Sensational-Adelaide.com

It passed, like it wasn't going to lol

I don't care much for it, I just don't like the media constantly shoving it our face, like its bigger than Ben Hur. There are other more important issues, such as voluntary euthanasia.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:46 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:33 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:39 pm

The only violence and vandalism, that I'm aware of, and that made the news, was from the Yes Campaign.

You're kidding, right?

Show the violence from the No campaign then Crawf.

How about I show you the violence the LGBTQI community has faced for decades or even centuries.

There has been ugly violent incidents from both sides. This debate was always going bring out the crazies.....

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:36 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:39 pm

Over one third of those who voted, nearly 4 million people, voted no. Does that make 1/3 of Australia intolerant? This isn't a small minority group.

That's the way democracy works, exactly the same as in any federal or state election in that a certain proportion of the voters will not see the outcome for which they voted (although in this case a greater proportion will have the outcome for which they directly voted over pretty much any election, state or federal, in Australia's history).

We had a vote, a clear majority voted for this outcome, politicians must now work to implement that outcome into law.

Less than a month ago there was a giant worldwide poll, which also included the following findings:

Among the 1,204 Australians who took part in the survey, two-thirds disagreed that same-sex relationships should be a criminal offence, while 16 per cent of respondents believed it should be criminalised. The rest, 18 per cent, remained neutral.

It would be interesting to see if that number could be disputed, and if it's fair to call people who literally want homosexuality to be illegal as "intolerant".

The numbers are quite interesting actually, if the 16% is accurate then it seems fair to assume that 16% of society would not have fallen into the "yes" voting pile. If they were "no" voters in the poll, they would make up 41% of the no voters. Certainly suggests a lot of the no camp (certainly not a small minority group to use Revs words) are actually intolerant.

Happy and relieved in equal measures.

As the no team busies themselves shifting goalposts again, it's a relief that there's an undeniable majority who see through the BS and support equality. It's coming, no matter how much they try. The project of progress moves on!

OlympusAnt wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:55 pm

It passed, like it wasn't going to lol

I don't care much for it, I just don't like the media constantly shoving it our face, like its bigger than Ben Hur. There are other more important issues, such as voluntary euthanasia.

Absolutely - a simple vote in parliament would have sufficed.
The LGBT community certainly didn't ask for every aspect of our lives to be debated, publicly, by complete strangers - it has been grotesque.
Nor did we ask for hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent on a sideshow designed purely to help Malcolm Turnbull save face with a backbench which loathed him then and loathe him just as much now.

I'm looking forward to this being over as much as you are, believe me.

...and yes, (another yes) bring on voluntary euthanasia. Another issue in which parliament has been completely left behind by their public.

OlympusAnt wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:55 pm

It passed, like it wasn't going to lol

I don't care much for it, I just don't like the media constantly shoving it our face, like its bigger than Ben Hur. There are other more important issues, such as voluntary euthanasia.

One does wonder what the ABC is going to fill its schedule with once the matter is resolved

The shits agitating to stall the parliamentary process need to pull their heads in and get on with it now.

crawf wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:57 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:46 pm

crawf wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:33 pm

You're kidding, right?

Show the violence from the No campaign then Crawf.

How about I show you the violence the LGBTQI community has faced for decades or even centuries.

There has been ugly violent incidents from both sides. This debate was always going bring out the crazies.....

So I take it you don't have any examples of the No campaign vandalizing say a gay night club or bar? You don't have any examples of a group of No campaigners violently destroying Yes campaign posters and banners?
Ugly violent incidents from both sides? Really? show these violent incidents from BOTH sides. I've shown your sides ugly incidents, well some of them anyway to make a point. Can't find anything from the no campaign to show? Whether anything happened or not is irrelevant because as usual you are talking shit

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:17 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:04 pm

Bottom line, for me anyway as has been my stance throughout but obviously missed by the dick heads, is not whether it gets legalized or not, but if it does get legalized, will there be sufficient protections in place for religious institutions(and their schools), and anyone else, to refuse services to same sex weddings.

But then if the Bernardi & Co campaign decides they aren't content with religious institutions just being able to refuse services to same sex weddings then they'll likely keep pushing for religious institutions to also be able to deny service to "brown people" and women, before moving on to implement their radical ultra right-wing religious agenda in schools.

But religious services aren't dictated by skin colour, ethnicity or gender.

Give it a break rev. Move on. You lost. Find something else to troll about now.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:35 pm

Sad, sad day for Australian history.
A country divided.
Only selfish, hypocritical morons and twats would celebrate a divisive result.

Hilarious.
So 61.6% of Aussies are selfish, hypocritical, morons and/or twats?

100% of states and territories voted yes.
89% of electorates voted yes.

"A country divided."

Get a bloody hold of yourself.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:50 pm

So I take it you don't have any examples of the No campaign vandalizing say a gay night club or bar? You don't have any examples of a group of No campaigners violently destroying Yes campaign posters and banners?
Ugly violent incidents from both sides? Really? show these violent incidents from BOTH sides. I've shown your sides ugly incidents, well some of them anyway to make a point. Can't find anything from the no campaign to show? Whether anything happened or not is irrelevant because as usual you are talking shit

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/s ... de/8996500

Matt wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:04 pm

So 61.6% of Aussies are selfish, hypocritical, morons and/or twats?

100% of states and territories voted yes.
89% of electorates voted yes.

That's some interesting maths you have going on there, Matt (and everyone else who is celebrating an "overwhelming majority"). So, 61.6% becomes 89% or 100%, depending on which way you slice it? We all know statistics can be used to 'prove' anything, but the simple fact is, of those who voted, 61.6% voted yes and 38.4% voted no.

There is absolutely no way the results of this survey can be compared to the results of an election. In an election, your vote reflects your views on hundreds of different issues, and many people who vote for the same candidate or party will have wildly differing views on many of those issues. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to expect quantitatively close results, where the difference between a couple of percentage points can be the difference between 'falling over the line' and 'a landside'. In this survey, however, your response reflected your view on a singular binary issue. For all its faults, and with a statistician's hat on, this postal survey was a remarkable exercise in that respect. It is extremely rare to gain such an insight into the entire population's view on a singular issue.

In any case, more people believe that SSM should be legalised than not. And I have not heard one single person suggest that this result shouldn't be respected. Even the man so many of you love to hate, Tony Abbott, stated yesterday, "I congratulate the yes campaign on their achievement. The people have spoken and, of course, the Parliament should respect the result." But the simple, unarguable fact is that 38.4% of Australians will be unhappy about SSM being legalised. No one is suggesting this is 'right' or 'wrong', but it's a simple fact.

Respect is a two-way street. We respect the results of the survey and therefore legalise SSM, but how do you respect the views of the 4.87 million people who voted no? I'm sure many of you would argue that the no voters don't deserve respect, but not everyone feels this way. I was pleased to see that Labor's Jason Clare, who holds the seat of Blaxland, where the no vote was highest, said yesterday, "Good people with good hearts can have different views on this important issue." Many of the no voters (and we will never know how many) voted no for reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia or intolerance or bigotry. They simply have a different belief -- whether that is based on religion or something else. I think the religious and other protections being debated now are probably a reasonable way to respect the no vote as we move to legalising SSM.

Ben wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:00 pm

Give it a break rev. Move on. You lost. Find something else to troll about now.

I actually think Rev has made more sense than most in recent times. Which part of:

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:04 pm

Bottom line, for me anyway as has been my stance throughout ... is not whether it gets legalized or not, but if it does get legalized, will there be sufficient protections in place for religious institutions (and their schools), and anyone else, to refuse services to same sex weddings.

...don't you understand? He's only stated it about hundred times or more. Perhaps you could try 'winning' with some dignity (although I didn't realise this was a competition).

On a much sadder note, it would appear there has been an incident in the Myer Centre. From what I had the misfortune to see I think someone may have fallen

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:57 pm

On a much sadder note, it would appear there has been an incident in the Myer Centre. From what I had the misfortune to see I think someone may have fallen

Oh gosh I hope they’re alright.