Beer Garden

[Nort]

There’s even a pedo on your side behind safe schools from Monash uni. I assume you’ll be 100% committed to equality for pedos as well.

You're a bad person and you should feel bad.

[monotonehell]

Except as we are witnessing overseas, this lgtbiqrstuvwxyz agenda is being forced upon religous institutions.
You people keep referencing that other countries have legalised gay marriage, equating it to equality, but you oddly don’t want to talk about the negative repurcusions.

And as I mentioned above. Those rights are important, as far as they don't impinge on other's rights.

This is a separate issue and it must be addressed. But a no vote does not address this.

You say it’s about equality and rights.
What happened to the rights of those who disagree?
Take a look how segments of the gay community have reacted to a doctor appearing on a commercial. Doesn’t she have the right to an opinion and her beliefs?
Take a look how I’ve been treated in here by you lot because I dared to go against the majority.
What happened to the playing the ball not the man thing you kept telling me? Funny how even you threw that one out the window when it suited you.

End of the day all of you are nothing but hypocrites with double standards.

Yes people have a right to free speech. But other people then have a right to reply. It's not hypocrisy, it's free speech being exercised. I do agree that the people playing the man are out of order.

The more simple ones of your group in here keep bullshiting on about what two adults do together is their business, not that I said otherwise.

The problem with you Rev, is you hint in directions and then when people pull you up, you claim that you never said that. For example:

I completely expect you guys to be in full support of intersperses relations being legalised when that comes up eventually.
There’s even a pedo on your side behind safe schools from Monash uni. I assume you’ll be 100% committed to equality for pedos as well.

You just hinted that homosexuality is equivalent to beastiality and pedophilia. Ohhh but you didn't say it!
Again: Marriage requires two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent. Children are not allowed to give consent because of Age of Consent laws.

[rev]

There’s even a pedo on your side behind safe schools from Monash uni. I assume you’ll be 100% committed to equality for pedos as well.

You're a bad person and you should feel bad.

Why am i a bad person? Because I pointed out a pedo is one of the people behind safe schools in Australia and he was advocating his disturbing life style to be taught to children?
Or am I a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy?

Can’t handle the truth can ya Norty.

[SouthAussie94]

I'm not religious, but I'll fight for freedom of religion until my dying breath. If you're Christian, Islamic, Scientologist, Pastafarian, I don't care, believe whatever you want.

Where I draw the line is when someone tries to force their religious beliefs upon others. If you don't want to eat red meat on Good Friday then that's great, however don't you dare try to stop me eating a steak on the day. If you don't want to eat through the day during Ramadan then that's great, again don't stop me eating lunch.

Believe what you want, practice whatever you want to practice, just don't impinge upon my rights or the rights of others.

I'm am yet to hear an argument for a No vote which doesn't draw upon religious beliefs, or completely nonsensical conclusions.

Bridges/animals cannot give consent, therefore people marry inanimate objects will not happen.

Under 18 marriage can currently happen with parental approval if one party is between 16 and 18. This is currently the law. A 40 year old man COULD marry a 16 year old girl.

This is the law as it currently stands.

This age won't be lowered when same sex marriage is approved. A 40 year old woman could hypothetically marry a 16 year old girl assuming the conditions are satisfied.

Religious schools can currently refuse to hire gay teachers. This won't change.

A Hindu church can refuse to marry couples who aren't Hindu. This won't change.

An Islamic mosque may restrict who can enter. Same goes for a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple. This won't change.

The only thing that will change is that a woman will be able to refer to her partner as her wife. A man will be able to refer to his partner as his husband.

Nothing else will change....

[SouthAussie94]

There’s even a pedo on your side behind safe schools from Monash uni. I assume you’ll be 100% committed to equality for pedos as well.

You're a bad person and you should feel bad.

Why am i a bad person? Because I pointed out a pedo is one of the people behind safe schools in Australia and he was advocating his disturbing life style to be taught to children?
Or am I a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy?

Can’t handle the truth can ya Norty.

There are pedos on both sides of the argument.

There are undoubtedly pedos campaigning on the YES side, and there are undoubtedly pedos on the NO side.

Similarly there are people not paying tax on both sides, people who are thieves, murderers, rapists, and every other criminal you can imagine.

These people are not exclusive to either side...

[Nort]

There’s even a pedo on your side behind safe schools from Monash uni. I assume you’ll be 100% committed to equality for pedos as well.

You're a bad person and you should feel bad.

Why am i a bad person? Because I pointed out a pedo is one of the people behind safe schools in Australia and he was advocating his disturbing life style to be taught to children?
Or am I a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy?

Can’t handle the truth can ya Norty.

[bits]

I'm am yet to hear an argument for a No vote which doesn't draw upon religious beliefs, or completely nonsensical conclusions.

Let me start with I support gay marriage.
But I like to understand the opposite side of any argument.
I actually haven't heard this arguement said but I can assume the people that are against gay marriage are against it because they find it obscene.

Someone walking around naked does not harm you but is considered obscene.
Someone eating dog turds does not harm you but is considered obscene.
Someone swearing does not harm you but is considered obscene.

I believe 2 people of the same sex kissing, holding hands, marrying etc falls in to the same obscene category for the no voters.
Allowing gay marriage is another step to complete normalization of the act of being gay.
Every step towards normalization of gayness is the opposite of considering it obscene.
Some people want gayness to remain obscene and a disorder in a person that should be corrected, like left handedness.

Some portion of the no voters probably would still cain people for using their left hand to write.
Some portion of the yes voters probably would put nudests in jail to correct their incorrect behaviour.

There is a line somewhere for obscene and that line is an imaginary line humans make up in society.
A vote is a good way to get the majority idea of where the line should be.

[rev]

You're a bad person and you should feel bad.

Why am i a bad person? Because I pointed out a pedo is one of the people behind safe schools in Australia and he was advocating his disturbing life style to be taught to children?
Or am I a bad person because I pointed out your hypocrisy?

Can’t handle the truth can ya Norty.

There are pedos on both sides of the argument.

There are undoubtedly pedos campaigning on the YES side, and there are undoubtedly pedos on the NO side.

Similarly there are people not paying tax on both sides, people who are thieves, murderers, rapists, and every other criminal you can imagine.

These people are not exclusive to either side...

I don’t see the relevance of your comments.
It’s not counter to anything I’ve said.

The big difference thiugh is that no pedo campaigning for no is advocating including his sick perverse ideas to kids as part of safe schools.
Safe schools ties in to the wider lgbti agenda.
Hence why I’m asking the question I’m asking.

[rev]

I'm not religious, but I'll fight for freedom of religion until my dying breath. If you're Christian, Islamic, Scientologist, Pastafarian, I don't care, believe whatever you want.

Where I draw the line is when someone tries to force their religious beliefs upon others. If you don't want to eat red meat on Good Friday then that's great, however don't you dare try to stop me eating a steak on the day. If you don't want to eat through the day during Ramadan then that's great, again don't stop me eating lunch.

Believe what you want, practice whatever you want to practice, just don't impinge upon my rights or the rights of others.

I'm am yet to hear an argument for a No vote which doesn't draw upon religious beliefs, or completely nonsensical conclusions.

Bridges/animals cannot give consent, therefore people marry inanimate objects will not happen.

Under 18 marriage can currently happen with parental approval if one party is between 16 and 18. This is currently the law. A 40 year old man COULD marry a 16 year old girl.

This is the law as it currently stands.

This age won't be lowered when same sex marriage is approved. A 40 year old woman could hypothetically marry a 16 year old girl assuming the conditions are satisfied.

Religious schools can currently refuse to hire gay teachers. This won't change.

A Hindu church can refuse to marry couples who aren't Hindu. This won't change.

An Islamic mosque may restrict who can enter. Same goes for a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple. This won't change.

The only thing that will change is that a woman will be able to refer to her partner as her wife. A man will be able to refer to his partner as his husband.

Nothing else will change....

I’ve given you na argument that isn’t based on religious beliefs, some of you in here just don’t want to accept it and instead hurl abuse and names at me.

I’ve said numerous times it should be recognised by the state as a civil union for ALL, regardless of gender or faith.

You guys say it’s about equal rights specifically legal rights as a couple.

So why do you care what it’s called by the state?

The state should recognise it as a civil union, and everyone can call it what they want.

There’s no winners and losers with that, and it’s just a stalemate where the nastiness and viciousness is take right out of it all from both sides.

A rather reasonable and sensible solution.


And you say nothing will change.
I’m sure that’s what the British and Canadians were told as well.
As I said you guys reference other countries to say we should legalise SSM as well.
I referenced the negatives of what’s happened overseas but none of you seem to grasp that if this is all rushed through before Christmas we will likely have a similar situation here.

Because while YOU might be well intentioned, there’s people on “your side” who aren’t so well intentioned.
The sort of people who have to flaunt their homosexuality in people’s faces just to piss them off.
The sort of people who vandalise churches, who violently rip down no campaign posters. Kind of like the guy who posts here who said he goes out of his way to remove religious flyers left behind by the mall preachers.

Equality, so long as everyone agrees with you, and those who don’t are silenced.

If some of you took your blinders off and let go of your mindless incessant rage because I dared to voice a different opinion, you might have noticed a few pages ago near the start of this discussion that I’m not opposed to it and couldn’t care less what two adults of the same sex do to each other in private.
My concern isn’t even about two gays getting married.
It’s about the process in which it’s going to become legal and the ramifications for the rest of us, which despite most of you burying your heads in the sand about are valid concerns and the precedent has already been set in numerous countries already.

[Nort]

Good job there's no examples of countries where religious conservatives have messed things up by holding too much power otherwise your whole argument of trying to point to extreme situations would fall apart.

[Goodsy]

just taking a small timeout from this discussion.

A few years ago someone posted a link to some guy giving a talk on urban planning specially talking about Adelaide. Anyone remember it?

[Nathan]

just taking a small timeout from this discussion.

A few years ago someone posted a link to some guy giving a talk on urban planning specially talking about Adelaide. Anyone remember it?

This one about density?
https://vimeo.com/25333898

[Goodsy]

just taking a small timeout from this discussion.

A few years ago someone posted a link to some guy giving a talk on urban planning specially talking about Adelaide. Anyone remember it?

This one about density?
https://vimeo.com/25333898

Yeah that's the one, thanks

[rev]

Good job there's no examples of countries where religious conservatives have messed things up by holding too much power otherwise your whole argument of trying to point to extreme situations would fall apart.

Ah there it is, you finally stopped beating about the bush.

So this really isn't about equality for you, but evening some perceived score with the religious.
This is all about saying a big fuck you to everyone.

And you called me a bad person and said I should feel bad.

[monotonehell]

Never before have I seen such an example of incognisant projection as Rev in this thread.