Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Realist90]

So you love men ? Hmmmm i think we gots a yes voter here

Blasphemy!

 

[south of heaven]

Blasphemy!

Light hearted blasphemy ofcourse

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I am sorry for not thinking over a word 50 times and every single scenario to which this bias male patriarchal word may offend and oppress females. I so do apologise, please pray for my sexism to be cured.

May Thor have mercy on your soul

 

[Realist90]

May Thor have mercy on your soul

Oh you mean nerfed Thor that can the seen to be greater in strength to a female warrior that's not on his class? I'm trembling in pc fear.

 

[Alexander the Great]

All good bro. Like I said, good and bad in all. I believe people are good or bad no matter what labels society puts on them. A **** is a **** no matter what they do or don't believe.

Honestly you need a live count on tje word ****.. ticks over each time you drop it.

 

[Alexander the Great]

 

[Alexander the Great]

https://www.change.org/p/australian...ldGl0aW9uACsOwwAAAAAAWha6Do1sDmUxM2JjODg1Yg==

Ill just leave this here.. lol

 

[Trendsetter]

FKN LOL - I know ay. It was like that 15 years ago. Then all the trend-setters moved in... (not aimed at our beloved brother @Trendsetter).

Hahaha I appreciate it bro!

 

[Nasheed]

This debate is the beginning Of the end of contemporary western society.

Love didn’t win. Lust and revenge won.

This is nothing but a Trojan horse attack on religion. The way the yes voters have carried on is sickening. There is no grace in victory whatsoever. Also astounds me why so many people care so much with all the other shit going on in the world today.

I didn’t care all that much before the vote, but the things I have witnessed after the plebiscite has sickened me. Lefties have taken this as an express ticket to abuse people of faith en masse.

This will isolate and make the conservatives band together. Not just Christians who will isolate themselves from modern society, Muslims and migrants will further isolate and reject the western standard. Atheistic conservatives will also further disconnect from liberal ideologies.

The future is one of division.

 

[Flanagun]

The future is one of division.

You’re probably right about that last sentence, but if you think liberal ideologies are responsible for the division in the world your head is lodged squarely up your arse. Conflict is human history, present and future and while no one ideology is responsible for it, conservatives have been dining and growing fat off of it for a long time.

I suppose you think you’re showing grace in defeat?

The no side pushed for this debate, failed to bring any rational arguments to the debate, subsequently got hammered in the debate and ensuing vote... and now hardline no supporters are throwing toys around your cots like a bunch of toddlers.....Amazing Grace eh?

You’re more entertaining when your bullshit is funny....what a steaming pile... seriously dude!

 

[Dawgfather]

Did I read the news wrong? The senate has voted against protections for civil celebrants and also agreed “protections for religious freedoms could be dealt with next year”.​

Lol I feel a bit nervous as to whether anything will get dealt with next year or whether we are now indeed seeing what this is truly all about. The imposition of some people’s views on other people who don’t believe in gay marriage.

I really think that anyone who stays true to their view is going to end up in front of all sorts of tribunals, boards and possibly courts.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Did I read the news wrong? The senate has voted against protections for civil celebrants and also agreed “protections for religious freedoms could be dealt with next year”.​

Lol I feel a bit nervous as to whether anything will get dealt with next year or whether we are now indeed seeing what this is truly all about. The imposition of some people’s views on other people who don’t believe in gay marriage.

I really think that anyone who stays true to their view is going to end up in front of all sorts of tribunals, boards and possibly courts.

Yep. You read it wrong. The Senate voted against additional protections for civil celebrants but voted for Senator Smith's bill as it currently is. It currently provides full protection for religious leaders and celebrants. They did not say that they will go after religious freedom.

 

[Dawgfather]

Yep. You read it wrong. The Senate voted against additional protections for civil celebrants but voted for Senator Smith's bill as it currently is. It currently provides full protection for religious leaders and celebrants. They did not say that they will go after religious freedom.

That’s where I get confused. If the Smith bill already has protections then why is there talk of amendments to ensure religious freedoms etc are maintained?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

That’s where I get confused. If the Smith bill already has protections then why is there talk of amendments to ensure religious freedoms etc are maintained?

The amendments they were trying to make included:

- Protect “relevant beliefs” around marriage (Basically allowing anyone to write a blank cheque regarding marriage)

- Protect civil celebrants (non-religious celebrants) refusing to marry gay couples

- Create two definitions of marriage — one as between a man and a woman and the other as between two people (Attempts at segregation that were already voted down)

- Prevent governments and agencies from taking action against people with a traditional view of marriage (Removal of anti-discrimination laws but only to allow discrimination against gays)

- Allow parents to remove their children from classes if they believe material taught is inconsistent with their views on marriage (Only relates to public school)

- Allow chaplains and authorised officers in the defence force to refuse to marry same-sex couples

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This is the current Bill they were trying to amend as raised by Senator Smith:

Description The Bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to: redefine marriage as ‘a union of two people’; introduce non-gendered language so that the requirements of the Act apply equally to all marriages; enable same-sex marriages that have been, or will be, solemnised under the law of a foreign country to be recognised in Australia; amend the definition of ‘authorised celebrant’ to include new categories of religious marriage celebrants and certain Australian Defence Force officers; enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments contingent on the commencement of the proposed Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (Cth).

The Bill also amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Note the parts in Bold

 

[Hacky McAxe]

BTW, that Bill passed senate 2 hours ago. It now just needs to pass the lower house next week.

Voted: 43 in favour, 12 against

Only the Conservatives voted against it

 

[Dawgfather]

BTW, that Bill passed senate 2 hours ago. It now just needs to pass the lower house next week.

Voted: 43 in favour, 12 against

Only the Conservatives voted against it

I read that a number of labor senators voted against it.

 

[Dawgfather]

The amendments they were trying to make included:

- Protect “relevant beliefs” around marriage (Basically allowing anyone to write a blank cheque regarding marriage)

- Protect civil celebrants (non-religious celebrants) refusing to marry gay couples

- Create two definitions of marriage — one as between a man and a woman and the other as between two people (Attempts at segregation that were already voted down)

- Prevent governments and agencies from taking action against people with a traditional view of marriage (Removal of anti-discrimination laws but only to allow discrimination against gays)

- Allow parents to remove their children from classes if they believe material taught is inconsistent with their views on marriage (Only relates to public school)

- Allow chaplains and authorised officers in the defence force to refuse to marry same-sex couples

Could someone be taken through a legal or administrative process because they expressed a view towards traditional marriage which offended somebody? That would be my main concern.

I also think civil celebrants should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple.

 

[The DoggFather]

Could someone be taken through a legal or administrative process because they expressed a view towards traditional marriage which offended somebody? That would be my main concern.

I also think civil celebrants should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple.

I just want religious bodies protected, who cares about civil marriage?

You think I married my misses for legal reasons? Fuck the "legal" system and every government system.

 

[The DoggFather]

I read that a number of labor senators voted against it.

Liberal, Labor and every other type of bullshit are just all the same shit these days.

You basically "vote" for who hides their corruption the most.

If the pieces of shit didn't get protection, benefits and only minimum wage, how many politicians would their be?