Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[dogkat]

Just a random question: Who married Adam and Eve?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Just a random question: Who married Adam and Eve?

A funny comment I heard a while back was "the comments of Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve are stupid. There's nothing in the bible to suggest they got married"

 

[chris_e_fresh]

Just a random question: Who married Adam and Eve?

No one did because marriage wasn’t a thing till 5000ad in the church. Marriage is a law that the church used so people could get married in front of god

Plain and simple

 

[Wolfmother]

The truth eventually comes out doesn't it?

I'm not homophobic as long as no one I know is homosexual

Why do children need protecting from gay people?

Persuading children to choose their identity during their formative years via sublimal messaging is like child Abuse.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Persuading children to choose their identity during their formative years via sublimal messaging is like child Abuse.

See you miss the point wolfie.

The scientific consensus is that being homosexual is a result of a combination of being born pre-disposed to it and environmental triggers

Hence if you GENUINELY have no problem with homosexuals you would understand that those that are already pre-disposed to it would be the only ones "converted" and that it would be a NATURAL state for those people

 

[Dawgfather]

One of my biggest issues is the way in which the left side of politics chooses which words and topics are permissible to be spoken about.

A debate about the definition of marriage instantly becomes 'Marriage Equality'.

Therefore the only conclusion anyone can reach is that if you oppose it, then you are instantly discriminating against someone or a group of people.

 

[CaptainJackson]

One of my biggest issues is the way in which the left side of politics chooses which words and topics are permissible to be spoken about.

A debate about the definition of marriage instantly becomes 'Marriage Equality'.

Therefore the only conclusion anyone can reach is that if you oppose it, then you are instantly discriminating against someone or a group of people.

Or you just accept facts and understand that you ARE discriminating against a group of people.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

One of my biggest issues is the way in which the left side of politics chooses which words and topics are permissible to be spoken about.

A debate about the definition of marriage instantly becomes 'Marriage Equality'.

Therefore the only conclusion anyone can reach is that if you oppose it, then you are instantly discriminating against someone or a group of people.

It is about marriage equality though. You can get annoyed that they use the term "Marriage Equality" but that's literally what it is. If one group can get married and one can't them there's no equality. Of course there is more complexities to it. If it was really "equality for all" then it would be allowing marriage for relatives an such, but it's still about equality.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I'd also suggest that you have a "gripe" with the term marriage equality because it stops your slippery slope "arguments" and that you can't actually STICK to the topic of discussion

 

[Wolfmother]

See you miss the point wolfie.

The scientific consensus is that being homosexual is a result of a combination of being born pre-disposed to it and environmental triggers

Hence if you GENUINELY have no problem with homosexuals you would understand that those that are already pre-disposed to it would be the only ones "converted" and that it would be a NATURAL state for those people

That is absolutely not true.. It is common to hear adult male children from same sex marriages particularly from 2 lesbians who hate heterosexual men , seek older male sexual partners because they lack the male input in their lives , obviously a result of repression so therefore sexuality is formed through influence of their environment.

 

[Wolfmother]

Here's the article. It's opened my eyes to how biggotted gays can be.
http://australianmarriage.org/quartet-of-truth-adult-kids-of-gay-parents-speak-out/

 

[Flanagun]

One of my biggest issues is the way in which the left side of politics chooses which words and topics are permissible to be spoken about.

A debate about the definition of marriage instantly becomes 'Marriage Equality'.

Therefore the only conclusion anyone can reach is that if you oppose it, then you are instantly discriminating against someone or a group of people.

Because that is the reality of the situation. If you don't want to be called discriminatory, don't express discriminatory views. However you try to sugar coat your opinions, that is exactly what you are doing. It IS a marriuage equality debate. All things as they stand right now are not equal in Australian marriage law. Some on the no side seem to want immunity from accountability from their own words, opinions and actions and that is bullshit.

 

[Wolfmother]

It is about marriage equality though. You can get annoyed that they use the term "Marriage Equality" but that's literally what it is. If one group can get married and one can't them there's no equality. Of course there is more complexities to it. If it was really "equality for all" then it would be allowing marriage for relatives an such, but it's still about equality.

why can't I receive government grants?
wheres the equality there?

 

[Flanagun]

Here's an ideologically charged, unsubstantiated load of bullshit from another group of conservative extremists
http://australianmarriage.org/quartet-of-truth-adult-kids-of-gay-parents-speak-out/

Fixed!

 

[Wolfmother]

Fixed!

What makes it bullshit? What proof do you have that it's all made up?
Why are you silencing this report? You're just as bad as the biggotted gays who repress their kids from forming relationships outside their cult

 

[Flanagun]

Persuading children to choose their identity during their formative years via sublimal messaging is like child Abuse.

Persuading children to choose their identity during their formative years via overt and inflexible, outdated gender stereotypes is like child abuse and we can think traditionalists for that legacy of repressive brainwashing.

You have everything so back to front. Advocating for those who have historically not been given a voice is NOT child abuse.

 

[CaptainJackson]

What makes it bullshit? What proof do you have that it's all made up?
Why are you silencing this report? You're just as bad as the biggotted gays who repress their kids from forming relationships outside their cult

The proof of ACTUAL STUDIES compared to this biased religiously prepared agenda item

 

[Wolfmother]

Persuading children to choose their identity during their formative years via overt and inflexible, outdated gender stereotypes is like child abuse and we can think traditionalists for that legacy of repressive brainwashing.

You have everything so back to front. Advocating for those who have historically not been given a voice is NOT child abuse.

Whoa that's so messed up it's not funny

 

[CaptainJackson]

That is absolutely not true.. It is common to hear adult male children from same sex marriages particularly from 2 lesbians who hate heterosexual men , seek older male sexual partners because they lack the male input in their lives , obviously a result of repression so therefore sexuality is formed through influence of their environment.

So common that it seems only you know of it

 

[Flanagun]

What makes it bullshit? What proof do you have that it's all made up?
Why are you silencing this report? You're just as bad as the biggotted gays who repress their kids from forming relationships outside their cult

No I'm not....if you are making crazy, outlandish claims you should support them. That's not my rule, that's just a commonsense rule of intelligent debate. There's a reason no credible expert will support this sort of bullshit. Most people raised by gay couples grow up perfectly healthy and well adjusted. There are always going to be those who have had negative experiences but it is objectively wrong to suggest these people represent a majority without evidence. The no campaign is just full of unsubstantiated bullshit. It's not my faulyt the no side has no solid arguments. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That is just common sense. All the arguments I hear from the no side are very narrow minded and speculative.