Australia day / invasion Day shit fight thread

[Blue_boost]

Not that there’s anything wrong with that..

Not that there's anything wrong with that... Yes agree

 

[KambahOne]

View attachment 20844

If George wants to improve his image he should be photographed holding a lettuce leaf.

 

[KambahOne]

Who was it saying that Racism doesn't exist in Australia?

Calls for cross-burning neo-Nazis camped in The Grampians to be classified as terrorist group

An anti-Semitism expert calls for the white supremacist group that reportedly burnt a cross in The Grampians in Western Victoria to be labelled as a terrorist organisation.

www.abc.net.au

I love the fact these hard right tough guys all wear face coverings. Nothing demonstrates your conviction more than shame.

 

[Blue_boost]

There’s 29 countries so far that appear to disagree:

Countries around the world where same-sex marriage is legal

Slovenia became the latest country to approve same-sex marriage on October 4, 2022, after the court struck down the country's ban in July.

www.businessinsider.com

You’re referring to a bloke who lost office (and his seat, hadn’t happened to a sitting PM in decades) 14 years ago. A lot has changed since.

Yes, that’s right, the SSM legislation was a free-for-all. Gay people no longer have to pay tax or follow the law. Turn it up Boosty.

No church will marry them. Only a seedy celebrant with credentials from a mail in form. Hardly much of a celebration.

John Howard was our longest serving prime minister behind Menzies, fixed the economy, didn't bend over to silly minority groups. Since then it's been a revolving door, hence weak governments to keep power, they bend over to minority groups.

29 countries might disagree (we will assume your number is correct) but 166 countries still agree with John Howards position. Even in Australia it was a rigged vote, it wasnt compulsory, the people who were against didn't bother to vote and the people who wanted a yes vote, were forced to vote. Margaret court was condemned because she wanted a no vote. Disgraceful

 

[DinkumDog]

No church will marry them. Only a celebrant with credentials from a mail in form. Hardly a celebration.

John Howard was our longest serving prime minister , fixed the economy, didn't bend over to silly minority groups.

29 countries might disagree (we will assume your number is correct) but 166 countries still agree with John Howards position.

So what if no church marries them?
It’s still a legal marriage.
I’m hetero but wasn’t married in a church.
Makes zero difference - unless you’re deeply religious.

Bonsai was the second longest serving PM after Menzies (two terms but still longer). I agree he did some good things but he lost me when he followed Dubbya into the phoney war in Iraq.

I’ll place a bet that that 29 number rises in years to come. Denying the reality of the world we live in is silly.

 

[CroydonDog]

Gay people no longer have to pay tax or follow the law.

Wait, what?

 

[COVENS]

No church will marry them. Only a seedy celebrant with credentials from a mail in form. Hardly much of a celebration.

John Howard was our longest serving prime minister behind Menzies, fixed the economy, didn't bend over to silly minority groups. Since then it's been a revolving door, hence weak governments to keep power, they bend over to minority groups.

29 countries might disagree (we will assume your number is correct) but 166 countries still agree with John Howards position. Even in Australia it was a rigged vote, it wasnt compulsory, the people who were against didn't bother to vote and the people who wanted a yes vote, were forced to vote. Margaret court was condemned because she wanted a no vote. Disgraceful

Are you suggesting it's a good look that we had the same policy as the geniuses in Afghanistan and Uganda?

 

[Blue_boost]

So what if no church marries them?
It’s still a legal marriage.
I’m hetero but wasn’t married in a church.
Makes zero difference - unless you’re deeply religious.

Bonsai was the second longest serving PM after Menzies (two terms but still longer). I agree he did some good things but he lost me when he followed Dubbya into the phoney war in Iraq.

I’ll place a bet that that 29 number rises in years to come. Denying the reality of the world we live in is silly.

You do realise that the real purpose of a marriage is to regulate the reproduction of children and for a family unit to share resources for the purposes of raising the children produced. It's in the child's best interests that a father and mother can pool resources and receive some legal dispensation as the child cannot fend for themselves. Some legal and financial dispensation for the parents. The fondness of one person to another is just the process of choosing an amicable participant to best share resources .. nothing to do with marriage

I'm not saying that gay people don't love one another, but marriage by definition is not for them if they cannot possibly reproduce children. They can still be together and love one another, I dont dispute .. but It's a selfish act to want to take advantage of legal frameworks to pool resources for your own financial benefit as opposed to the benefit of a child. Very selfish act, despicable .

A church won't marry you if you say I do not intend to have children, even if your not gay.. but for a gay couple it's impossible, like a blind man reading a newspaper

 

[Blue_boost]

Are you suggesting it's a good look that we had the same policy as the geniuses in Afghanistan and Uganda?

I'm responding to the hillbilly that says 29 countries disagree with John Howard about gay marriage... I just pointed out that 166 countries agree with Howard . Almost 6/1 in favour

 

[DinkumDog]

You do realise that the real purpose of a marriage is to regulate the reproduction of children and for a family unit to share resources for the purposes of raising the children produced. It's in the child's best interests that a father and mother can pool resources and receive some legal dispensation as the child cannot fend for themselves. Some legal and financial dispensation for the parents. The fondness of one person to another is just the process of choosing an amicable participant to best share resources .. nothing to do with marriage

I'm not saying that gay people don't love one another, but marriage by definition is not for them if they cannot possibly reproduce children. They can still be together and love one another, I dont dispute .. but It's a selfish act to want to take advantage of legal frameworks to pool resources for your own benefit as opposed to the benefit of a child. Very selfish act, despicable .

A church won't marry you if you say I do not intend to have children, Gay or not.

Ancient view in my opinion and among several reasons why I left the Catholic Church.

That view suggests all heterosexual marriages work (another unrealistic view in the modern world - yet the Church brushes you if your marriage didn’t work).

So, what about failed hetero marriages and single parents? They’re not as worthy as a ‘traditional’ family? You’re also suggesting that two committed parents of the same gender aren’t equally capable of raising children well? You’re saying there must be a male and a female only? I don’t get that at all.

You also suggest gay people want to get married with no intention of raising kids (when many want to) - so what about hetero people that don’t want kids - do we, by your rationale deny them ‘legal frameworks’ too?

Just because gay people can’t biologically conceive between two of them, there’s other options as you well know to bring children into their families.

Bottom line: gay people are human and denying them the same rights as hetero people because the views of an ancient body that refuses to reform say so, well I think I know who that reflects poorly on.

 

[DinkumDog]

I'm responding to the hillbilly that says 29 countries disagree with John Howard about gay marriage... I just pointed out that 166 countries agree with Howard . Almost 6/1 in favour

Hillbilly. Says the fossil still living pre-2007 .
#Howard2022

 

[Blue_boost]

Ancient view in my opinion and among several reasons why I left the Catholic Church.

That view suggests all heterosexual marriages work (another unrealistic view in the modern world - yet the Church brushes you if your marriage didn’t work).

So, what about failed hetero marriages and single parents? They’re not as worthy as a ‘traditional’ family? You’re also suggesting that two committed parents of the same gender aren’t equally capable of raising children well? You’re saying there must be a male and a female only? I don’t get that at all.

You also suggest gay people want to get married with no intention of raising kids (when many want to) - so what about hetero people that don’t want kids - do we, by your rationale deny them ‘legal frameworks’ too?

Just because gay people can’t biologically conceive between two of them, there’s other options as you well know to bring children into their families.

Bottom line: gay people are human and denying them the same rights as hetero people because the views of an ancient body that refuses to reform say so, well I think I know who that reflects poorly on.

It's not an ancient view, it's what's in the legislation. It dont talk about love or gays or heteros. According to you does the word friend need an update as it's been around since ancient times too.

It's not about if marriages work or not, it's about the framework. The idea is to regulate the production of children, not have a mother with 5 kids to 5 different dad's, those dad's with 5 other kids to different mums. Wash it all up and make a marriage somewhere. You don't get dispensation a hundred times ..

If hetero people dont want kids than yes deny them the benefits of marriage, they are designed as a framework for dispensation to raise the children produced who cannot fend for themselves. Not for others to take advantage for their own gain.

If people choose to be gay, they also choose against sharing a biological child together, it is what it is?

Again like Howard, I have nothing against gay people, they can love who they love, but you cannot have what you choose against having? I want chocolate cake but I'm upset that it dont taste like vanilla?

 

[DinkumDog]

It's not an ancient view, it's what's in the legislation. It dont talk about love or gays or heteros. According to you does the word friend need an update as it's been around since ancient times too.

It's not about if marriages work or not, it's about the framework. The idea is to regulate the production of children, not have a mother with 5 kids to 5 different dad's, those dad's with 5 other kids to different mums. Wash it all up and make a marriage somewhere. You don't get dispensation a hundred times ..

If hetero people dont want kids than yes deny them the benefits of marriage, they are designed as a framework for dispensation to raise the children produced who cannot fend for themselves. Not for others to take advantage as the gay people have done.

If people choose to be gay, they also choose against sharing a biological child together, it's just the way it is.

Again like Howard, I have nothing against gay people, they can love who they love, but you cannot have what you choose against having? I want chocolate cake but want it to taste like vanilla?

‘Choose to be gay’...
Say no more.
Back to your cave Boosty.
Glad you’ve got plenty of toilet paper but it looks like it’s stacked so high it’s blocked your calendar.
I’ll give you a hint - it’s 2021.
John Winston Howard is ancient history... #fossil

 

[The DoggFather]

View attachment 20844

Who is this beta cuck and what's he doing out of his mama's basement?

 

[The DoggFather]

PS about SSM, as long as they don't force Churches to marry them then why the fuck does anyone care?

If they want to be miserable like the rest of us it's their mistake lol

If I were a chick 100% I'd be a lesbian, men are ugly c***s.

 

[Dognacious]

I'm in the middle too. I agree with the need to have a day to celebrate Australia but I am not sure if the 26th is the best day for it. If I was Aboriginal, I don't think the date really matters as the day will always be a day of loss.

Half agree. I understand why indigenous ppl don't like Australia day as it is, as it is the date the English invaded the place and killed a lot of their ppl.

But I also think we should have a day called Australia day to celebrate this great nation of ours. But on a different day and for different reasons. Make it more inclusive of all Australians. There has to be another date that is more inclusive, or just make up a new date and celebrate the country itself, not when it was invaded.

 

[Blue_boost]

‘Choose to be gay’...
Say no more.

What? Are you saying they don't choose to be gay? Someone else forced them?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

‘Choose to be gay’...
Say no more.
Back to your cave Boosty.
Glad you’ve got plenty of toilet paper but it looks like it’s stacked so high it’s blocked your calendar.
I’ll give you a hint - it’s 2021.
John Winston Howard is ancient history... #fossil

He's trolling for the best reaction he can get out of you. That's generally why I ignore Boot's stuff.

Dawgfather trolls too, but at least he 100% believes what he says.

 

[DinkumDog]

What? Are you saying they don't choose to be gay? Someone else forced them?

I see you now.
Nice trolling.
Well played .

 

[DinkumDog]

He's trolling for the best reaction he can get out of you. That's generally why I ignore Boot's stuff.

Dawgfather trolls too, but at least he 100% believes what he says.

Yeah, 100%.
All good.
I’ll leave him to trying to save 35c on a watch .