SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2017, 03:25 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
So, here I am having seen an Aussie somehow link LGBT with sharia law.

Speechless.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
11-09-2017, 06:07 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 03:25 AM)Banjo Wrote:  So, here I am having seen an Aussie somehow link LGBT with sharia law.

Speechless.

For a bloke who isn't LGBT and doesn't have a beef with same sex marriage he seems awfully invested in this discussion Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
11-09-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 03:25 AM)Banjo Wrote:  So, here I am having seen an Aussie somehow link LGBT with sharia law.

Speechless.

Well, they do say that genius is being able to see connections where others see none. Or something Dodgy
(11-09-2017 06:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  For a bloke who isn't LGBT and doesn't have a beef with same sex marriage he seems awfully invested in this discussion Dodgy

Also, for a bloke who isn't religious, he did seem awfully invested in Jesus having been a real historical figure. Go figure, so to speak Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 07:13 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
I cannot take seriously anyone who uses "SJW" non-ironically.

Of course, I haven't taken the OP seriously for a long time now. He can be nice, but is very brittle and unable to admit error, which is why I'm not going to offer any opinions answering his questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
11-09-2017, 08:39 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
So I'm reading this thread through and that dishonest ad from the "No" campaign comes on the idiot box. You know, the one the Coalition for Marriage and the Australian Christian Lobby made that pretends to have three ordinary Aussie mums on it but one's a pastor and the former media adviser to a Family First senator, the other's claims have been soundly debunked, while the third didn't like the Safe Schools program so she set up the Australian Chinese for Families Association whose website reportedly links to a newsletter promoting treatment therapies for people who want to change their sexual orientation?

The ad's been on a few times tonight. It talks about boys wearing dresses and kids role playing being in a same sex relationship and how countries overseas who introduced SSM made stuff like that compulsory. The one thing it doesn't talk about - at all- is same sex marriage. Odd, that. I try to ignore the ad, but those concerned, earnest mumsy faces cut through.

Where are the "yes" ads? Has anyone seen one? I'm in Newcastle, NSW and we're not seeing them here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sushisnake's post
11-09-2017, 09:25 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(29-08-2017 01:27 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Well you can disagree, I think on some matters people should have a say.

The federal Parliament changed the law with the full support of both the Howard Government and the Labor Opposition. Not that I'm saying it was the right thing to do, but just pointing out to you it was the full Parliament and not just the act of one side of politics.

The purpose of the 2004 Act was to ensure the law could only be changed through Parliament and not through the courts independent of the Parliament as has been happening in the USA for example.

I agree we should have our say on some matters, quite a few matters actually and genuine plebiscites would be a step in the direction of direct participatory democracy, (which is why we'll probably never have them) but in this instance I think the politicians should have gone with the poll results of the past several years instead of dumping this nastiness on us. This isn't a plebiscite, it's an opinion poll. The AEC aren't running it so the normal rules don't apply and the campaign can get as dirty and down low as it likes with nothing to stop it. It can still be a practice run at direct democracy, but at high cost and I'm not just talking about the money.

Talking about the money, I really thought the High Court would rule against this on funding grounds. There is nothing "urgent" or "unforeseen" about this to justify using the Finance Minister's Advance. This is a blatant circumnavigation of parliament. Not a good look for representational democracy. And the Finance Minister's Advance budget is up for review next year, too. Deeply worrying.

Thanks for explaining the 2004 amendment was made to lock the courts out of the decision. I didn't know that.

One final thought. Nobody really has a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege because love is a privilege, not a right. That said, if a same sex couple have found that privilege in each other, let 'em marry. Let them proclaim it with the same public symbol heterosexual couples do, if they wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sushisnake's post
11-09-2017, 09:46 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 09:25 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  One final thought. Nobody really has a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege because love is a privilege, not a right. That said, if a same sex couple have found that privilege in each other, let 'em marry. Let them proclaim it with the same public symbol heterosexual couples do, if they wish.

Christ Rolleyes Your heart's in the right place but this romantic stuff isn't necessary. Rights are legal things. Right to marry is a legal thing. Waffle about privilege and not a right is... pointless.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-09-2017, 09:52 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 09:25 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  One final thought. Nobody really has a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege because love is a privilege, not a right.

Love is a privilege? I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by that because it sounds as wrong as it could possibly be to me.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 01:17 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 09:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-09-2017 09:25 AM)Sushisnake Wrote:  One final thought. Nobody really has a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege because love is a privilege, not a right.

Love is a privilege? I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by that because it sounds as wrong as it could possibly be to me.

I don't think you'd get far insisting someone has to love you because it's your right, do you? In fact, I think there might be laws against it. Or is it a natural gift or innate right of some kind? All the rights to be loved in the world aren't going to put e-Harmony out of business and they're not going to employ many wedding planners, either, if you don't meet someone willing.

It's like the old Monty Python sketch about Stan who wanted to have babies. He couldn't have babies- not having a womb which was nobody's fault, not even the Romans- but he could have the right to have babies.

Then again, every legal right we've ever been given was a gift (or privilege) bestowed on us by the state after a long fight because it suited the state to extend that right to us. It was the path of least resistance. It shut us up. Think brutalised suffragettes, the Selma march, the 1967 Referendum. And it distracted us from all kinds of other things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sushisnake's post
11-09-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(11-09-2017 01:17 PM)Sushisnake Wrote:  
(11-09-2017 09:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Love is a privilege? I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by that because it sounds as wrong as it could possibly be to me.

I don't think you'd get far insisting someone has to love you because it's your right, do you?

No, I'm not saying that anybody has a right to be loved. I thought you meant people didn't have the right to love somebody else.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: