octagon but I don't want to be a murderer.

You know I don't identify as anything but an Australian born MALE with Assyrian, Iraqi and Russian blood with a Maori heart.

Every other label is man made and man is my least favourite spices on this naturally bueatiful but destroyed by evil world.

Actually, only other labels I will accept is a Soldier of Christ, Lion, a bully of the bullies and TANK!

 

[The DoggFather]

Seventy five percent of Newcastle voted 'Yes' so the haters are a minority in this part of the country.
The modern era is dawning.

Mate, if the fucking coward pieces of shit in Canberra just released all the facts and bills and laws involved, only haters, bigots and homophobes would vote no.

Just majority of the yes/left are quick to label everyone opposing them as nazis/fascist/whatever the fuck without listening and trying to stamp their "authority" on others.

Both fucking sides did the same shit and both sides are denying that's exactly what they did. Fucking hypocrites, no time for the *****.

It's eaiser just to tell ***** to go fuck themselves when my left nut has more brainpower than they do.

LALL

 

[The DoggFather]

Firstly, my preamble because I would LOVE to get a straight answer which most can't or won't answer.

I already know what people with no answer for my next question will use so don't give me a slippery slope cop out because it's a separate question to LBGTI.

The yes man catch phrase was "Love is love".

Paedophilia can be argued by pedos as love, bestiality can be argued by them as love.

Would the yes voters (and no voters) vote yes to legalise both in a plebiscite?

And if you disagree you are a hypocrite and a fascist and forcing your bullshit on others.

Lets see how many people answer this or just get ignored

 

[CroydonDog]

Firstly, my preamble because I would LOVE to get a straight answer which most can't or won't answer.

I already know what people with no answer for my next question will use so don't give me a slippery slope cop out because it's a separate question to LBGTI.

The yes man catch phrase was "Love is love".

Paedophilia can be argued by pedos as love, bestiality can be argued by them as love.

Would the yes voters (and no voters) vote yes to legalise both in a plebiscite?

And if you disagree you are a hypocrite and a fascist and forcing your bullshit on others.

Lets see how many people answer this or just get ignored

Children and animals can't consent.

Only took 5 words tbh

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Firstly, my preamble because I would LOVE to get a straight answer which most can't or won't answer.

I already know what people with no answer for my next question will use so don't give me a slippery slope cop out because it's a separate question to LBGTI.

The yes man catch phrase was "Love is love".

Paedophilia can be argued by pedos as love, bestiality can be argued by them as love.

Would the yes voters (and no voters) vote yes to legalise both in a plebiscite?

And if you disagree you are a hypocrite and a fascist and forcing your bullshit on others.

Lets see how many people answer this or just get ignored

CroydonDog covered it perfectly already. That's all there really is to it. Children and animals don't have the mental capacity to understand what they're doing. Therefor they can't possibly consent.

The only other thing that could be allowed is polygamy as this would be a consentual relationship between all involved. And as I mentioned several times, I have zero problem with palygamy as long as everyone consents. That means that the husband can't just go off and marry someone else. The husband and wife must both consent to the additional partner. God knows why you'd want more than one partner though.

 

[The DoggFather]

Children and animals can't consent.

Only took 5 words tbh

But you still didn't answer my question.

Would you truly vote yes for love is love? And where does love stop? Only at LBGTI and straight love? Why not add an S now to the alaphbet label? Why not add P and B too? Or once one group got what they wanted its too fucking bad for everyone different?

I'm just using societies stupid arse logic and hidden discrimination against them.

 

[The DoggFather]

CroydonDog covered it perfectly already. That's all there really is to it. Children and animals don't have the mental capacity to understand what they're doing. Therefor they can't possibly consent.

The only other thing that could be allowed is polygamy as this would be a consentual relationship between all involved. And as I mentioned several times, I have zero problem with palygamy as long as everyone consents. That means that the husband can't just go off and marry someone else. The husband and wife must both consent to the additional partner. God knows why you'd want more than one partner though.

Acting like a bigoted yes voter, love is love. Who are you to stop other love?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Acting like a bigoted yes voter, love is love. Who are you to stop other love?

I am Hacky, hear me roar. With numbers too big to ignore...

1 is a big number.

 

[The DoggFather]

I am Hacky, hear me roar. With numbers too big to ignore...

1 is a big number.

All I wanna hear from you is carving through the bark of one of your briskets brother.

PS if i don't get the burnt ends, you're DEAD!

 

[Indiandog]

Children and animals can't consent.

Only took 5 words tbh

that can be said about people with mental dis order

also have you seen a horny dog or a mountain goat or a bull during the breeding season? it will fuck anything that moves, it doesn't need a consent.

 

[Indiandog]

again the issue is not gays wanting a piece of paper to prove their love to another gay person and some how then they would feel they are equal to other people , they can do what ever they want, no one cares to be honest.

the problem has always been forcing religious institutions to perform the gay marriages. that issue hopefully is resolved and the churches. mosques, synagogues, temples etc wont be forced to go against their fundamental beliefs to marry gay people and I am happy with that.

 

[Dogna88]

again the issue is not gays wanting a piece of paper to prove their love to another gay person and some how then they would feel they are equal to other people , they can do what ever they want, no one cares to be honest.

the problem has always been forcing religious institutions to perform the gay marriages. that issue hopefully is resolved and the churches. mosques, synagogues, temples etc wont be forced to go against their fundamental beliefs to marry gay people and I am happy with that.

The issue is... that prior to the legalisation. A gay person could not get legally (not religiously) married purely because of their beliefs/way of life.

Ask all the true campaigners for SSM. They laugh at the term "love is love".. its about equal rights.

To relate it to you. It would be like the government saying "we are a Christian country, Islam opposes our beleifs. We dont acknowledge or register any of your marriages".

Its not simply about a peice of paper that proves love.... far from it.

 

[Indiandog]

The issue is... that prior to the legalisation. A gay person could not get legally (not religiously) married purely because of their beliefs/way of life.

Ask all the true campaigners for SSM. They laugh at the term "love is love".. its about equal rights.

To relate it to you. It would be like the government saying "we are a Christian country, Islam opposes our beleifs. We dont acknowledge or register any of your marriages".

Its not simply about a peice of paper that proves love.... far from it.

well this is what I don't get, I got married to my wife cos basically I could NOT have kids with her (or have sex) without getting married AS PER MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS , there was no other reason I got married to her.

So it goes back to the same argument that marriage between a man and a woman (not man with man or woman with woman) has always been a religious act or a compulsion from religion (all religions not just one) to keep people away from sin. period.

I feel like a broken record as the question has been asked on these forums and else where , homosexuality is not accepted by any of the main religions on this planet, why would gay want to get married , when they have all the rights and freedom in this country to do every thing they want that also includes living together, having sexual relation ship and even have kid.

It is like a person like me who practices islam but because he doesn't feel equal to christians in this country he wants to get married with 4 women at the same time in a catholic church by a catholic priest and taking the vows as per the bible.

Or even better I want to get divorced by catholic church just cos I want to feel equal to my Christian brothers in this country.

 

[Dogna88]

well this is what I don't get, I got married to my wife cos basically I could NOT have kids with her (or have sex) without getting married AS PER MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS , there was no other reason I got married to her.

So it goes back to the same argument that marriage between a man and a wife has always been a religious act or a compulsion from religion (all religions not just one) to keep people away from sin. period.

I feel like a broken record as the question has been asked on these forums and else where , homosexuality is not accepted by any of the main religions on this planet, why would gay want to get married , when they have all the rights and freedom in this country to do every thing they want that also includes living together, having sexual relation ship and even have kid.

It is like a person like me who practices islam but because he doesn't feel equal to christians in this country he wants to get married with 4 women at the same time in a catholic church by a catholic priest and taking the vows as per the bible.

Marriage pre-dates the majority of the most popular religions. Its basic history. The first records of marriages was a civil bond between two children of tribe leaders in mongolia to unify the clans.

It may be a religious act to you. But historically has little to do with God and more to do with positions of authority and power.

Again your missing the point. Gay couples did not have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple. And if you think they did. You really need to read up on policy... most basic example, to get married to my wife, i didnt have to prove or provide anything to the governemnt. To prove a gay couple were in a domestic relationship, they have to provide proof of a years relationship through bank records, joint statements/purchases and interests etc..... thats NOT equal. Imagine that happened to you because of your life choices/beliefs...

And your last paragraph does not make sense. You may need to reword it so it can be better understood.

If a religion promotes racism, intolerance and exclusion... that is not a religion that should be followed