The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. All
I feel it is a total waste of time and money and has been promoted by so much propaganda from a dodgy media with dodgy arguments and am protesting in the way I am being allowed: who's doing the same?

Why or why not, may I ask?
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're right, Cupric, all those who are inclined to vote Yes in this dodgy and futile propaganda stunt, should boycott the whole charade and advise their friends to do the same.

Is that what you mean ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cupric Embarrassment,

I reckon that people who feel the way you do and may would, should just complete the question anyhow and not let the Machiavellians and other nasties win, 'Cop this, yer mongrels!'. LOL

Don't let them bluff you. Just go on your gut feel and tick yes or no. Do it deliberately, then post.

Never regard it as a win/lose. It is your right to express your opinion and a good thing. Maybe we might get asked more often.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:06:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Joe, I'm voting no: didn't you get the memo?
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj, I don't know what game you're playing but I don't trust it. There's only one solution...

** Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott,.... I say Boycott everybody!
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see it as my civic duty to complete and return a valid survey. Just as I always vote. It is not win or lose with me. None of that team colours stuff either.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 4:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I vote : I just refuse this survey on more grounds than it being non- compulsory!

I find the whole ordeal just a bit too fishy for me and seeing that I am allowed to not participate I choose to take that option!

If we look at the media they are basically trying to tell 10 million voters, in concert with the appalling behaviour of the politicians giving commentary on moral matters in this debate as if we were schoolchildren, that as adults we are not allowed to complain about our children being taught to be gay at school!

We have every right to complain about that stuff: so I protest by boycott!

My flesh and blood, let alone everyone else's in Australia, fought for the right to complain about that sort of bullshite!

Now the media and politicians combine to tell us we haven't even got the right to protest!

The whole thing has bells on it.... but that's just little Ol' Mois opinion!
Posted by mememememememe, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 5:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm going to vote early & often, so I can see what it feels like to be a lefty.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 9:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Me me me,

So fight back by voting, otherwise how does anybody know you're doing anything at all but wimping out ?

I used to letterbox, I think for the Democrats, and one bloke intercepted me at his letterbox and said that he wouldn't vote for anybody. I said that, in that case, the people he hated most would probably get in.

In a democracy, we each have one vote. It's not much, but then, after all, there are 24 million of us, so why should your vote count more than anybody else's - but from another point of view, why should anybody else's count more than yours ? Answer: if you don't vote.

Because if you don't vote, others will. Your least preferred option might get up, and by only one vote: yours, the one you didn't cast.

So be democratic: vote, have your say, like the rest of us.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 9:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I'm going to vote early & often//

You only get one survey, Hasbeen. Opening anybody else's is opening somebody else's mail, which is a crime - for a good reason. How would you feel about some grub going through your mail? What is wrong with you?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You could abstain from voting because you think it is none of the government’s business about who should marry who. You could vote NO because you do not want to see more government involvement in marriage. You do not want a bad situation to be made worse.

The YES vote will only tell us how many people want SSM. The NO vote could mean we do not approve of further government involvement in marriage. It says nothing about our attitude to homosexuals which is disappointing for those who like to claim bigotry.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:24:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course I shall be voting.

It's the only way I know to let the government know
what I think. The government is spending an awful
lot of money for me to have my say - so of course
I am not going to waste the opportunity because if
I didn't vote and I didn't like to outcome, then I'd
have no one else to blame but myself.

I have to vote and let them know what I think. By not voting
they won't know. The old adage - "Bad things happen when
good people do nothing," (or words to that effect).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:33:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

I agree with Scott Morrison who stated that -

"This survey will give us a very clear picture about
whether the Australian people want to see a bill like
this one come into the House and be dealt with by the
Parliament. We have been given an opportunity to have
our say. It is important that we do so."

He also explained about religious protections being
put in place. Mr Morrison said -

"This is a survey, effectively the plebiscite that
the Government promised to the people at the last election.
If that is passed, then a private members' bill would be
facilitated and the Parliament would work through the
bill." Meaning adding the necessary protections.

To not take part in this survey would be foolish.
We should not ignore the opportunity we have been given.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:58:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is understandable that the public would be so exasperated with not being heard by political parties that pander to minorities to buy their vote in swinging marginal seats that the public sees no worth in exercising their democratic right to vote.

Through refusal to allow their own members to influence party decisions and adamant refusal to move in the direction of Party intra-democracy - in fact the opposite is usual and elites and factions rule - the three, Labor, LNP and Greens exhibit their contempt for democracy. Arrogance betrayed by their referral to the public as 'punters', foolish gamblers.

That is why Trump was elected in the US. And why he is re-electable.

Any who disagree with the survey and the way they are being treated by the political elite should vote 'NO'.
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 9:00:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
> I'm going to vote early & often, so I can see what it feels like to be a lefty.

I understood the phrase "vote early and often" originated with the Orangemen of (mostly Northern) Ireland, who had a reputation for being pretty right wing.

How did you come to associate it with lefties?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 9:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm going to walk around pretending I've got a carrot up my ass so I can pretend I was born to rule and therefore always RIGHT because mummykins and daddykins said so/wouldn't(/...refused to...) apologise for class ......... !
Posted by mememememememe, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 11:57:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...because they were tryhard, ...obviously <rolls eyes> &#128541;
Posted by mememememememe, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 11:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mememe,

I'm trying to deconstruct your posts in the context of homosexual marriage. Nope, still can't get it. Was that a plea for vegetable rights ? Including the rights of homosexual vegetables ? Yes, why should only humans be allowed to marry ? Should one be able to marry one's favourite vegetable, such as - as you point out so eloquently - a carrot ? I wasn't aware that there were male and female carrots though - perhaps all carrots are male, just as all mangoes are female ?

Of course, anal intercourse is now legal, so there should be no legal problem for you to have relationships with, or even to marry, a carrot. Mind you, it might only last a few weeks, judging by the carrots in my fridge. Hmmmmm .... so sexy when they were fresh :( Now you've given me ideas >:)

Once the current marriage laws have been broken down, and we move towards polyamory, can this include vegetables ? Pets, I can understand, even trees, but vegetables ? What would be the point ? Very short-term marriages, before they shrivel or rot ? Wouldn't that come close to some form of prostitution ? How would inter-life-level marriages affect inheritance rights ? Could divorce rules be extended to vegetables ? Then what about the division of property ? Visiting rights to any offspring ?

Too complicated for me :(

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 12:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan ask Hillary, she knows all about it, as do the unions.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 3:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

«so there should be no legal problem for you to have relationships with, or even to marry, a carrot. Mind you, it might only last a few weeks»

Very useful idea: suppose one wishes to upgrade their status from "Divorced" to "Widowed" for better success at the meat-market, then marrying a carrot can do the job wonderfully!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

Why don't you answer Aidan's question?

How did YOU come to that conclusion.
(Hilary and the unions is not an answer).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:41:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After thousands of years of a Man and a woman.
I am being asked to make it a man on man or woman on woman.
Ask me another question please!
Posted by BROCK, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

Yes, to get the benefits of legal recognition from a de facto relationship, you have to be in one for six months, I'm told. So a human-vegetable relationship might last only a fraction of that - but as you indicate, one may be able to claim some sorts of benefits as a widow (if married to a carrot), or a widower (if married to, say, a mango). [Why do I keep thinking mangoes are female ?}

Fruit too, of course. Those amongst us who are inclined towards polyamory could try a punnet of strawberries, but obviously for extremely short relationships, more like one-night stands. Of course, would they respect you in the morning ?

So what about shell-fish ? Oysters or pipis ? Moreton Bay bugs ? Why can't they have the same rights as fruit and vegetables ? Adventurous blokes could try first with periwinkles, but perhaps they should avoid clams.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis,
I intend to vote as many times as I can by collecting ballot papers that are discarded by others or given to me.
Since there is no identification on the envelopes or the ballot paper they become basically untraceable and easily duded.
I might ever print a few thousand with envelopes as well
I will of course be voting NO
Can someone out there tell me how it is possible for a government to rush new laws through parliament to compliment this vote thing with massive fines and prison terms for people who upset the alternate genders but they can't introduce the same penalties for criminal offenses especially where they involve layabouts and junkies.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:13:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chrisgaff1000,

It is understood that the returned forms will be checked mechanically by a reader and at the same time the address of the voter will be checked off. That would still permit fraud, but the opportunity would be very limited.

Regarding the sentiments expressed in your closing paragraph, it doesn't bode well for after SSM is introduced does it?

Scratch a federal politician, male or female and find a bullying authoritarian beneath. No surprise that young men who were denied the vote and couldn't legally buy a beer were drafted (thanks to a big turn out of women voters for Menzies) and sent to war in Vietnam. There is no real Left in Australia.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:56:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, you should give a trigger warning before you start on about looking for firm vegetables in your crisper. Nearly sprayed my screen with coffee!
Now you've started off my memories of discussions with emergency room nurses about all the different and bizarre objects shoved into anuses that were presented to emergency for removal lol.
Posted by Big Nana, Thursday, 14 September 2017 9:07:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Big Nana,

Yeah, I just bought one of those continental cucumbers, about a foot long - I thought, yeah, that might do it: I have to make a quiche, so that should do. Maybe a bit bland ?

On the whole, I'm not much in favour of marriage at all, except that it offers women a slightly stronger sense of commitment, and a slightly stronger disincentive to the bloke to piss off when the wife is at her socially and financially weakest.

But I'm intrigued by the attacks by Gramscian communists (having been one myself a few decades ago), and how their tactics are moving towards Anarchism, and away from standard Leninist Socialism. Either way, I suspect that both paths inevitably lead towards Fascism. So their attempts to destroy marriage and family structure and stability by enlisting homosexuals is intriguing.

I expect much more racist references in the coming 'discussions', that if Blacks and Whites can marry, why not male and male ? I would have thought that 'male and female' would have been a more appropriate analogy, given that inter-marriage has always been legal - and even encouraged - in Australia. I certainly never experienced any discouragement.

I suppose homosexual advocates can't go too far with the analogy: white-white marriages ? Black-black marriages ? Therefore male-male marriages etc. ? But wait for even more racist comments and angles, more contemptible 'comparisons', even from some OLO contributors.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 9:55:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

I’m not sure why you have a problem comparing opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition interracial marriage. The two are suitably analogous: both are irrational.

The fact that interracial marriage has always been legal in Australia is irrelevant to the analogy, because the question is not about what HAS been legal, it’s about what SHOULD be legal.

Your assertion that such comparisons are racist is quite bizarre, too, and makes no sense at all. If someone is comparing opposition to interracial marriage with opposition to same-sex marriage, then clearly they find both abhorrent. How on earth could that possibly be considered racist?

The only prejudice the analogy exposes, if any, is homophobia on your part because you apparently find it offensive when mixed marriages analogised with same-sex marriages. Presumably, you find it an insult to mixed marriages that they be compared with same-sex marriages.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 10:21:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
homophobia?

"The gay people against gay marriage"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22758434
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, leoj, you read that correctly: homophobia.

If the gay opponents of same-sex marriage in the article you linked to believe that it is an insult to mixed marriages to be comparing them with same-sex marriages, then they too are homophobic (and homophobia does exist within the gay community, believe it or not). Somehow, I doubt they would, though.

Speaking of self-hating gays, the article you linked to briefly mentions how this is the result of an internalised hatred. In my observations, this seems to occur most frequently among gay people who are raised in ultra-religious households where the indoctrination borders on psychological abuse.

My gay brother-in-law once dated a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party. This bloke was against same-sex marriage and even believed that homosexuality was immoral. He had never once dated a woman, mind you, so I’m not sure how he reconciled such conflicting beliefs, but there you go…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:28:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

"I’m not sure why you have a problem comparing opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition interracial marriage."

What makes them comparable? The only thing that can be compared is the fact of marriage. How can sexuality and race be comparable?
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:46:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?

Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Your apparent eagerness to engage in communication with me raises my levels of doubt regarding the extent to which the expressed offence and hurt, of which you spoke in our previous discussion, was indeed genuine.

<< What makes [opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage] comparable?>>

The fact that there are individuals who are against each one for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

<<How can sexuality and race be comparable?>>

By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

I trust this clears up any confusion you may have had with regards to the above matters.

--

leoj,

Good questions.

<<Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?>>

That depends on the reasoning behind each individual’s opposition to it. As a guess, I'd say most of the time it would have been. The political party they belong to is irrelevant, too.

<<Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?>>

No.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is not in and of itself homophobic. Opposition to same-sex marriage may, however, be a sign of homophobia, depending on the reasoning behind it. You don’t seem to be understanding the difference there.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 12:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

I never said I was offended or hurt. I said you were aggressive. That's a totally different thing.

"By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry."

People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison. Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.

When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation? Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons which could be misinterpreted as slights against their opponents.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having now seen the ballot paper, with it's simplicity, I'll bet the printing ogresses in a number of universities are running hot.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:09:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

My sincerest apologies for the clumsy wording. I hope you will forgive me.

<<I never said I was offended or hurt.>>

Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt, that your reaction suggested …”? I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.

<<People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison.>>

Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition. If you have any other more appropriate analogies, then I would be pleased to hear of them.

<<Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.>>

I am afraid not. I have quite plainly stated, on several occasions now, that homophobia is as dreadful as racism, and that it is simply the 'new racism’. I did not mean to suggest anything indirectly. I apologise if I gave you that impression.

<<When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation?>>

I am not sure if they had an analogous situation, or if they had even endeavoured to find one.

<<Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons …>>

Perhaps. However, analogies are always a useful tool for communication. They are frequently used in law for this very reason. The use of an analogy, no matter how offensive it may be to some, is not indicative of the level of a proposal’s merit.

Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:34:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.

Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to. There was an incident in the NT when I was a kid, when a white bloke ran away with a 'full-blood' girl. The Welfare Officer, Harry Giese, chased them across the country until they got into WA, where they got married. Then they came back, with no further repercussions. End of.

What authorities didn't want was casual liaisons, and therefore more illegitimate kids (something which may not occur with any homosexual liaison). Marriage, they didn't mind. In the SA 1939 Aborigines Act (and in WA's legislation too), it was an offence for a white man to 'consort' with an Aboriginal woman, but not to marry her. That's how they jailed Don McLeod, on that pretext, even without any evidence of any actual liaison. In SA, courts seemed to be pretty firm but gentle with this, exploring a whitefella's intentions, and advising him to cease contact if he had no real permanent plans. If he was prepared to marry, then no worries: do it and the matter is settled.

I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ. So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really. 'Black-white = equal'; 'Man-woman = equal'. I'd advise you to move on and find grounds for homosexual 'marriage' somewhere else.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt,”

But there was no apparent offence or hurt so you would be lying.

“Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition.”

If bigotry is the only reason then why is there a need to make any comparison? We all know what bigotry is so it is enough to say that opponents of SSM are bigots. Saying that they are bigots like opponents of interracial marriage were bigots tells us nothing more. A bigot is a bigot. You can’t be more or less of a bigot so it adds nothing to the argument. It is totally unnecessary and so it must be presumed that the intent is to cast an unrelated slur against SSM opponents.

“analogies are always a useful tool for communication.”

Not if they contribute nothing to the description of bigotry which we already have.

“Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.”

Equality is not an argument – it is a value in certain situations but not all situations. There is no argument to prove that it is of value in this situation.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot-on, Phanto, thanks !

Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ: witness my ludicrous vegetable and shell-fish examples.

Gramscians will use 'whatever means necessary' to tear down bourgeois society and replace it with - what ? - I don't know, I can't even imagine, except perhaps nothingness. I felt very sorry for Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party in the 1920s, a cripple jailed for fifteen years by the Fascists in Italy - and the working class did nothing for him, for the Party, for socialism, and instead supported Mussolini. So proletarian revolution was out: what else ? Well, whatever could be used to tear down bourgeois institutions.

So the long-term strategy to use 'useful idiots' like adolescent uni students, homosexuals, anybody who had a gripe against the 'system'. As for tactics, use whatever works: violence, slander, shouting people down, accusing everybody but yourself of being a 'bigot', etc.

Well, it's working so far :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:30:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting to see how many people regard homosexuality as immoral, but fraud as totally fine. And all in the 'no' camp. If ever there was a case for ethics education in schools...

Fraud is not OK, people. It's criminal and it's wrong. Clearly some people's parents didn't raise them very well.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Joe, I don’t know it.

<<Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.>>

And it’s a little strange for you to claim this after how disastrous your last attempt at portraying the analogy as ‘racist’ was:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229227

<<Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to.>>

Correct.

However, I have already explained that this is irrelevant because the issue is not about what HAS been legal, but what SHOULD be legal.

The question of whether interracial marriage SHOULD be legal is independent of whether it HAS always been legal, because what HAS been done in the past is not, in itself, an argument for what SHOULD be done, and to suggest otherwise is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

I’m not sure what part of this you’re not understanding.

<<I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ.>>

I’ll put it as simply as I possibly can: both are forms of marriage, both forms of marriage have their opponents, the opponents of each form of marriage have no rational argument against that which they oppose, and opposition to the two forms of marriage are usually just driven by bigotry.

<<So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really.>>

You have not yet justified this claim. Even if my analogy weren’t valid, that still wouldn’t explain why drawing such parallels is racist or offensive.

<<Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ ...>>

Correct. At no point have I suggested otherwise. In fact, I’ve gone into some detail regarding this on several occasions. I’m sorry you missed it.

--

Dear phanto,

I will resume communications with your good self when you are prepared to cease referring to others as tellers of untruths in a haphazard fashion. Thank you for your time.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this one came through the pipeline today;

25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

Thought some of you might be interested in this;

https://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/

It shows voting predictions based on last years Census. It was based on six factors. The ones predicating a No vote were older, male, religious, non-english speaking background immigrant, low income and rural.

So if a No vote does get up we can blame the alliance between old WASPs, like the kind that haunt this place, and NESB migrants. Oh the irony.

If fact we may well be able to say this will be the first time NESB migrants could responsible for changing the course of this country, with the full blessing it seems of some of our OLO clan. There is little doubt that without such a solid No position being taken by our new arrivals this would not be a contest.

My shire only had a couple of red flags, how did yours go?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry. Forgot to fix the links;

http://www.25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

http://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 September 2017 3:17:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe:

The issue of inter-racial marriage is only introduced as a slur directed at people who oppose SSM.

If there are genuine arguments for SSM then they should be presented but saying it is 'like' something else always has an ulterior motive. Philips has an ulterior motive to try and hurt those who oppose SSM because he is bitter and resentful about his Christian background and he equates opposition to SSM with Christianity.

Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:25:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Phanto,

Yeah, I would have thought that the essence of BOTH legal marriage and inter-'racial' marriage is that the parties are NOT the same, male/female, Black/white. So the analogy with male/male or female/female breaks down immediately.

In SA, from the earliest days, if a white man married an Aboriginal woman, SHE was offered a lease of land, in her name, to be surrendered if she died. Out of the hundred or so leases to Aborigines in the late nineteenth century, perhaps half a dozen were to Aboriginal women. In one case, her Aboriginal husband had held the lease which was transferred to her when he died: because she had a large number of kids, she was provided with rations until the boys could grow up and take over the lease, eventually about twenty years later.

Probably quite irrelevant :) But inter-marriage between Black and white British subjects (and from 1949, citizens) has never been illegal. I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.'

Yeah AJ is consistant with the bigots and thugs on the YES side of the debate.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Name-calling does not give anyone credibility.
No one likes or supports illogical, abusive
debaters.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

How is the biological sex of the parties fatal to the analogy? How does that negate all the parallels that I mentioned? If this is indeed the case, then you should be able to explain what it is about the genders of the parties makes the analogy fail. The mere fact that they are different is not a reason in itself. Analogies do not have to be perfect, there need only be a shared and relevant factor.

Why are same-sex couples not deserving of equal treatment?

<<I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.>>

I have already explained it in quite some detail now, and you have said nothing to counter any of it. You are just digging your heels in now.

Speaking of equality and parallels, though, equality is another parallel that I should have noted when listing the parallels. That equality is whatever we want it to be is a premise you had inserted into my claim. I had said nothing to suggest that this is what I thought. There is no reason why same-sex couples should not be deserving of equal treatment.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy:

I agree.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mmmm,

Wonder where the free speech advocates will side on this one?

A couple have their ceremony cancelled at a church because they express support for same sex marriage on their facebook page.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/church-cancels-wedding-because-bride-and-groom-supported-gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 15 September 2017 12:43:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They weren't denied the right to speak - Facebook guaranteed that. They just have to deal with the consequences of their speech. They don't have a right to be married in that church.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 2:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far there is an anonymous complainant saying she is representing her partner to be as well, while the party complained against is known and in the full glare of media and social site publicity.

What is the full story? Who would ever know?
Posted by leoj, Friday, 15 September 2017 3:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Of course this was an attack on their right to free speech, or perhaps we have a differing definition of such.

Mine pretty well aligns to that given by Wikipedia;

“Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.”

This couple's words were not inciting harm toward others, they were not hateful, and in fact they probably espouse a true christian perspective. I certainly deem the actions of the minister as societal sanction. Why don't you?

And you claim they don't have a right to be married in that church. Why not? They appear to have been part of the congregation for 10 years presumably giving of themselves and their money to support it. There most certainly is an implied right and if that smug, petulant, so and so didn't want to officiate then so be it. They should have been allowed to have someone else do it in the church, their spiritual home.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 15 September 2017 4:41:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steele,

The Church is supposed to be a Christian Institution
and as such it is supposed to accept people of
all persuasions. Apparently due to the ever reducing
numbers of believers in attending Churches the Ministery
is not following the teachings of religious belief
and the prejudicial leadership that's being exhibited by
some ministers is driving away many believers whose
only fault seems to be a different interpretation of their
faith to those preached by their Ministers.

On the other hand I recently read the following letter in
our local newspaper which gives a different religious
viewpoint:

"I am concerned over how any debate on civil marriage
is now developing. Later this year, I shall have been
in the priesthood 58 years, and as a priest, I am
obliged to care for all, no matter what gender or
cultural background. All that matters is their belief
in Catholic values.

I shall be voting yes for civil marriage, something
very different to the marriage sacrament.

However, in doing so I can see no avenues open for those
who desire to inflict vindictive hatred on those who
do not agree with their position."

Reverend Mother Nerissa Marshail.
Sept. 11th 2017.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 September 2017 5:14:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele:

I was thinking that denial of free speech was denial of speech. What would you call it when people are denied the opportunity to speak at all so we could never know what their opinions were? Facebook gives people a platform which they might not otherwise have.

I think the term 'societal' is a bit broad. Within that society we have smaller groups who have the right to set their own rules and members of those groups agree to abide by the rules. The couple have not been banished from the church just refused one of its services.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 5:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "NO" campaign is falling apart, this week they wheeled out their big gun, the old fuddy duddy himself, Geriatric Johnny, who tried to unload om Malcolm.

In a statement, Howard said the Government was "washing its hands of any responsibility" to protect religious freedoms should the survey come back with a majority Yes vote.
Turnbull has repeatedly said the Parliament will change the Marriage Act, with the necessary gurentees before the end of the year if there is a Yes vote. So much for the half baked claims by Howard.

In other news; The political stoush over the same-sex marriage postal vote has taken an ugly turn after former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s godson was punched “standing up for marriage equality”. The Queensland police are on the case, could this be the work of "NO" extremists?

There has been stuff ups with the postal vote, one voter received seven voting forms at his address. six for previous tenants who had not changed their address details with the AEC. Is this a $122,000,000 sham? With two thirds of those intending to vote indicating a "YES" vote preference, the "NO"'s will need every vote they can get by hook or by crook, including the above mentioned seven!

In advertising the "NO" campaigners have been exposed as liars, with such nonsense as schools will force boys to wear dresses, and then they will teach children how to masturbate, disgusting lies from some desperate people!
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 September 2017 5:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why shouldn't the public vote 'No' to a proposal, the push for which has been from the leftist political elite, who inform the public that they are not going to discuss what comes next after they trash the Marriage Act, notwithstanding that it is one of the fundamentals of society?

The public are being treated as bovines, "Just vote with the eye-blinkers on (also known as blinders) and never you mind, we the superior 'Progressives' take it from there".

Up until very recently, homosexuals to a man, and emphasis on 'man' because it is gays who are strident and bullying, were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.
Now the public is being led to believe that overnight black has turned into white and the backflip has it that is was actually the nasty exclusiveness(sic) of heterosexual marriage that is causing some homosexuals to feel offended and even to harm themselves.

The other, far more numerous backers of SSM and its engine room, are the feminists, who are on record as despising marriage for its inevitable power imbalance and dreadful harm done to women. -But now they would have the public believe they actually love marriage and marriage IS love. Just as feminists have no problem with Islam, the 'most feminist religion' with beaut dress-up for women ('empowering' according to feminists), so too they laud same sex marriage. Amazing!

The wedding dress, the church, the vows, are now feminist approved?

If there is one thing the 'Progressives' who trash 'traditional'(sic) marriage and plump for the new, u-beaut and wonderful SSM agree on, it is that marriage never had a definition (according to them) and it is just 'love'. That must impact on the already ambiguous and broad definition of de facto 'relationships'(sic) that feminist and marriage-dissing Julia Gillard brought in (again without public consultation, of course).

The public are being required to buy a pig in a poke and questioning what and why is not allowed, wrong and invites censure. Why?
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 7:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj says:
“Up until very recently, homosexuals […] were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.”

It’s interesting to watch, isn’t it.

Back in the heady days of Les Girls and Carlotta, there were only two identifiers in play - gay and lesbian. The surrounding embryonic movement grew into the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras which, over the years, became a cultural icon.
The gay and lesbian community got to show off and be outrageous in a street parade. When the straight community got the hang of it, they also applauded the idea and the Mardi Gras went on to become a yearly highlight televised around the nation. The Rev. Fred Nile was quietly ignored by all.

These folk were celebrating their differences and the last thing on their mind was conforming to any notion of patriarchal conformist marriage.

Fast forward to 2017 and there seems to be a very different agenda promoted by a very different group of people.

The new crowd demand respect.
The old crowd commanded respect. That’s very different . . and they got it.
Posted by Dustin, Saturday, 16 September 2017 8:38:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The upcoming postal survey is pretty straight
forward. One simple question is being asked.
And all we have to do is say yes or no.
The other arguments being presented are merely
suppositions on what may or may not happen.
Why not just take the opportunity to have
your say. That is all that is being asked of you.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 September 2017 11:20:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why should the public buy a pig in a poke?

What is the definition of marriage, Foxy?

What about resolving these outstanding matters?

"Same-sex marriage: What does human rights law say about claims of equality?
..
But the "marriage equality" claim is not borne out by the decisions of the highest human rights authorities in the international order. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage. In so ruling, these bodies have actually affirmed the inherent equality of all persons..

United Nations Human Rights Committee

In Joslin et al. v New Zealand, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that "marriage" is a definitional construct which, by the expressed terms of Article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), includes only persons of the opposite sex.

Importantly, the committee held that the right to equality under Articles 2 or 26 of the ICCPR, which is the applicable international covenant that Australia has ratified, was not then violated.

That is to say, there is no inequality because the definitional boundary did not enfold persons of the same sex.

Such people are equal in all respects and defining marriage as being between persons of the opposite sex was not to render such people as unequal.

That is consistent with the UNHRC's clarification, that "not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the covenant"."
tbc
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 12:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd..
"European Court of Human Rights

Although Australia is not subject to its decisions, similar conclusions have been reached by the other principal arbiter of international human rights jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights.

In decisions handed down in 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the court has also concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose an obligation to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.

Consequently, the court has consistently held that the prohibition on discrimination (the right to equality) under Article 14 of the convention was not breached by states that continue to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/what-does-human-rights-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 12:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But leoj is not according to you the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the European Court of Human Rights a couple of pinko, commie, lefty, progressive, feminists, Fabian, Julia Gillard/grennie run front orgs out to destroy the free world and the American way! why should we listen to them, its as bad as tuning into the ABC.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 September 2017 5:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They treat their members like mushrooms. They keep them in the dark and they feed them on bull*bleep*." Greens Senator

'Inside the Greens', ABC
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 6:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj,

The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 by John Howard to read
that marriage in this country was to be only - "between
a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others."
Prior to that time marriage was not defined.

Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided
over by the government.

And as such it should not be defined in the manner in which
it was by Mr Howard as it excludes non-familial
consenting adults who want to get married. It prevents
them from doing so.

Now the postal survey asks one simple question.
Should same-sex couples have the right to marry
Yes or No.

At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard
made.

If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then
vote No.

There's nothing more to be said.

Bringing in the United Nations et cetera is simply a diversion
on your part -
and irrelevant to what is being asked of us in this country
concerning same-sex marriage.

Have your say in the opportunity that is being given to you.
Leave the rest of us to make up our own minds on the
subject - we don't need you to try to do it for us.
Thanks.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 September 2017 6:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

The public are being sold a pig in a poke. You are high-handed, telling people that their only involvement is to place their mark on a piece of paper.

SSM is the creature of the political elite and to date it has been discussed in that realm, almost exclusively.

Very, very few members of the public participate in political forums. Their only exposure is at election time, where the comments by the PM are reduced to just sound bites, and some of that is voiced over, even while the PM is speaking.

The overwhelming body of the public are not on boards like OLO or hanging onto Tony Jones' every word (make that his ear microphone's words) for hours, days and even months of their lives as some here might be. They are too busy getting skills, earning their keep, raising their families and paying taxes. As well, they have other interests.

"FORMER prime minister John Howard has called on Malcolm Turnbull to explain what steps will be taken to protect parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom in the event of same-sex marriage becoming law.

Mr Howard says the protections need to be spelled out before the end of the postal survey, which started this week.

“The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws,” he said in a statement today.

“On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protections in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony,” Mr Howard said.
It was “completely disingenuous” to say the marriage law change would not have other consequences...

“It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the government will do on protections before they vote,” he added.
“Otherwise, people will not be fully informed when they vote.”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-pm-john-howard-claims-turnbulls-government-isnt-taking-responsibility-for-ssm-debate/news-story/aeb32ef6e994bbe2b1d531ad7bc17b0d
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 7:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided over by the government.»

That's what politicians and their laws say, but it doesn't change the facts!

«Now the postal survey asks one simple question. Should same-sex couples have the right to marry»

No, the survey asks: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" - which is not only a different question, but also a very strange one since no current law forbids it!

«At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard made.»

Of course they can!

The government would not recognise such marriages - but so what?
Under existing Australian law, neither a same-sex couple who marries nor the person(s) who marry them commit any offence.

«If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then vote No.»

It is discriminatory IN FAVOUR of same-sex couples: they are not conned to pay the state $291 for a worthless piece of paper. In order to remove that discrimination, NOBODY should be conned that way!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 2:19:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj,

Of course Mr Howard wants everything spelled out.
He was the one who changed the Marriage Act in
the first place (2004) - without consulting the
public. However, the postal survey is very
straight forward. And a simple process. It does
not deal with any other issues and those will
be dealt with in Parliament later - depending
on the outcome of this survey. Everything else is
simply scare-mongering.

Dear Yuyutsu,

No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not
legally recognised in this country. Hence the postal
survey to have the law changed. You may not recognise
the fact that marriage in this country is a legal
contract presided over by government - but that does
not change the fact that is what it is - whether
you choose to recognise its legitimacy of not.
We've been over this ground before and I don't see
the point in re-hashing it all over again with you.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 8:31:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not legally recognised in this country.»

I never claimed that they are, so why the "No"?

«Hence the postal survey to have the law changed.»

Please read your postal survey form carefully. In the way it is worded, it asks:

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

It does not ask:

"Should the law be changed to legally recognise same-sex marriages?"

Don't you think this is funny, given that same-sex marriage has not been disallowed to begin with?

$122,000,000 for a meaningless and ridiculous question!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

No I don't think that it is a silly question at all because
the law currently does not allow same-sex couples
to marry. Therefore the question is relevant.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 11:34:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«The law currently does not allow same-sex couples to marry.»

Can you please point me to the law/Act you refer to, including the penalties that a same-sex couple might incur if they contravene it and marry anyway?

Thanks.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Under the current legislation, The Marriage Amendment
Act (2004) which made amendments to the original
Marriage Act (1961), the law states that "marriage
means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion
of all others..."

Therefore, same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.

This information is available on the web.

I can't make it any clearer for you.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why would you want to close down public information and debate? What about some education and balance, answers? Instead you would only allow the public to 'tick the box within the confines of yes and no. So that later it can all be worked out behind closed doors.

Of course the public would be wondering what the hell is going on. The leftist 'anti-No vote' violence at Sydney University for instance, what, who, is behind that?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-campaigners-show-their-true-colours/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

Background
Avowed Feminist & Fabian, PM Julia Gillard and her equally committed feminist and socialist Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, asserted that they had removed ALL discrimination against same-sex couples from ALL legislation, 84 different laws in all. Their statements in Parliament were cleared by the Labor caucus. Gillard in particular has been critical, dismissive, of 'traditional' marriage and remains so.

Gillard and Roxon would claim credit for greatly extending the coverage of de facto, now de facto 'relationships' as their idealism has it, their feminist and socialist difficulties with the institution of marriage causing them to find a new politically correct term for the 'common law marriage' in use elsewhere. They further extended the de facto relationships to include homosexual couples, giving them married rights, such as to partner superannuation benefits and accompanied spousal travel entitlements in public employment and to politicians (but of course!).

Arguably the political interference and political regulation of homosexual relationships is now the same as was forced on heterosexual couples. And that was something that homosexuals always strived to avoid, State interference and crippling lawyer costs and adversarial days, months, years in the Federal Court of Australia.

Yes, some already entitled, well-to-do, educated middle class have gained more form government and their employers and they have the Court to fight one another over million dollar houses and income streams.

But what about the rest? Who says they needed the State , a public service clerk and the court to tell them whether they are in a relationship or not and how to divvie possessions?
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj,

Say something intelligent and relevant and
you may get people interested in what you post.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«Therefore, same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia.»

I agree and this was never disputed: undoubtedly indeed they cannot legally marry, or in other words, they cannot use the law to achieve a marriage between them.
[and I believe that nobody, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, should be using laws to that end anyway]

But they can still achieve marriage by any other means (other than by relying on laws) and no Australian law that I am aware of declares such marriages that were obtained by other means to be "illegal", nor imposes any penalties for such marriages.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I understand the point you are making.

However as outlined in my post on the previous page, feminism's and socialism's replacement for their despised 'traditional'(sic) as in heterosexual marriage has already been implemented AND extended to homosexuals.

That was done and dusted behind closed doors by Gillard and her Attorney General Nicola Roxon and of course with the full knowledge and beavering away behind the scenes by the big hitters of Emily's List, including key feminist academics, lawyers and other educated middle class feminists. See here,

leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:41:44 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926&page=12
And my posts on the few pages before.

It is State compulsion, the very broad and murky provisions of de facto 'relationship' [aka 'common law marriage' elsewhere, but the term studiously avoided by feminists], that are easily and AUTOMATICALLY triggered and without the motivation, intent and decision of the parties, which could be otherwise. The 'equity' is that both heterosexual and homosexual partners are affected, and it can consider bigamy, but not treat it as such.

By way of example of the last mentioned, a woman could be married to a man who is in undeclared (to her!) affairs with another man or woman or both or several, (or a blend, tres 'Progressive'!) and any and all of them could have legal demands on the married family's assets and income.

Now the same feminists and 'Progressives' who refuse to accept any of the negative consequences of their previous social experiments are storming, bullying, to have homosexuals and the rest of the community allow them free rein again after a 'yes' vote to get behind closed doors again to fiddle some more.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leoj,

I was trying to avoid the political dimension.

Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.
Who are they anyway but a gang of thugs?

I don't care whether they support traditional or progressive marriages - states should have nothing to do with personal relationships, as indeed they should not even exist in the first place.

For the record, I have no issues with feminists or homosexuals, yet since you mentioned 'progressives' and Gillard, I am yet to suffer a massive blow from them:

Once their NBN reaches my area and my copper connection taken away, I will no longer have any communications, no phone, no internet, I would be completely isolated - or I may be forced to sell my house and move away to an area that is not affected.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 6:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the civil reply.

The point is that the choice has already been taken away. The de facto 'relationship' [common law marriage] provisions are most intrusive on the private individual and are the dead hand of the State.

My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 6:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leoj,

Yes, de-facto provisions can be intrusive, though I wouldn't say that they are "most intrusive" as there are so many other things that government does which are even more intrusive.

«My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.»

Yes, this would be much better than how it is now, but I'm confused by the word "default" since no state, even a small one, can be created without deliberate intention. The default as I understand it (which is actually not my preference as some readers here may believe), is having no organisation whatsoever.

My preference, is for people to organise themselves voluntary into society(s), on the basis of common values rather than on some arbitrary territorial basis.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 7:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu.

As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all?

<<My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.>> Leoj, pull the other leg.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:12:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all? "

The only logical option would be to vote NO in order to stop a bad situation from becoming worse.

You cannot vote YES without implying that you agree with government involvement in marriage. The question remains why would anyone agree with government involvement in marriage.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:46:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Many people are voting yes - simply to give same-sex
couples the same legal rights as the rest of us
have regarding marriage in this country because
at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:19:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy:

But they are also voting to give the government powers which they do not need. You can't vote YES for SSM and NO for government involvement without being totally illogical.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage. If one was to agree with me, then one would also have to agree that religions have no legitimacy in regards to marriage.

I am not perturbed, by people who want to marry, be it of the opposite, or the same sex, be it once, or multiple times, those marriages could even be concurrent, providing they are all consenting adults, and there is no harm to anyone.

If people really need a certificate of marriage, maybe all they should have to do is go online and with the help of 'Photoshop', knock one up. Or if they are 'old school' buy one down at the local newsagents when they put their 'Lotto' entry in. two gambles at the same time.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Homosexuals have had Common Law marriage for years, since the Gillard government grossly altered and extended the de facto to de facto 'relationships'.

Homosexuals are deemed to be in Common Law marriages whether they want it or not. As any who happen to deal with Centrelink would be aware.

And those who are now forced to pay expensive lawyers to represent them in the Federal Court to dissolve their married status and decide assets, would be feeling in their wallet and through the delays. Delays in Queensland can be between two and four years.

Gillard's changes were beaut and very advantageous for the well off such as herself, enabling Gillard to claim married entitlements for her coupling convenience, as she also enabled for a lesbian coupling if that was her thing. However, few people are advantaged like Gillard and others of the feminist and 'Progressive' elites, being able to come out well on top out of the expanded Common Law marriage, de facto 'relationship' law changes.

Many people lost on the swings and roundabout of her changes that increased State involvement and power (automatic and deeming especially) and the lawyers and Federal Court processes are adversarial.

To think that formerly homosexuals were able to sort things out themselves and decide if they were couples or not. So easy to gather possessions and leave if things were going pear-shaped or just because.

But not after they allowed the feminists and 'Progressives' to take control. Now they are like heterosexual couples, forced to line the pockets of lawyers and going cap in hand before a judge of the Federal Court, to have him/her pass opinions and final judgement.

Now the same suspects want carte blanche to do all again behind closed doors just like before when Gillard was in the seat! Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary people are waiting years and losing their life savings to lawyers writing letters to each other, enabled by complicated family law. Then there is the increased acrimony.

To ALL politicians, fix the mess from before, NOW! As well, 'NO!' 'No way Jose!'
Posted by leoj, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:04:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405:

“Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage.”

But it depends why you are participating. If you participate to stop the rot then all you are saying is that governments cause the rot. You are not legitimising the rot. If you are taking the opportunity to stop things from getting worse isn’t that saying something about the current situation? Why wouldn’t you take that opportunity? How can that be read as affirming the current situation of government involvement?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Leoj,

Yeah, that puzzles me: unless one partner more or less stays home to mind the kids and do the housework, why can't each party to a divorce simply take what's theirs and be done with it ? Obviously, in the past, when that role was almost exclusively women's, there was a need to calculate who got what, and marriage itself gave perhaps the illusion of some sense of security to women. I don't know how that works in the case of liaisons involving homosexual partners. It's interesting though, that we come back to the core rationale for marriage, i.e. to raise kids and to take care of the home.

Clearly, in the case of homosexual couples where children are not involved, much of that rationale falls away, to be complicated further by the factor of divorce.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 September 2017 12:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Marriage in this country is a legal contract
presided over by the government - whether
we want to recognise its legitimacy of not
is a different issue.
That's the way that it currently is. And by voting yes -
all people are doing is giving the
right to be legally married to same-sex couples.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 1:49:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy:

It is not a different issue it is entwined in your vote for YES. Can you vote YES for SSM and vote NO for government involvement? Then the two things are all part of the same issue.

You can, however, vote NO for further government involvement. This is the opportunity that a citizens vote has provided which would not have been available under a parliamentary vote.

You can vote to make a better society. One where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple. This is the best outcome and SSM makes the situation worse. Same-sex couples should fight for what is best for society and not just for themselves.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 2:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Phanto,

You've got it in one: " .... a better society, one where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple."

i.e. a society in which relationships are strengthened and treasured regardless.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I fear you may have presented us with another false dilemma. There is a third possibility: one may disagree with government involvement in marriage, but want there to be equality for same-sex couples for so long as there is.

Unfortunately, your false dilemma appears to assume that having the government involved with marriage is a bad thing, and that it is worse than having greater equality. Both are assumptions that I regret to inform you have not yet been justified.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:07:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

As I am not aware of any downsides to having the government involved in the registration of marriages, this question of yours, however apt, appears to me to be a no-brainer.

<<And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?>>

Nevertheless, there may be some drawbacks to government involvement in the registration of marriages that I am not aware of. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter.

I would note, however, that even if you are right, and that no government involvement is indeed better than greater equality, the survey is not asking if the government should remain involved with the registering of marriages. The survey is asking if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Therefore, your message would fall on deaf ears and we would be left with less equality (in the event that the ‘No’ vote wins), and still have government involvement anyway.

For your point to have any validity, one would need to explain how having reduced government involvement in the registering of marriages is preferable, despite the discriminatory manner in which you propose we achieve this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The results of the postal survey on same-sex marriage
should prove to be interesting. The Australian Electoral
Commission has finished processing nearly a million
changes to the roll including adding more than 100,000
new people. Two-thirds of whom are around 25 years of age.
That leaves more than 16 million Australians eligible to
vote.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:07:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

This seems like the old argument of evolution versus revolution (or "things must get worse before they can get better").

My preferred option is also not to pay for this (or any other) survey with my tax-money. This option is now gone.

But since the survey is already out, I rather use it to support those two rare things: 1) that ordinary people are being asked at all, about anything; and 2) that the survey is non-compulsory.

I have seen people harassed by the demands of the ABS when randomly chosen to fill a compulsory survey. I know one case where the person involved was desperately crying and wanted to commit suicide. Eventually she relocated as a result and left her (rented) place in the middle of the night without leaving a trail (such as mail forwarding), so the ABS will not be able to follow her.

Thus my second-best option is mitigation, not unlike what I do in general elections.

---

Dear Foxy,

«at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia.»

Can you see the difference between "legally unable" and "unable to legally"? Or between "legal marriage" and "marrying legally"?

When you are "legally unable" to do something, you may still be able to do it without breaking any law, but if you are also "unable to legally" do it and still do, then you could be charged and incur criminal penalties.

"Legal marriage" is marriage that is enshrined by law.
"Marrying legally" is when no law is broken by one's marriage.

In summary:

You are correct in saying that at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia. However, they can still wed legally since no law stops them from doing so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

"Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter."

No.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:42:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex couples currently do not have the same
legal rights unless they are allowed to marry in
this country. If their marriage is not recognised
legally problems can arise when a partner dies
regarding what happens to property and other assets
as well as Superannuation funds. Then there is the
emergency medical situations that can arise where
partners can be excluded from not only hospital
visiting rights but also exercising medical power
of attorney.

Having a marriage recognised legally does have
its benefits as things currently stand and to deny
people that same right as the rest of society -
is simply wrong.

The following link explains:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information. I was looking forward to the challenge of critiquing any drawbacks you could present with regards to the State registration of marriages. But, alas, it was not to be.

One cannot help but wonder, however, what the motive behind your initial question to me was, if you were not prepared to inform me of what the drawbacks were so that I may compare them with the benefits of equality. It does seem rather odd, I am sure you will agree.

I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information.”

You are lying again.

“I am sure you will agree.”

That’s another lie.

“I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.”

That’s another one.

Three lies in three paragraphs!
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

It is rather unfortunate that you appear to have resorted to accusing others of telling untruths. This was not the case, once upon a time.

A common theme which I have noticed, with regards to these accusations of alleged untruths being told, is that they are invariably explainable by a more innocent difference of perception. The first alleged incident of an untruth being uttered by myself in this discussion thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926#245292) was a typical example of that which I speak.

I view your decline of my offer as unfortunate; you do not.

I was sure that you would view your initial question as rather odd after you revealed that you were not willing to discuss the drawbacks of government involvement in the registration of marriages anyway; I now see that you do not.

I was thankful for your time, despite the abrupt tone in which you rejected my request for further information; you do not believe that I was thankful.

This does not mean that either of us is engaging in the telling of untruths. Why, I could just as easily accuse your good self of the same, however, neither you nor I can see into the mind of the other. All we can do is take it on good faith that the other is being open and honest in their communications, and treat each other with respect accordingly.

While it is admirable for one to call to account those who would speak untruths, one must also take care not to adopt a scattergun approach to the identifying of alleged untruths, as this could be mistaken for desperation and histrionics; which would be most unfortunately in the event that you do indeed correctly identify untruths uttered, as they may fall on deaf ears which had stopped listening long ago.

Please take my criticisms in good faith, and be well.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just received my 'SS" vote paper in the mail.
There were three discarded vote letters in the waste by the mail boxes.
Nothing to stop me form filling them in and mailing them back the way I feel.
Stop!
There is a bar code on the envelope.
There are two bar codes on the voting form.
What is to say they don't know who I am.
Why the bar codes and why not tell us what they represent.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

And one must not abruptly change one's persona without other 'ones' smelling a rat.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

All we can do is take each person as they come. If your positions in debate are tenable, then you will be able to respond in kind. For only those who do not have the truth and reason on their side will ultimately rely on aggression and abuse to communicate their beliefs.

This is the only rat to be sniffed out here.

Perhaps it is just me getting older, but I am rather enjoying this more calm and gentlemanly method of communicating. A surprising discovery which I have made is that I feel far more relaxed communicating in this manner. I was not expecting that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 7:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the reference!

While nearly all abnormalities were already solved, a handful remains and these too should and will be addressed very soon.

Apparently, as a vestige from the past, having a marriage recognised legally still has a handful of benefits - but also disadvantages: both should go.

All references to personal relationships, be it "marriage" and its grammatical derivatives or "de-facto", should be erased from all legislation.

Now I shall endeavour to address the particular points from Charis Chang's article one by one:

“If you look at the case law, you could have a will that leaves everything to your partner, but you can have siblings or other families that refuse to accept it was a defacto-like relationship.”

So? a will is binding, no matter what family-members refuse to accept. Even if a couple was married, family-members might still refuse to accept that marriage (this also applies to heterosexual marriages). Taking the deceased's assets without permission is theft and is recognised as such by the criminal code.

"...may be less likely to be invited to family events like weddings and graduations..."

Whether married or otherwise. You cannot force anyone to invite you to their event.

"Superannuation funds are problematic because a trustee determines who gets the money and they don’t have to follow wishes expressed in a will"

Easy to fix that one: change the law so trustees must follow the deceased's will. Regardless, superannuation should be merged with the estate. Are you aware that under some circumstances superannuation-beneficiaries might have to pay taxes, whereas when the superannuation is paid into an estate, no tax applies!?

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 10:01:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

"people in relationships for 30 or 40 years denied defacto status by superannuation trustees"

You shouldn't have to tell trustees why you want a certain person to be your beneficiary: change the law so they must accept whoever you elect, no explanations required. However, better not elect anyone because taxes might be incurred.

"there were still resistance among conservative members of families to recognise these relationships at the time of death."

In that regard, legal marriage would not make any difference.

"Some states have introduced reforms so that same-sex couples can register and be recognised legally as being in a defacto relationship"

This is a good and practical idea for a transition period, but ultimately no relationships should be legally-recognised, including de-facto.

"But unlike heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners don’t have the option to clarify their relationship status via marriage."

Nor should heterosexual couples have the option to clarify their relationship using a state-issued document.

"Everyone should have the same status"

What about "human"? or "citizen"? Nothing else is required.

"partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another."

This also applies to heterosexual couples who choose not to be legally-married. The situation can be fixed and there are quite a few ways to address this.

"“I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write ‘spouse’ on incident reports”"

No reason why one should not be able to write the truth. So long as there is no fraud and one honestly believes that the other person was their spouse, this should be good enough.

"“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room, ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!’”"

Once state-based marriages go out the window, that lady will no longer need to yell.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 10:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

There was a case recently on TV where a same-sex couple
had purchased a unit together in a retirement village.
The unit was in one of the couple's name. That partner
died and left a will leaving the unit to his partner.
The company that owned the retirement village did not
recognise the will and the partner was forced to buy
the unit if he wanted to live there despite the fact
that his partner had left it to him in his will and
the unit was already bought and paid for by his
partner.

You can argue all you like about what should or should
not be - however under the current legislation couples
who are not legally married will have to face legal
problems and that is what this postal survey is all about.
Giving same-sex couples equal rights with the rest of us.

It is not about what should be happening - it is about
what it currently is - as far as marriage laws are
concerned.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 8:12:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

So ...... the company didn't pay out a refund on the unit already bought to the beneficiaries of the deceased person's will, including his partner ? So they would have been happy to sell it twice ? How can that be legal ?

Is this common in old people's homes, by whatever name ? Is this more to do with property law and the loop-holes that those sorts of companies can use rather than any law to do with marriage ?

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 8:21:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Yes, this is bad. Lucky I have no television so I don't get to see these things!

This is robbery and I do hope that the partner is successful in court to get back what is his.

Nevertheless, the village's poor excuse is that the couple was not legally married, rather than that they were of the same gender. That could similarly affect any other couple that doesn't invite the government to their wedding, or in some cases even cannot, such as a brother and a sister, or in the case when three or more people wish to live together (remember, neither living together nor marriage require sexual relations).

«under the current legislation couples who are not legally married will have to face legal problems»

Under current legislation, some couples face legal problems because they are not legally married while other couples face legal problems because they are. Removing all legislative references to the word "marriage" should solve both.

«It is not about what should be happening»

But it is: the proponents of same-sex legal marriages want the law to be changed in a particular way.

I want the law to be changed in a different way which will only simplify life. BOTH ways will lead to marriage equality, but the currently-proposed way will also increase bureaucracy, cause hardship to others and take us in the wrong direction. What I hope for, is that once the 'No' vote wins, all this young energy will find its way and be channelled into my alternate solution.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope that the 'boycotters' and 'discarders' of the opportunity to vote on changing the Marriage Act are those who think it is OK to wreck tradition and turn Australia into another Gomorrah.

That's the petulantly, childish sort of thing they would do.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:21:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ttbn,

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not actually indulge in homosexual acts for pleasure: they only did so in order to cause suffering to visitors (this at least is the Jewish scholarly view).

Regarding discarded envelopes, I suggest that you should be careful: these could be traps, where the bar-code doesn't actually belong to any person. If you fill and post them, then the ABS would recognise the fraud and could match your fingerprints with those envelopes.

While I vote 'No', it is in no way an expression against homosexual people. In time, they too will realise that they are better off without legal marriage. If they want to be married, then I welcome and support the churches that marry them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:42:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe:

“You've got it in one: " .... a better society, one where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple."

i.e. a society in which relationships are strengthened and treasured regardless.”

This is where homosexual people lack dignity and have sold out to the government’s conditional distribution of those rights. They are prepared to marry in order to get rights which should be theirs by virtue of citizenship. They are prepared to do what the government says they should so they can have those rights.

Anyone who pursues a government issued marriage certificate in order to obtain those rights has little self-respect. This includes heterosexual people.

The only equality that homosexuals end up with is in the lack of self-respect. They are prepared to trade their dignity just so they can claim equality with heterosexuals. This generation of homosexuals will go down as the generation who sold their souls just so they could feed their need to appear as the equal of heterosexuals.

Nothing is more valuable than a person’s dignity – certainly not being married. Human dignity is an absolute value but being married is a very minor relative one.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 5:44:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Marriage is not a humble requestion for rights from a leviathan of sorts. Rather, it is merely a bureaucratic means of registering one’s interests. Why, one may just as well complain that the Torrens system is oppressive. However, like marriage, the Torrens system is there to create certainty and protect rights, not as a means of arbitrarily determining who may obtain a property.

If the government were standing over us like oppressors and arbitrarily determining to whom it will be granting marriage rights, then you would be right to protest. However, I fear both you and Joe have placed a slant on the situation that does not reflect the reality of it as accurately as it could. Like the Torrens system, marriage is a form of registration, not a tool of oppression.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 6:53:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, that should be, "Marriage is not a humble request ..."

My apologies. How utterly careless of me!
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 7:10:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu, I went to Google Maps and for some reason I couldn't get directions to Sodom and/or Gomorrah. I checked the Geographical Name Board's web site as well, and they don't seem to list then either. i was thinking of spending my next holidays there. Are they anywhere near Bullsville? Is there a regular bus service? How do you get there?

I do not understand how you could vote in this government instigated survey, at a cost to the taxpayer of an estimated $20 per returned vote. Given your belief that the government has no legitimacy in the determination of marriage. By your participation in the survey you are giving tacit approval to the governments involvement.

If the CWA was to send you the same survey wanting to know if you approved of that organization changing their "law on marriage", would you reply? I would not, as I am not a member, I didn't renew this year, and because I do not think the CWA has any authority when it comes to marriage. Get my drift.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 9:56:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

There is nothing oppressive about it - quite the contrary - which only exacerbates the indignity of those who give in to it. It would be oppressive if you had to marry in order to get your rights but you do not. You have the option to fight for your rights by demanding the government give you your rights without condition. You do not have to accept the government's conditions. It is undignified to accept those conditions without any kind of fight.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:13:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Same-sex couples have been "fighting" the good fight
for decades but the odds against them winning remain powerful
after centuries of their not being accepted being the
social norm.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405:

“By your participation in the survey you are giving tacit approval to the governments involvement.”

How can you tell the difference between tacit approval an attempt to limit the damage done by government involvement? A NO vote could be interpreted either way. It would be rather illogical if you were given the chance to prevent the situation from getting worse not to take it. It is not necessarily a sign of approval at all.

Foxy:

The thing is that they are not fighting the good fight. They are fighting to be like heterosexual couples who also refuse to fight the good fight and who also acquiesce to the government’s conditional distribution of rights. Anyone who accepts the government’s conditions lacks dignity.

The good fight would be to stand up to the government and demand your rights unconditionally. Anything else is cowardice.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 1:33:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Most people just want to get on with their lives.
And standing up for wanting to have the same legal
entitlements as the rest of society is by no means
cowardly - on the contrary the abuse that people
have to take - is bravery and nothing less.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 1:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
- United States Declaration of Independence

I voted about 3 days ago. 'Tis now in the hands of the Gods (and Australia Post and the ABS).

I voted yes.

It's really simple, there's only one question:

Do you think the law should be changed to allow same sex marriage?

And then two boxes to mark, for 'yes' or 'no'.

And that's it! Just mark your box, stick it in the envelope and off you go.

There were no other boxes to fill in. There wasn't one to tick for or against Safe Schools, there wasn't one to tick against gay parents, there wasn't one to tick for or against free speech, there wasn't one to tick for or against religious freedom, and there wasn't one to tick against the whole institution of marriage.

If you wish to stage your own little private protest, feel free to go ahead and spoil your ballot: nobody is stopping you. Go ahead and write 'Hah! More like Unsafe Schools' or 'Not Big Brother's Business who gets married!' or 'Screw the State! Screw Marriage!' or just draw a big cock & balls on the thing for all I care.

Or, if you prefer, vote 'no' and hope that the ABS employ a mentalist with powers approaching that of the legendary Amazing Phanto, who will be able to discern each man's motives for their vote by mystically fondling their surveys and pass that information along to the relevant channels of government. But I reckon that's a tall order... nobody is as psychic as the Amazing Phanto.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 2:54:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or, Toni Lavis, my favourite one that's become popular of late:

"I was going to vote 'yes', but then I saw all the bullying from the Yes campainers.'

Yeah, right. Just admit you were going to vote 'no' all along and do it already.

It's the lie that reveals itself.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 3:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I think that one deserves its own meme:

http://i.imgur.com/6rJ3EnF.jpg
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 3:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy:

“Most people just want to get on with their lives.”

What is life if it is not fighting for your unconditional rights?

“for wanting to have the same legal
entitlements as the rest of society”

Why should they accept the condition placed on those rights of having to be married? Why does the ‘rest of society’ accept those conditions? Why do you accept those conditions? Why do you condone taking those rights by stealth and in doing so compromise your own integrity as a human being?

“on the contrary the abuse that people
have to take - is bravery and nothing less.”

No it is stupidity. They do not have to try and be like heterosexual couples. They can stand apart and with dignity they can demand from the government that they give them their rights without having to first be married.

Philips:

I see you have resorted to mockery now. Where is the ‘gentlemanly’ attitude which seems to have evaporated after a few short days?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 4:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

They do not want to be LIKE heterosexual couples.
What they want are the same legal rights as
heterosexual couples have in being able to marry.
You seem to have a problem in understanding this.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 4:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

My mockery was most appropriate given the sheer dishonesty of that line, which I have noticed just recently is becoming rather popular on social media. There is a time and a place for everything - even mockery.

From here on in, however, your good self will only ever be seeing the best of me because it is my belief that your position on this matter requires the eventual resorting to of ad hominem attacks and cannot survive sustained cordial discourse.

Of course, you are most welcome to prove me wrong there.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 5:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Modern Sodom (Sdom) is an industrial area near the southern tip of the dead sea in Israel. Gommorah no longer exists, but Mt. Sdom is a tourist attraction: http://igoogledisrael.com/how-to-hike-the-magnificent-mount-sodom-in-israel

Regarding the vote, what else would you suggest for me? Starting a revolution? Blowing up the parliament building? stabbing police? shooting or running-over innocent people? Sorry, but that's just not my style, I am a Hindu and I believe in non-violence.

What I do by voting is mitigation: to try to prevent a bad law from becoming even worse.
Also, voting 'No' is tactical because this angry energy of the marriage-equality movement has to go somewhere, so it will then be diverted against the whole concept of state-sponsored marriage.

«If the CWA was to send you the same survey»

Well they actually have, it's no longer an "If" and they wouldn't take "I'm not a member" for an answer either. Rather, they arrogantly say: "If you are not a member then step out of this continent or we'll kick you out by force". Let them accept that I can live here without membership or harassment by their group, then I won't bother replying to their surveys.

(however, my reason for not wanting anything to do with them is that I don't want to be part of a group which violently forces itself on others, so paradoxically, had the CWA allowed people to live their life in this continent without being members, then I would probably have no reason not to join them)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 September 2017 1:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Well they actually have, it's no longer an "If" and they wouldn't take "I'm not a member" for an answer either. Rather, they arrogantly say: "If you are not a member then step out of this continent or we'll kick you out by force".//

Really? The Country Women's Association threatened to kick you out of the country by force?

Man, the times sure are a-changin'. A militant Country Women's Association... it's like a Monty Python sketch come to life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-I3QTT8mY

//had the CWA allowed people to live their life in this continent without being members//

They do. They're really just nice old ladies that know how to appreciate a good sponge cake. What do on earth could anybody have against the CWA?

You worry me, yuyutsu.

//then I would probably have no reason not to join them//

Well whilst you've certainly got the first syllable of their name down pat, you're not a woman so you don't qualify.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 21 September 2017 2:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni,

I believe that by "CWA", Paul was referring to the "CommonWealth of Australia" - I've never heard of this "Country Women's Association" before.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 September 2017 3:24:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I've never heard of this "Country Women's Association" before.//

No, of course you haven't...
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 21 September 2017 4:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

"Same-sex couples have been "fighting" the good fight
for decades but the odds against them winning remain powerful
after centuries of their not being accepted being the
social norm."

They are not the social norm, which is a good thing.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 21 September 2017 4:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Yuyutsu,

Sooooorry about that, not knowing what the CWA is, its an Aussie institution up there with meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. As Aussie as the RSL that's The Returned and Services League in case your not familiar Me old Granny was a member of the Country Women's Association for over 60 years. Granny was a bit of a radical in the ranks, not so much into baking scones. Granny was an alternative lifestyler specializing in cup cakes, but a conservative when it came to pickles, doing the traditional mustard style. I do believe it cost the CWA $122, sorry pounds, to conduct a survey back in 1957 as to whether cup cakers would be given equal rights with the sconers. Although it was a moral issue at the time, several large organisations came out in support of a yes vote including the male only, rather macho Farmers & Graziers Association, wanting to be seen in the community as inclusive. The debate got heated at times, and violent as well. Leader of the Country Party and alternative Prime Minister 'Blackjack' McEwen a dour conservative and vote No advocate was assaulted on the streets of Gilgandra when a would be yes voter, hurled a cup cake, the fairy variety of course, at Blackjack, hitting him fair on the scone! Blackjack was not seriously injured, only requiring three months hospitalization and amputation of his left leg. The number one proponent of a Yes vote Prime Minister "Pig Iron' Bob Menzies promised to introduce legislation protecting the rights of scone makers, but after the survey. The result was a resounding victory for the Yes vote, the final count was overwhelming with two voters in favour of a change in the law, against one for the "No's" a two thirds majority! That is why cup cakes can today be eaten by our school children without the fear of feeling different or discriminated against.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 22 September 2017 3:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

The following link just might broaden your outlook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

The Anglican Church of Australia in 2013 -
The Diocese of Perth voted in favour of recognising
same-sex marriage.

The Diocese of Gippsland has appointed a gay priest.

St Andrews Church in Subiaco Perth has blessed a same-sex
union. And so it goes.

The times are changing.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 22 September 2017 9:00:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,

They were always a radical mob those Anglicans, I recall good Sister Mary, an old Irish nun I had in the third grade, often told us that there was some hope of redemption for the pagans, you know the pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and such like, misguided souls as they were, but as sure as the Holy Father was a Catholic, there was no hope for the Protestants, particularly the Anglicans, like Henry VIII before them, Sister Mary assured us they would all burn in Hell for eternity and a day! Maybe longer!
You couldn't buck Sister Mary she was an authority on such matters.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 22 September 2017 10:06:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Humans don't change from being human. It is only the few who lead complicated lives and almost always through their own selfish choices. A poster gave an example earlier of what it considered to be the 'evolved' woman and family, but one suspects that the lived reality with the spin stripped, is different.

Plainly the feminists and 'Progressives' who have been attacking marriage and family for decades are now right and one suspects they may have had a hand in it, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because the incidence of dreadful negative consequences of marriage is even more apparent in modern times along with the tsunami in parental alienation (PAS). Family law desperately needs review before adding more victims to the failed, outmoded institution of marriage, as the feminists and 'Progressives' would have it.

To the feminists and 'progressives, SSM should be akin to parachuting hundreds more onto the marriage 'Titanic', already being swamped by the sea. The Federal Law Court is inundated and years behind. Legal costs have skyrocketed and couples are left renting digs and desperate.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 22 September 2017 10:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd.
Apart from that, one constantly wonders when if ever the virtue signallers and parrots of political mantras might be turning their attention to the real social problems of the last decade and more, which are coming directly from the needless rapid overpopulation to a 'Big Australia' through mass immigration?

What about those forgotten 'Struggle Streets'?

"Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.
He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.
“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?
“We didn’t hear anything.
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/news-story/6c89f7077536bf321ee40c25946e6f0f

After a welcome pause I am back to volunteering on food distribution. I am shocked! There is a disaster that is happening. New groups of students, self-supporting pensioners and working poor who do not have enough money for meals. It is shattering to find so many previously strong, resolute, independent people being brought to their knees by escalating power costs and high rents because massive immigration never allows the overstretched infrastructure and housing supply to catch up.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 22 September 2017 10:10:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a link on Mark Latham:

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2017/03/30/what-job-should-mark-latham-probably-be-fired-next-heres-some-suggestions

It's a hoot. The link comes up with some great suggestions
for what job should Mark Latham be fired from next.
There are so many good choices - for which he's more than
qualified.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 22 September 2017 11:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy:

Nothing like ridicule to destroy an argument.

Classy!
Posted by phanto, Friday, 22 September 2017 12:00:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//You couldn't buck Sister Mary//

I dunno about that, Paul. I'd have given it a crack if Sr Mary had been up for it, and I reckon most nuns would be gagging for it.

Unless they're all lesbians, which is also cool. Mmmm... lesbian nuns.

I'm off to take a cold shower.

//Nothing like ridicule to destroy an argument.//

It's certainly a more effective form of rhetoric than mentalism. But there's no point ridiculing Mad Mark - he does a better job of it than anybody else.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 22 September 2017 1:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Never heard of the CWA! They were, and still are, the backbone of rural Australia - women proud to be women.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 22 September 2017 2:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if any of these women are gay, or have
children or relatives - who are gay?

Wouldn't it be great for them and their family members
who might be gay - to just be treated as "ordinary,"
human beings. To be allowed to truly "belong." To have
the state acknowledge that their love is just as
conventional, special, complicated, or routine - as
ours?

It would be great if we all believed strongly in the ties that
bind us. That society is stronger when we make vows
and support each other. If we all believed that commitment
and family units are one of the best ways in which
society is organised.

If only ...
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 22 September 2017 2:48:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

They are not the social norm, which is a good thing, and not only is it a good thing but a very good thing.

Why would you think that a small percentage was the norm?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 22 September 2017 5:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

To which Order did Sr. Mary belong?
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 22 September 2017 8:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//To which Order did Sr. Mary belong?//

Hopefully the Leaping Order of St. Beryl. Best nuns ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiO_9UIUx7M
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 23 September 2017 4:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Issy,

I'm not sure which order good old Sr. Mary belonged, it must have been the 'Order of Discipline'. The good sister was not only a world authority on all things ecclesiastical, she was also very good at dishing out corporal punishment, often administering it with gusto using her thick leather belt to a certain truculent 8 year old boy.

She did exist in real life, I didn't make her up. The old gal must have been 80 if she was a day, that would make her 140 now. Irish to her boot straps, and a hater of protestants, intolerant as they come. I surmise she was probably sent to Australia from her native Ireland by the teaching order when she was a young girl maybe around 1900 to help fill a shortage. Something she had never gotten over. Her loss of identity had made her a very bitter person, who was down on life. By today's standards she would not be allowed with a mile of children, but those times were different. As an 8 year old I both hated and feared her, but with hindsight I now pity the life she had. Mary was just as much a victim of Catholicism as anyone.

I wonder what she is up to theses days. Belting little children with her trusty strap down in purgatory I suppose.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 23 September 2017 4:18:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

Frankly, I don't believe you, Sr. Mary looks like a typical badly made up character by an anti-Catholic bigot.
The alleged rantings against Protestants would have been stopped by the school authorities as many Anglicans, who were not well off, sent their children to Catholic schools, furthermore, other children would have had one Protestant parent, Anglican or otherwise.

In my own family, my maternal grandfather was an Anglican and grandmother was Catholic and as was customary, at the time, the sons followed the father's religion and the daughters followed the mother.
Consequently, I had cousins of both persuasions and Baptisms, Confirmations and Marriages were attended by all, a character, such as your "Sr. Mary" would have got short shift.
Her alleged rantings would have been contrary to Rome's teachings anyhow.

Just to get the history right, Henry the VIII was and remained a Catholic to the end of his days, excommunicated but still a Catholic.
His Church Of England was a Catholic Church until after his death and he'd have given Protestants a hard, but short, time.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 23 September 2017 8:07:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why on earth would anyone wonder if CWA women were gay, or if any of them knew gay people! Nothing is sacred to some people.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 23 September 2017 8:33:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

The poster is stirring for a bite. Most people just get on with life and leave their sexuality out of it. Who ever cared and too much information. CWA are ladies are interested in craft, community and friendship. They would smile, give that attention-seeking poster a cup of tea (milk and biscuit?) and carry on with some acrylics (landscapes today) and chat.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 23 September 2017 9:06:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj,

Most people do indeed keep their sexuality and private lives to themselves. The lack of self-respect and decorum of the homosexuals is quite inappropriate and cringe-making. I was particularly revolted by the recent blubbering on TV by the so-called comedian, Ms. Obesity with the Polish name.

What is wrong with these people that they cannot manage their own lives, peculiarities (which we all have) and all, without dragging the whole population in. Lack of character? Weakness of mind? Total lack of self-discipline?
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 23 September 2017 9:23:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

Two things for my 2c worth,

firstly, the traditional Left and their usually Leftie, red drinking and jazz & coffee house appreciating homosexual mates wouldn't be seen dead with the elements (the push) who are behind the 'Gay' activism and 'Yes' crew; and,

secondly, it is a sad fact of life that pressures, mainly from digital technology, and globalisation too, on the traditional print and more recently on TV and radio, are causing media outlets with previous fine records to prostitute themselves to stay alive a bit longer. So they chase anything to feed a fickle already dumbed-down audience.

I see this site as one of the options, a worthy initiative and experiment by some civic-minded folk, to keep some local investigative, contemplative analysis and discussion going.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 23 September 2017 9:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talking about the Country Women's Association.

I was not the one who raised this issue on this discussion.
It was ttbn who responded to Yuyutsu's comment that he had
never heard of the CWA stating that they were "the backbone
of rural Australia. Women proud to be women."

leoj then offered his keen observations on what the CWA
stood for.

In actual fact the CWA is more then an association interested
in "cups of tea and biscuits."

In fact they are an Association of women committed to social
justice and as such - "The CWA of Victoria Inc advocates
for equality for all Australians under the Commonwealth
Marriage Act." A motion was passed in May 2016 that read -

"As an Association of women committed to social justice, we
should be advocates for all women whose entitlements and
rights are diminished by continuing inequalities under
present laws," read the motion.
"The organisation will now work write to the
Federal Government urging it to legalise in favour of
same-sex marriage."

CWA's Facebook page was flooded with messages of encouragement,
with several commenters saying they were "proud" to be
associated with the organisation.

As one wrote," This is wonderful! Growing up in a regional
community I had friends who tried so hard to convince
themselves and others that they weren't gay. This was partly
to do with the very real threat of assault. This had a huge toll
on them mentally and emotionally."

"Thank You for taking a stand and making the world a little
safer for young gay people in regional and rural communities,"
read another.

We continue to see an increase in community organisations
across Australia supporting Marriage Equality because they
want to get behind families, friends, neighbours, and
workmates.

Taken from the following link:

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/article/2016/05/23/vic-country-womens-association-votes-marriage-equality
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 September 2017 11:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Very surprising, if true. It could just be a few loud-mouthed individuals SBS got hold of. But, you get all of your information from SBS, ABC and other Leftists urgers, so it is very hard to treat as gospel anything you post. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe and tell us all about it, and we can agree or disagree. But you are not doing yourself any favours by constantly referring to clearly biased in one direction organisations. Quoting third parties does not enhance your personal opinions in any way whatsoever. Do you really believe that what professional stirrers and the media broadcast gives your own opinions more credence?
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 23 September 2017 12:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ttbn,

This was widely reported at that time in the mainstream media.
The Victorian branch of the CWA voted on this issue
as a Conference that was held that week-end. Had you
bothered to read the link I cited you would have
seen for yourself it was not something that anybody
made up. Also the quotes cited came directly from the
Conference itself.

However, I can see that you will only accept that which
agrees with your own viewpoint. Therefore there's no further
point in any discussion.

Have a nice evening.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 23 September 2017 4:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

You are stating the obvious. Accepting only that which agrees with my viewpoint makes me just like everyone else, including you. I do, however, not allow other people to decide what I think, be it the media, pressure groups or individuals. I rely entirely on my own beliefs and values. Any agreement with others is coincidental. And I give consideration only to the opinions of other individuals, not the ABC nor any of the few conservative 'trendsetters' who think that they know better than people like us.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 23 September 2017 5:06:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The CWA Victoria statement is like others on both sides probably due to situational factors and the lobbying of some persons with that interest.

Remembering that many voluntary organisations that do good and are the glue of society inevitably must seek approval for government funds. In Qld for example, for grants from the money collected from poker machines.

One body out of thousands of charitable organisations. Good on the honorary office holders though for they also directed individual members to consider and arrive at their own decision. Well done. Balanced and independent. Not something that Foxy mentioned, but it should have been added.

Now if only some of the very narrow partisan advocacy here could be extended to practical support for the problems being addressed by tghe CWA and others and with very little acknowledgement by the very superficial and forever whining media commentariat.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 23 September 2017 6:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Marxists have been marching through the institutions for 50 years, so I suppose there is no reason to think that they have not infested even totally wholesome organisations like the CWA. People often join voluntary organisations for purposes other than the obvious. When the ALF is so confident that it can be a political player by plastering YES everywhere, including on footballs, we know that we are in the grip of a very nasty and frenzied type of totalitarianism. Business are spending millions advertising their support of fake marriages, and we all know that their motives don't have anything to do with homosexuals, whom they don't give a damn about, and their 'rights'.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 23 September 2017 9:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, as much as we would like to think we are "free thinkers" that can never be the reality. Our beliefs and opinions, your's included, are formulated by the social environment we are born into. From the very beginning of our existence we absorb that what is around us. Our first influence in life begins with our parents and immediate family, we are stimulated by the love of others, and it is that love and interaction, or lack of, which forms the basis of our future.
Then through education, both the formal education of school, and the personal education from others, which began the day we were born, we learn to comprehend both the physical at first, and later the more abstract components that form our total environment.
The media and their reporting is but one part of what influences us. What and how "news" is reported is critical in influencing our social attitudes. everything from how we view the government, to our stance on same sex marriage.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 24 September 2017 4:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Eighties radical feminist idealism of the Labor Gillard government has already denied individual autonomy and freedom of choice for homosexuals through extending the definition of de facto 'relationships' [called Common Law Marriage elsewhere]. Gillard's Sisterhood baulked at the term Common Law Marriage and added 'relationship' because while they wanted the 'married' entitlements for their own benefit, they hated marriage with a passion and had always sworn (as Emily's Listers in particular) to 'deep six' marriage ASAP.

In denying choice to homosexuals along with heterosexuals, because Gillard's changed de fact 'relationship' law automatically applies and decides married status, the State, its bureaucrat clerks at Centrelink and the Courts were now empowered to inform homosexuals (heterosexual couples too) when they were in Common Law marriages or not.

Individual choice and decision went out the window, where homosexuals could previously decide for themselves and might had had living arrangements that they regarded as convenient (shared accommodation costs and so on, solo living is now very costly) and casual (including more or less personal closeness as desired), the big-spending Gillard government could now deem them to be in Common Law marriage and chop down their Centrelink pension.

However it did suit the already entitled and well-off educated middle class straights (like Gillard) and gays who could benefit from generous married (new speak, 'partner') entitlements of public employment. And they looked forward to ease of claiming estates and superannuation. Those generous golden handshakes form public (and of course parliamentary) employment are inviting.

But the overwhelming majority of the herd, the 'punters' (sic) as the political elite refer to the public and homosexuals too, were substantially worse off through removal of choice and the certainty of the slow, complex and expensive Federal Court involvement in their private affairs.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 24 September 2017 6:37:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd..

All the so called SSM does is shove reinforcing rods through and pour concrete on the unfairness and denial of choice, the overbearing 'Big Sister' State compulsory and automatic involvement and interference in personal affairs. It further removes choice by making the de facto 'relationships' [Common Law Marriage] regulation so much harder probably impossible to fold back.

Yet those very same de facto 'relationships', Common Law marriages are exactly where the main problems are occurring, such as relationship violence and the involvement of the State, its complex Federal Court procedures and legal expenses, make breaking up so very hard to do.

However the prospect of SSM and the concrete reinforcing of Gillard's imposed Common Law Marriage that enables the State bureaucrats to decide relationship status (whether it was the individual and couple's intent and decision or not!) also has far reaching impact through hampering the flexing of social and sharing relationships that would enable better social, housing and health outcomes through innovation in group housing.

Not that those selfish middle class feminists and other well-off political elite would ever be worried about it, but older women especially and younger women with dependents too do stand to gain very substantially in choice and and desirable lifestyle from innovation that would see those houses and terraces in inner city areas demolished to make way for economical and innovative high rise group housing with gardens, creches, socialising areas and so on.

The State deeming of relationship status hampers, it does NOT help.

But why the hell should I, an ordinary citizen, have to spell that out on a site? What the hell are those bureaucrats and politicians paid for and what are they doing? Because they all travel heaps at the expense of the taxpayer and to places where such innovation is already occurring. And where of where is the 'old' Left who were unafraid of innovation and choice?
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 24 September 2017 6:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

That might have been your experience; some people are more susceptible to outside influence than others. However, your experience is not mine. The "social environment (I was) born into" was dogmatic Left Labor. I threw that off, and thought for myself - my views, values and opinions could not be more different from those I was brought up with.

I re-affirm that I think that people who keep quoting claptrap from Google, or anywhere else, thinking that they are proving something, are piss weak and wasting my time and the time of other people who think for themselves using their 'God-given' common sense and natural abilities.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 24 September 2017 7:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ttbn,

I do appreciate your explanations of where you're
coming from and why.

Being raised in a very conservative family I can
understand your point of view.

My younger brother is a Principal at a regional Catholic
School. He and his wife visited us in Melbourne recently
and inevitably we discussed same-sex marriage. His
views were that marriage is a sacrament. I won't say
anymore. This is an issue that will continue to be debated.
Hopefully however, we shall see less violent reactions to
this issue. I've stated in the past - nobody likes or
supports an illogical and abusive debater.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 September 2017 8:56:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if we've got all of this 'equality' aspect wrong: a contract may be between equals, but it would involve the exchange of disparate goods and/or services. A brick-maker doesn't exchange bricks with another brick-maker, but he/she would exchange bricks for money: equals, but contributing different factors to a contract, and undertaking different obligations: you get the bricks, he/she gets the money for them.

Same with a marriage, a contract between equals, but exchanging different services: if we go back sixty years or so, when men were assumed to be the bread-winners for their wives and prospective families, and perhaps for many decades, while the women - in those days before effective birth control - undertook to have the kids, look after the house and provide for the bloke's needs. i.e. 'equals' but having very different roles, with very different vulnerabilities. He had the career, she stayed home.

So marriages had to be very public - in fact, in societies around the world, the more vulnerable a wife may be, or become, the more public the ceremony had to be - to enforce the sense of permanence and indissolubility of the union, to bind the bloke, and his family, to the union, exclusively and for life.

Then no-fault divorce and recognition of de facto relations were introduced, to lessen the dependent nature for women in marriage. In other words, the 'safer'or more secure a relationship might be for women in the eyes of the law, the less need there may be for marriage at all.

Just saying :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 24 September 2017 9:06:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Your suggestion that I am an "illogical and abusive debater" is hysterical, to say the least. There is nothing I can do, or wish to do, to convince you that I am not "illogical", or "abusive"; but I really baulk at being called a "debater". I do not debate. I express opinions. Unlike some others on Online OPINION, I am not trying to convince or convert; I am expressing my PERSONAL opinions. You, on the other hand, seem (to me) mainly interested in having the last say on everything, and your obsession with quoting Left wing sources clearly demonstrates your political bias, which yes, is the opposite to mine.

I don't really think that we have anything to say to each other any more. I am loath to compare anyone with AJ Philips, but I have to say that I will now ignore you a la Philips in future.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 24 September 2017 10:10:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe:

Which only highlights the real discrimination which is against de facto couples. SSM advocates claim there are advantages in relation to the government by getting married. Why shouldn't the same advantages be available to de facto couples? What is the difference between people who marry and those who remain in a de facto relationship? If there are no advantages then why get married at all? So it is either discrimination or stupidity.

Voting NO is a way of trying to put an end to this discrimination because it stops a bad situation from getting worse.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 24 September 2017 10:35:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ttbn,

I am afraid you have never shown good cause to put me in such a loathed category. I have always striven to provide clear and rational reasoning for my claims. That you may have difficulty defending your beliefs in light of the challenges I present you with is not a reflection on myself.

It is with regret that I remind you, too, that you can indeed be rather abusive. I remind you of the time you referred to o sung wu as a "knob-headed idiot" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7386#227967). Your last OLO incarnation seemed to go down in a fiery heap with a few posts deleted for abuse (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19626).

The irony of what your current nom de plume stands for (which is hardly surprising given how your last OLO incarnation went out) has been mentioned more than once, too, I am sorry to say.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 24 September 2017 10:39:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

A good reason as to why the same benefits should not be available to de facto couples, is because the parties to such a living arrangement may not yet be in agreement as to what rights and responsibilities they want in the relationship.

If a de facto couple do decide that they want the privileges that come with marriage, and the responsibilities that they entail, then they need only get married. But they may only do this if they are a male and a female, of course, which is where the discrimination comes in.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 24 September 2017 10:53:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

It is irrelevant what they decide - it is about what the government decides. The government apparently gives more advantages to married couples than they do to de facto couples. Why give any advantages to de facto couples at all unless you have a clear cut definition of what constitutes a de facto couple and clearly the government has such a definition.

Why are there differences in rights between those under the government definition of a married couple and those under the government definition of a de facto couple?
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 24 September 2017 11:39:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ttbn,

Kindly re-read my previous post.

I was not referring to you when I mentioned
the fact that nobody likes or supports an illogical
and abusive debater. It was a generalisation that
I added after stating that
hopefully violence would not continue with the debate
of this issue. I honestly did not have you in
mind. Why would you assume that I did when I was previously
telling you that I understood where you were coming
from and appreciated your explanations.

If you wish to have nothing further to do with me -
that is your choice. I have been on this forum
for over a decade and I've managed to live without you over
all those years. I dare say I will be able to struggle
along without you in the future
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 September 2017 2:56:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After getting a text message urging me to vote yes I will now collect another dozen discarded
ones and mail them in with a no vote.
Foxy
Why are you so opposed to violence?
The animal kingdom is ruled by violence.
We are animals.
Everything is ruled by violence.
If you don't send you kid to school the headmaster sends the truant officer to coerce you to do so.
If you don't he turns up with a policeman why tells you to do so.
If you refuse he arrests you. If you resist he uses violence to arrest you and if you are too
strong for him he shoots you dead with his gun.
Surely this is violence.
Every law in this country is backed up with a threat of violence for compliance right to the point of killing citizens.
Don't preach non violence to me Foxy. You would soon enough look to people like me to use
violence to protect you or your family, or is that somehow different.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Sunday, 24 September 2017 3:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris,

You asked why I am opposed to violence?
What a peculiar question. But I shall
briefly try to explain:

My family members
were survivors of a very brutal regime.
They lived through difficult times and their
eyes saw what no people should witness, including having
their family members tortured and brutally
killed. As a result my parents stressed the importance
to their children of - behaving decently.

As far as violence and police-work goes.
I have a relative who was in the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD). He's now retired.
He's been awarded quite a few medals of valour - to
my knowledge it was for saving people - not killing
them.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 September 2017 4:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

Dear Chris,

BTW: You should know that the scenario you spoke of
regarding school-children and truancy - is not
an experience that my family has ever gone through. Both my
boys finished tertiary education and are now happily
employed and family men. Also I don't encounter violence
in my everyday life - nor have I had any dealings with
the police. Hopefully that situation will continue.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 September 2017 4:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris,

One more thing...

The violence that was being discussed here has
to do with the man who head-butted Mr Abbott.

Is that something that you would condone seeing
as you seem to be so pro-violence?
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 24 September 2017 4:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi, Foxy

Chris once claimed on this forum that in his copper days, he took great pride in catching "poofters" and as "punishment" threw then into the Parramatta River. I have a long memory.

Chris collect a million of these surveys if you wish, and plaster the lavatory walls with them, I don't think the "poofters" would give a toss what you do.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 24 September 2017 8:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I believe I had provided a reason for this in my last post to you.

<<Why are there differences in rights between those under the government definition of a married couple and those under the government definition of a de facto couple?>>

De facto couples, not necessarily having made a pledge of any sort, cannot be assumed to have identical rights and responsibilities to married couples, who have made a pledge. De facto couples can remedy this by getting married, but only if they are a male and a female, which again is where the discrimination comes in.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 7:07:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Thanks for reminding me about the fact that
Chris was/is a police officer. With his pro-
violence stance, that is more than a bit of a concern.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 25 September 2017 7:32:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

The type of relationships we are comparing are based on love and not on pledges.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 7:58:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Well, it is not always going to be the case that the relationships to which we refer are based on love.

<<The type of relationships we are comparing are based on love and not on pledges.>>

But even assuming that they are all based on love, this still does not negate the important distinction I have made between the two forms of relationship: a distinction in which pledges (i.e. marriage) can resolve the uncertainties inherent to de facto living arrangements. Uncertainties that make affording de facto couples the same rights, and expecting of them the same responsibilities, unreasonable.

I refer you back to the possible differing circumstances of which I spoke at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#241165
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 8:14:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

Your definition of a de facto couple does not comply with the government definition. You should address your objections to the government definition of de facto couples since it is government distribution of rights we are talking about.

Why can't de facto couples also make pledges? Is marriage the only form of 'pledge'. That sounds discriminatory.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 8:34:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I was not aware that I had provided much of a definition of ‘de facto’.

<<Your definition of a de facto couple does not comply with the government definition.>>

Nevertheless, the federal government defines a de facto relationship per s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01106

I am not sure how what I have said conflicts with this definition, though.

<<You should address your objections to the government definition of de facto couples since it is government distribution of rights we are talking about.>>

If you could inform me of where the conflict lies, I may indeed do that. I do not see a problem with their definition as it stands, however.

<<Why can't de facto couples also make pledges?>>

They can. If they would like to have legal recognition of that pledge, then they can achieve that by getting married. If, however, the couple has some strange aversion to the concept of marriage, then they can have lawyers assist them in drawing up contracts to mimic the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage, or have it tailored to their wants and needs if they so desire.

Considering the sheer costs involved in attaining the latter, however, they would need to be rather passionate about their refusal to get married.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 9:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

Why should government rights be dependent on making a pledge? How does such a pledge make a relationship any more deserving of government advantages? Pledges prove nothing about the relationship nor are they in any way binding. Any two people can make marriage pledges without meaning it so how does the government prove that such pledges are in any way genuine.

What pledges in particular do you have in mind?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 9:19:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I am not sure how else it could be done.

<<Why should government rights be dependent on making a pledge?>>

Do you have something else in mind?

<<How does such a pledge make a relationship any more deserving of government advantages?>>

Because it demonstrates an agreement to certain terms and conditions, as would a custom set of contracts drawn up by with the assistance of a lawyer.

<<Pledges prove nothing about the relationship nor are they in any way binding.>>

Not by themselves, no. This is why signatures are required.

<<Any two people can make marriage pledges without meaning it so how does the government prove that such pledges are in any way genuine.>>

They do not need to. The government only requires the signatures to enforce the pledge. If the pledge was not genuine, then the parties should not have signed the paperwork.

<<What pledges in particular do you have in mind?>>

Well, contracts: marriage or otherwise. I am not sure how that was in any way unclear.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 9:50:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Paul1405,
"I don't think the poofters would give a toss what you do."

- I dunno hey, I reckon they'd go full Nazi on anyone just for wearing a vote 'No' badge. They think they're justified in acting that way because they believe everyone else is already a Nazi towards them + they're mentally deranged and have no ethics or principles of decency.

But hey I'm not the one openly showing signs saying 'Burn Churches' or teaching Grade 4 kids about oral and anal sex.

What exactly would happen to me I protested with signage saying 'Burn Synagogues' or 'Burn Mosques'.

Don't act all innocent, your mob are the ones organising, promoting and resorting to violence.
...Headbutting the ex PM pretty much spells out the ideology of the people on your side of the fence.
No offense.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 25 September 2017 10:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“Do you have something else in mind?”

By using the definition of a de facto couple for all couples married or de facto. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government which should be their intention.

If marriage is a contract between the couple and the government what is in it for the government? If the couple break their ‘contract’ then how does that impinge upon the government in any way? Why would the government insist on a contract when there is nothing to be lost or gained by them?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 11:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

The problem with this suggestion of yours is that it removes any element of certainty.

<<By using the definition of a de facto couple for all couples married or de facto. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government which should be their intention.>>

I would invite you to read s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975. It is somewhat vague and leaves much discretion to judges, who may decide that certain elements were not fulfilled even though they may have been. Nor is it of any use in emergency situations.

<<If marriage is a contract between the couple and the government what is in it for the government?>>

Marriage is a contract between the married couple, not the couple and the government. The State merely has jurisdiction over the contract, just as the Judiciary has jurisdiction over other contractual arrangements.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 11:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“Nor is it of any use in emergency situations.”

So in emergency situations they just let members of a de facto couple die? What if you don’t have your marriage certificate on you when there is an emergency? Do they demand proof? Why should de facto couples be punished in this way? Sounds very inhuman to me. You would have de facto couples marry just so they can receive equal treatment in emergencies?

If marriage is a contract between two people then why does the government need to be involved? They are not involved in every other contract that happens between two people why this one in particular? Why do they need to be the brokers of such contracts?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 12:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I am not sure how your good self could derive such a question from what I have said.

<<So in emergency situations they just let members of a de facto couple die?>>

No, I’m sure the next of kin would be contacted, which may be an immediate family member. But you would need to clarify what type of situation you are referring to. Not all emergency situations require life-saving decisions from the partner or next-of-kin.

<<What if you don’t have your marriage certificate on you when there is an emergency?>>

Identification may be requested. Usually word of mouth is enough, though. If a de facto partner lied, however, then they could face serious charges later on.

<<Do they demand proof?>>

I think identification is may be requested in certain situations. Until you specify a precise scenario, though, I cannot comment too much; and even then, this is not my area of law. I would recommend you contact someone who specialises in family law, if you are concerned.

<<Why should de facto couples be punished in this way?>>

It is not a punishment. The reason for the discretion is because not all de facto couples have agreed to the rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage.

‘De facto’ is a very broad category of relationship. It ranges from a pair of horny teenagers who have shacked up together coz mum and dad suck and they wanna smoke weed, to a couple committed for life. Marriage is a universal and standardised means of promptly communicating the difference in a way that is immediately recognisable to everyone, which is why it is discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples the right, and why your suggested alternative would not be workable.

<<You would have de facto couples marry just so they can receive equal treatment in emergencies?>>

Yes, I would, and for the reasons stated above.

<<If marriage is a contract between two people then why does the government need to be involved?>>

Because they are the only ones who can legislate for it, as is the case for any statute-governed contract.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 12:58:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

That is enough ‘whack-a-mole’ for now. It is plainly obvious that you do not believe in justice for couples other than married ones. You do not believe any other couple should be treated by the government with the same advantages simply and for no other reason that they do not possess a government issued marriage certificate.

You want everyone to marry in order to get what they should have a right to. You want justice to be conditional upon the possession of a marriage licence and justice should never be conditional.

However it is not marriage that you are seeking to protect. You argue for the condition of marriage to be protected so that there is an argument in favour of same-sex marriage. Of course your advocacy for SSM is not based on any concern for homosexuals but rather you concern to punish Christians.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 1:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Thank you for the discussion. I feel we made more ground by maintaining civil in that last round of exchanges than we ever have before.

<<It is plainly obvious that you do not believe in justice for couples other than married ones.>>

As I had stated earlier, if de facto couples want the same rights as married couples, then they need only marry. I do not think this is too much to ask for, given the need to differentiate between the untoward pair of hypothetical teenagers I mentioned and the couple committed for life. Not to mention the ramifications of not correctly differentiating between the two in certain situations.

<<You want everyone to marry in order to get what they should have a right to.>>

But not all should have the right to the same privileges. I refer you back to my hypothetical, untoward pair of teenagers.

<<You want justice to be conditional upon the possession of a marriage licence and justice should never be conditional.>>

Indeed, justice should never be conditional. Which is why I think same-sex couples should have access to the option of marriage.

<<However it is not marriage that you are seeking to protect.>>

Indeed it is. I think the option of marriage is important for the purposes of equity. For if marriage did not exist, poorer couples, who could not afford lawyers, would be at a disadvantage.

<<Of course your advocacy for SSM is not based on any concern for homosexuals but rather you concern to punish Christians.>>

I have not mentioned Christianity at all. Please remember that I had addressed this concern of yours at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844&page=0#242441. Had this been my motivation, one would think that I would find it irresistible to mention Christianity in my arguments, yet I never seem to.

Remember, too, that I had recently challenged you to remain civil because I suspected that the weaknesses in your position compelled you to rely on the eventual use of ad hominems. Please do not be in a rush to prove me right.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 1:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Phanto,

Maybe a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, overseen and celebrated by the State via its celebrants, and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

AJ, some de facto couples are already married to others, so another marriage would breach bigamy legislation. It's a funny old world.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 25 September 2017 2:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“As I had stated earlier, if de facto couples want the same rights as married couples, then they need only marry. I do not think this is too much to ask for, given the need to differentiate between the untoward pair of hypothetical teenagers I mentioned and the couple committed for life. Not to mention the ramifications of not correctly differentiating between the two in certain situations.”

This is deeply offensive to de facto couples to reduce them to comparisons with two ‘horny teenagers’. De facto couples can be as deeply committed as married couples and even more so in millions of cases and yet you would deny them the same rights because they do not want to be considered as a married couple.

It shows how cruel you are and how desperate you are to elevate marriage above all other relationships just to score points against Christians.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 4:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, it would be a real surprise for the bride to find out some time after the bridezilla event, that her husband's gay love interest prior or continuing :( had surfaced and is making a claim on the marriage assets.

The point is however that SSM already exists through Common Law Marriage, even if Gillard's feminist idealism granted married status but baulked at the marriage word, as in Common Law Marriage.

What about a new title of Clayton's Marriage? Beaut for the opportunist middle class and inner city Hip. Which is where you want the married benefits, especially of public employment eg being a pollie and you want any assets going from your 'partner' too, but those tedious, old-fashioned, definitely NOT 'Progressive', requirements of the Marriage Act are getting in your road somehow?

Hey, already 99% there already, thanks to Gillard et al. Bigamy is s too at least where making a claim under the Family Law Act is concerned and that is what it is all about isn't it, the money?
Posted by leoj, Monday, 25 September 2017 5:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

I apologise for any offense I may have caused you.

<<This is deeply offensive to de facto couples to reduce them to comparisons with two ‘horny teenagers’.>>

However, I was not referring to all de facto couples there. The untoward teenagers I described were merely one extreme end of a very broad spectrum of relationships captured by the ‘de facto’ category. I believe this should have been rather obvious, as I had contrasted them with the committed de facto couple.

<<De facto couples can be as deeply committed as married couples …>>

Indubitably. Which is why I described life-long committed couples as examples of the other end of the spectrum. I trust this reminder eases any offence caused.

<<.. and yet you would deny them the same rights because they do not want to be considered as a married couple.>>

No, I would deny them the same rights because a line needs to be drawn somewhere, for the reasons already mentioned. Alternatively, perhaps the couple could duck down to the registry office quietly to sign the papers and not tell anyone about the marriage? I am not aware of any couples who are quite so averse to getting married, though. There are a lot of people who do not want to do a lot of things, but it is not practical to allow for every possible quirk individuals may have. Exceptions are generally made in the case of religious convictions, however.

<<It shows how cruel you are and how desperate you are to elevate marriage above all other relationships just to score points against Christians.>>

It is indeed most disheartening to hear that I have come across to you as cruel. You sound very upset at the moment.

Regarding point scoring and Christians, if you could enlighten me as to what it is that I have done to cause you to have such concerns, I would be more than happy to explain my behaviour.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 25 September 2017 6:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“I apologise for any offense I may have caused you.”

What makes you think you caused me any offence? It is very dishonest to apologise for things you have not done and you do not know you have caused offence. Apologies are only meaningful when you know you have done something wrong and not when you may have done something wrong.

So if de facto couples range from two horny teenagers to deeply committed couples how does the government decide which couples on that spectrum it will distribute advantages to? It does distribute rights and advantages to de facto couples – almost as many as to married couples. As you say there needs to be a line so where is the line for de facto couples? It would not be at the two horny teenager end of the scale so why do you need to mention that end of the scale. Why not compare the point on the scale where governments give rights to de facto couples to the rights given to married couples? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable?

“Alternatively, perhaps the couple could duck down to the registry office quietly to sign the papers and not tell anyone about the marriage?”

But that would be a lie and make a sham of the whole marriage ceremony. Surely there is more to being married for the couple than partaking in a sham. Why would you have people perform a sham ceremony to get their rights when you can give them to them without compromise to their integrity?

“It is indeed most disheartening to hear that I have come across to you as cruel.”

That is a very dishonest thing to say. Why would it be disheartening to you how you come across? It only matters what you are and either you are cruel or you are not.

“You sound very upset at the moment”

Where is the evidence that I am upset? Even if I were upset what makes you think it has anything to do with your behaviour? Not everything is about you.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 25 September 2017 9:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

<<What makes you think you caused me any offence?>>

Your stating that my words were deeply offensive, in a tone that deteriorated suddenly.

<<Apologies are only meaningful when you know you have done ...>>

They may also be meaningful if one suspects one has caused offence.

<<… how does the government decide which couples on that spectrum it will distribute advantages to?>>

The government does not discriminate.

<<… where is the line for de facto couples?>>

There is only one type of de facto couple.

<<… why do you need to mention [the untoward teenagers’] end of the scale.>>

To explain how broad the category is.

<<Why not compare the point on the scale where governments give rights to de facto couples to the rights given to married couples?>>

There is no such point. The untoward teenage couple may be treated the same as the de facto couple committed for life. Any difference is left to the discretion of judges, for each individual case.

<<Why would you have people perform a sham ceremony to get their rights when you can give them to them without compromise to their integrity?>>

Because, as you seem to agree, a line must be drawn somewhere. If you disagree with where the line is currently drawn, then I would suggest that you contact your local MP.

<<Why would it be disheartening to you how you come across?>>

Because some do not want to be seen as cruel.

<<It only matters what you are and either you are cruel or you are not.>>

Ultimately, yes, but we still need to exist with those who have negative perceptions of us. No-one lives in a bubble.

<<Where is the evidence that I am upset?>>

The evidence is the sudden deterioration of your tone, and the words chosen to describe my actions.

<<Even if I were upset what makes you think it has anything to do with your behaviour?>>

Because I give you enough credit to assume that you are not letting outside matters colour the tone you use with me.

<<Not everything is about you.>>

Indubitably.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 7:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow! Heading for 200 posts on this one, most of which have nothing to do with the topic introduced by the bloke who can't spell his own 'name'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 9:18:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ttbn,

Did he mean copric embarrassment, or coprological emmbarasmment, or what ? And what might that mean in the context of homosexual relations ? Farts of passion ?

Is it possible to be unmarried and happy ? Of course.

Is it possible to be madly in love, and stay unmarried ? Yes, of course.

If marriage is supposed to be between equals, then who is the provider and who is the homemaker, or the 'spouse' ? If one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, should the survivor get a pension, as the widow ? What if the deceased is already married, but to a person of the opposite sex ?

Hmmmm ..... what happens in such cases where the deceased has had another long-term homosexual relationship before his current one ? Who gets the benefits of the distribution of assets after his/her death ? Who gets the pension benefits ?

Is it possible for a homosexual to have been legally married but not divorced, and also to have been in a long-term relationship with another homosexual, maybe more than one such relationship, before their current relationship ? Who gets the goodies in such circumstances ? Do all of the 'spouses' share ?

If a homosexual has been married but not divorced, and enters into a homosexual relationship, would they have to get divorced, or would heterosexual and homosexual marriages be treated as different in law ?

Or is much of all of this already covered by legislation relating to de facto arrangements ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 9:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“Your stating that my words were deeply offensive”

I said they were deeply offensive to de facto couples why would you assume that they would be offensive to me?

“They may also be meaningful if one suspects one has caused offence”.

No that doesn’t make sense. You would have to be sure you have caused offence and that you intended to cause offence or else it is meaningless. Why would you apologise unless you were sure you had done something wrong? That would be very undignified. Why would you have such a poor sense of integrity?

“The government does not discriminate.”

Well it does and there is nothing wrong with that. It does not give rights and advantages to everyone on the continuum as described by you. It has definite criteria which must be met.

“There is only one type of de facto couple.”

Not according to the government. Check out the Centrelink definition of a couple it runs for several pages.
Why shouldn’t those who fit this definition be given the same rights and privileges as married couples?

“To explain how broad the category is.”

We agree that it is broad but not everyone on that broad continuum is eligible for government rights and privileges so it makes no sense to focus on how broad it is. It only makes sense to focus on the section of the continuum to which the government gives rights and privileges.

“There is no such point”

There is such a point. There is a definition of a de facto couple which the government has in order to determine Centrelink benefits. Why can’t this definition be used to define couples who are entitled to the benefits that married people are entitled to?

cont.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 9:57:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont.

“Because, as you seem to agree, a line must be drawn somewhere. If you disagree with where the line is currently drawn, then I would suggest that you contact your local MP.”

But why do YOU think it should be drawn at married people? Why should people be forced to make promises to have and to hold until death they shall part and to say all those other things pertaining to marriage just in order to obtain basic human rights?

“Because some do not want to be seen as cruel.”

But why does it bother you in particular since you are the one objecting?

“Ultimately, yes, but we still need to exist with those who have negative perceptions of us. No-one lives in a bubble.”

But that’s not living with much integrity if you behave according to what others want you to do.

“The evidence is the sudden deterioration of your tone, and the words chosen to describe my actions.”

I called you cruel. That is not a change in tone it is a statement of opinion. Where else is their evidence of a change in tone?

“Because I give you enough credit to assume that you are not letting outside matters colour the tone you use with me.”

See above in regard to tone.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:00:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Did he mean copric embarrassment, or coprological emmbarasmment, or what ?//

I think he might have actually meant cupric, an old-fashioned bit of chemical terminology referring to copper in the (II) oxidation state - but nobody uses it anymore, you just say copper(II) instead. I think his name was supposed to be some sort of reference to Malcolm's shite fibre-to-the-node NBN.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. If you ask me, that bloke wasn't in possession of all his marbles. He seems to have wandered off now anyway.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:02:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

<<… why would you assume that they would be offensive to me?>>

I did not, necessarily. Note my wording “… may have caused you.”

<<You would have to be sure you have caused offence and that you intended to cause offence or else it is meaningless.>>

Why can not one apologise for any offence that they suspect they may have caused, for there to be any meaning?

<<Why would you apologise unless you were sure you had done something wrong?>>

As a contingency measure.

<<[The government] does not give rights and advantages to everyone on the [de facto] continuum as described by you.>>

It does per its definition of de facto as outlined in s 4AA of the Family Law Act, which also captures the hypothetical teenagers of which I spoke.

<<Check out the Centrelink definition of a couple it runs for several pages.>>

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/your-relationship-status

I am not sure how this changes anything I have said. The teenagers are still treated the same as the life-long committed de facto couple, as far as I can see.

<<Why shouldn’t those who fit this definition be given the same rights and privileges as married couples?>>

Because they have not formally agreed to the terms and conditions.

<<It only makes sense to focus on the section of the continuum to which the government gives rights and privileges.>>

And how does the government define this section separely from the Family Law Act? How do the hypothetical teenage couple not qualify?

<<Why should people be forced to make promises …>>

This is expected of all parties entering contracts entailing rights and responsibilities.

<<But why does it bother you in particular …>>

“Because [I] do not want to be seen as cruel.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926#245780)

<<But that’s not living with much integrity if you behave according to what others want you to do.>>

I did not suggest that anyone should, myself included.

<<I called you cruel. That is not a change in tone it is a statement of opinion.>>

That was indeed one such example, as neither of us had engaged in name-calling before that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:38:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a very slow learner, and it's just hit me that something might be legal, we can support its legality, but we don't have to like it. I can't stand slow drivers (unless it's me teasing one of those big-arse 4-WDs, by weaving slowly all over the road - it drives them CRAZY ! Try it !) but I'll defend their right to use the road. There's legal, and there's desirable.

Maybe getting over this morning's hangover (well, it IS Tuesday) showed me that, while I support the right to drink to excess, since it's legal, I don't necessarily like its consequences. Nor do I like even the idea of drinking sweet sherry, ghastly stuff.

So I'll come out of the closet and admit that although I support its legality, I find poking some other bloke up the arse with one's member is distasteful and repulsive, but that I don't have to like it, nobody does. People should be free to do it if they wish, but nobody else has to go all gushy over it.

Just saying.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 11:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

So the rights are dependent on life-long commitment? Why would anyone want to make a life-long commitment to stay in a relationship with another person? Moreover, why would anyone want another person to make that commitment to them?

Relationships do not stay the same and people change. Every human being has a right to come and go in or out of any relationship they choose. To forgo that right would be to do a serious injury to one’s fundamental right to happiness. Why does the government make the distribution of rights dependent on a commitment that threatens one’s fundamental right to happiness?

Why would any person sign a contract that could commit them to a life of misery and why would the government insist on this before it distributes rights?

Your criteria is obviously commitment and not only commitment but public commitment before the state but this flies in the face of everyone’s fundamental right to happiness. You see this as a contract but it is not a contract that anyone with any sense of self-respect would enter into.

This is not to say that it is not possible to spend a life time together in happiness but that is a day to day proposition. Why would you commit to a life-long commitment without knowing what may eventuate in the future? That would be an absurd act of violence upon oneself.

Why should this act of violence upon one’s self be the criteria for obtaining government benefits? Surely de facto couples have a much more human attitude to relationships and deserve to be given the same rights as those who have so little regard for their own well-being.

Joe:

I think it is distasteful and repulsive to homosexuals as well but they would never admit it.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 11:47:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

That has traditionally been one of the premises behind marriage, at least.

<<So the rights are dependent on life-long commitment?>>

There has been talk of changing this with the introduction of fixed-term marriages.

<<Why would anyone want to make a life-long commitment to stay in a relationship with another person?>>

Because they love each other deeply. I am sorry if you have never experienced such a love before.

<<Moreover, why would anyone want another person to make that commitment to them?>>

Because they love that person too.

<<Relationships do not stay the same and people change.>>

Indubitably. This is one of the challenges of marriage.

<<Every human being has a right to come and go in or out of any relationship they choose.>>

Correct. This is the reason for no-fault divorce.

<<To forgo that right would be to do a serious injury to one’s fundamental right to happiness.>>

I agree. Some more conservative types do not, however.

<<Why does the government make the distribution of rights dependent on a commitment that threatens one’s fundamental right to happiness?>>

It does not. Divorce is legal.

<<Your criteria is obviously commitment …>>

A commitment to certain rights and responsibilities at least, yes. But it matters not what I think.

<<Why would you commit to a life-long commitment without knowing what may eventuate in the future?>>

Out of love.

<<Why should this act of violence upon one’s self be the criteria for obtaining government benefits?>>

Well, I would disagree that it is an act of violence. But I think, more important than the “life long” bit, is the agreement to certain rights and responsibilities; for so long as the marriage lasts, at least.

<<Surely de facto couples have a much more human attitude to relationships and deserve to be given the same rights as those who have so little regard for their own well-being.>>

Perhaps, assuming that your premises are accurate, that is. But, then, we just come back to the problem of how we differentiate between the hypothetical teenagers and the committed de facto couple.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 12:08:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“ I am sorry if you have never experienced such a love before.”

That is a very arrogant attitude. Is that one of your forbidden ad hominums? You have absolutely no idea what I have or have not experienced.

So two horny teenagers can pop down to the registry and get married and immediately have all the same rights that a married couple who have been together for fifty years. They promise to be committed but have no intention of honouring such a commitment. Still they get all the rights because they have signed the contract.

A de facto couple who have been together for fifty years have no power of attorney and no rights of property unless they front the Family Court. The horny teenagers win by a mile and you call this justice?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 1:30:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear phanto,

Arrogance is the exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.

<<That is a very arrogant attitude.>>

I do not see how one could interpret an expressed sorrow over another’s apparent lack of experience in a particular area as “arrogant”.

<<Is that one of your forbidden ad hominums?>>

No, it is not.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

<<You have absolutely no idea what I have or have not experienced.>>

Indeed I do not. However, if you express bewilderment at how anyone could want to spend the rest of their life with someone else, then this suggests that you may not have ever fallen in love before.

<<So two horny teenagers can pop down to the registry and get married and immediately have all the same rights that a married couple who have been together for fifty years.>>

Yes, if that is was they choose.

<<They promise to be committed but have no intention of honouring such a commitment.>>

If they sign the paperwork, then who are we to decide if they are worthy? We cannot read the minds of others, after all. We can, however, expect of them all the responsibilities that come with marriage regardless.

<<Still they get all the rights because they have signed the contract.>>

That is correct, yes. Because they have agreed to the rights and responsibilities.

<<A de facto couple who have been together for fifty years have no power of attorney and no rights of property unless they front the Family Court.>>

Correct, and perhaps not even then. They could also get married, though.

<<The horny teenagers win by a mile and you call this justice?>>

So long as no-one is preventing the de facto couple from marrying (as is the case with same-sex couples), yes, I do, however unfortunate that may sound.

As any conservative will be quick to remind you, we all make choices in life.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 2:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Tony Abbott's daughter Frances has opened up about her support for marriage equality in a candid interview on behalf of the 'Vote Yes' campaign"

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/26/same-sex-marriage-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-appears-new-yes-campaign-video
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 7:13:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Being raised with a politician as dad and being fed on state-salary, no wonder that young Frances cannot think outside the square, that it is possible to marry without involving a government.

Perhaps the first sign of independence: for the first time dad says black - and she says white.

While it may feel great, this is still not independent thinking, only the first step - but she will grow!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 9:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

When it comes to marriage, the reality is the government giveth, the government taketh away, not the church, not the boys scouts. not the CWA or the RSL, not even the AFL, unbelievably but true. If one wants to have a say when it comes to marriage, as far as Australia is concerned, one must communicate with the government. The government for reasons of their own choice have decided that, that communication should be in the form of a yes/no survey. If you want those in authority to recognise your marriage then you have to deal with the government.

Supposing I disagree with governments involvement in marriage, and the issuing passports, an invasion of privacy, so my independent thinking tells me. Our good friend Dolly has conducted a "marriage ceremony" for my new wife and I, nothing to do with the government, being solely between us three. We no longer consider ourselves Paul and Betty, we had Dolly bestow new names. I am now Gertrude, and Betty is now Bob. We want to honeymoon overseas in Bongostan. We want to leave the country as Gertrude and Bob, not Paul and Betty. If we don't deal with the government to obtain a passport in our married names, how do we get to honeymoon in Bongostan?

My point is, even if we do not agree, at times reality dictates we must abandon our personal convictions for the sack of the real world situation. Do you agree?

Then if you do agree, this does not necessarily apply in every case.

no wonder that young Frances cannot think outside the square, that it is possible to marry without involving a government.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 3:21:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In short, EVERYTHING in a liberal democratic society is politicised, just like it is in totalitarian regimes. Lenin envisioned that communism would barely touch society: things would be run by the people, and the politics would be so peripheral, so light, that it could be run by a "house maid". We know how long that idea lasted.

The same thing that happened with communism is now happening with democracy - since liberalism was added. The answer to failing communism was more communism. So too with 'freedom' and 'tolerance', more freedom and tolerance is prescribed. We are 'coerced' to be freer and more tolerant by government. It is not homosexuals in the case of SSM who are pushing the bandwagon: it is government. Freedom and tolerance is the only way. Nothing else works. Keep on pushing.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 6:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Government does not and cannot giveth marriage, nor can it take it away. All it can and does is to give and take a piece of paper and some status in its own artificial creations that comes with it (tax, superannuation, inheritance-law, welfare, control-over-hospital-policies, etc.).

«at times reality dictates we must abandon our personal convictions for the sack of the real world situation. Do you agree?»

Nothing requires us to abandon our personal convictions, only to act differently, outwardly and with contempt.

It is unfortunate and unjust that we are required to have passports if we want to leave this place. It is in fact unfortunate and unjust that we are even required by law to have names. Fortunately however, unlike some other countries, we are not required to legally marry in order to love, in order to communicate our love to our family and friends, in order to live together, in order to have conjugal relations or in order to have a honeymoon overseas.

Regarding communicating with government, what can a flea say to an elephant ("Get out of my way!")? All they allow us is answering in yes/no to a logically-flawed question. Unlike travelling without a passport, marriage of same-sex couples was never disallowed, so why legislate to allow it? It's a question akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife [Yes/No]?".

«If you want those in authority to recognise your marriage then you have to deal with the government.»

Why should I want that? If what I want of them matters at all, then all I want of them is to get lost!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 6:52:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu. I understand your point, and it is not unreasonable in some respects. In fact I agree, government is too intrusive, too invasive at times in peoples lives, and unnecessarily so. There is very little in our lives we can do as free thinkers, exercising individuality.

Under both Labor and the Coalition, government has increased its involvement in citizens personal lives, and that increase has necessitated a corresponding growth in the bureaucracy to oversee, regulate and administer that involvement, punish when seen as necessary, jail, fines etc. That also applies to state and local governments as well.

Is there a fix? If there is. its not going to come from government. What we need is a balance between necessary government intrusion, and the freedoms of the individual.

I want to walk naked down George Street in Sydney at 12 noon Friday. Can I? yes. Will I hurt anyone by doing that? no. Well, why am I getting arrested? I don't know. Can you explain?
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 9:01:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is about money. But singles, mainly students and young workers but in numbers scattered through society into old age, miss out.

The already well-off and entitled middle class are plundering public and private company entitlements pertaining to 'married' and 'partner' status. Also with a view to more easily getting their claws on large estates and superannuation.

While it is well worth it to them and their egos and selfishness would likely find anything alive as a prospect to mount, the less mortals, the herd get milkshake pay rises and are lumped with the prohibitive legal costs of divorce and the alienation that goes with the very long delays in the Federal Court.

It is anyone's guess when singles will be waking up to the vastly increased numbers and overheads of married benefits they subsidise in their workplace agreements and as taxpayers. 'Their' love, their squeezes, but single wage earners, mostly in lower paying, casualised jobs and with the higher costs of single life, have no choice, they are being forced to subsidise the advantaged 'marrieds'.

The rational vote, 'NO!' where singles are concerned is obvious, one would imagine.
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 9:21:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real inequity, the discrimination, is in free entitlements for 'married' status, off the backs of singles who are already much worse off. In housing for instance, where two do live much more cheaply than one and there are far more options.

The subsidisation of 'married' status comes from a situation long ago where, to take some examples, women had diminished opportunities, educational and vocational, there was no support for single mums and there was no female contraception pill. Also, after WW1 and WW2 there was the necessity to increase population rapidly, not that it was a problem with women having no Pill and no access to abortion. So women had many children and no access to reasonable conditions to survive if on their own.

In modern times the single household is common, women are not obliged to carry an unwanted pregnancy and they most likely have enjoyed better educational access especially to tertiary education and most likely earn more. On top of that mechanisation has destroyed and will continue to diminish the traditional male jobs that required strength. But even military jobs may now be secured, set aside, for women.

So where is the fairness, the equality, in trampling over singles' rights to have them subsidising the 'love' of marrieds, de facto (Common Law Marriage) and traditional marriage? Why should singles be stumping up to support married entitlements for Common Law Marriages for starters, the 'revolving doors' that are so often the environment and root cause of the lion's share of domestic violence and child neglect and abuse?

There is a host of 'wicked' subjects surrounding marriage and de facto that must be discussed before lumping the public with the limited yes or no vote. However whichever way it goes, 'NO!" is the only rational choice for singles who challenge the BS that is being spread by both sides.
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 1:13:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

«I want to walk naked down George Street in Sydney at 12 noon Friday. Can I? yes. Will I hurt anyone by doing that? no. Well, why am I getting arrested? I don't know. Can you explain?»

Sure you should be able to do this and it's wrong to arrest you.

The reason you get arrested, is that some government in the past (perhaps even back in England) received bribes from the textile industry. While there is no longer a textile industry here, the law remained and nobody can remember how exactly it came about...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 4:06:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

We both know that being naked in public, has nothing to do with the textile industry. Rather it has a lot to do with prudish Victorian attitudes of past elites, despite the fact it did not impact on them directly, other than the sight of naked bodies in public offending their sensibilities. These elites in their wisdom created laws to protect their prudish beliefs. and have their moral attitudes become the accepted norm. From the church pulpits they convinced the rest of society, the poor majority who had no say, that their moral attitudes was the correct one, and therefore their laws were justified. The same applied to other moral laws like vagrancy.

There is no difference with SSM laws. At one time the elite were so opposed to homosexuality that they made it a criminal offence and locked such undesirables in jail, as punishment. Today through the liberalisation of society, locking up is no longer acceptable, but prejudice still remains, now it requires a whole lot of argie-bargie of asking the vast majority if its okay to change a moral law which does not effect them anyway.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 28 September 2017 5:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

The elite were opposed to homosexuality ?! Don't you know anything about Victorian England ? One married for an heir, then - as long as it was done discreetly - both parties could shag around with whoever you like, hetero or homo ? Oscar Wilde's crime was to flaunt it: what sort of influence might that have on the lower classes ?

That raises the questions: Has homosexuality usually - not always, but usually - been a preference of the upper classes ? Did Marx approve of it, anywhere in his writings, even obliquely ? I don't think so.

Anyway, it's legal now, so

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 28 September 2017 10:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

I'm not sure of homosexuality being accepted by the
upper classes. Take the case of Prince George, Duke
of Kent, who was destined to become Australia's
Governor-General but when he died in mysterious
circumstances in a plane crash at the age of 39, the
man was simply air-brushed from royal history. No statue
was erected to him, no memorial bears his name.

Interesting.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 September 2017 10:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe and Foxy,

The upper class of Victorian England was full of people who had double standards when it came to morality. Openly prudish in the extreme, but privately they go up to all sorts of mischief. It didn't stop them from passing anti-homosexual laws.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 28 September 2017 11:39:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,

You refer to 'liberalisation' yet you are usually opposed to it, to economic liberalisaton for instance.

"Liberalization (or liberalisation) of the economy means to free it from direct or physical controls imposed by the government. This may be similar to deregulation" [Wikipedia]

But how in the world can Gillard's regulation of homosexual relationships and the proposed limitation under the reconstructed Marriage Act ever be construed as 'liberalisation'? It is arguably the reverse.

Lipstick on the pig doesn't change anything and nor does all of that rainbow bun ting and chanting 'equality'(sic). Up until Gillard's radical feminist tinkering with de facto 'relationships', homosexuals were adult enough and free as birds to resolve their break-ups and any belongings themselves. Now the Federal court is involved and public servants can deem a homosexual's relationship for him/her. They are also required under force of State violence and incarceration as required, to register their private relationships under some circumstances.

Liberalised? BS! But the already entitled and well-off gained, many being in sinecures in public employment and politics. So the abuse of the rights and finances of the less well off herd and the political capital of protesting was worth it you say.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 28 September 2017 12:23:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

I wonder, was it allowed to walk naked in public BEFORE the Victorian era? Since the Victorian elite was so double-faced as you noted yourself, how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?

It is obviously disgusting how a secular government, itself immoral to the core, attempts to impose morality (or its concept thereof) on others. This does not mean that morality does not exist, only that it is immorally enforced.

«There is no difference with SSM laws»

A correct analogy would be between laws that prohibit nudity and the laws that prohibited homosexual acts.

Existing law does not forbid homosexuals to marry, but rather denies them a government service. As that "service" is in fact a disservice, the right thing is to cancel it altogether, not to expand it.

---

Dear Leoj,

Yes, all references to personal relationships have no place in legislation: not only legal-marriage, but "de facto" too. Both should go out the window.

If for any reason you still want your relationship recognised by a public body, then register your relationship with a body that you can respect.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 September 2017 1:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

"how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?"

No more than I can prove there was no dirty deal with space aliens to make people wear clothing. Can you provide evidence that there was a dirty deal, with anybody?

On the question of fake morality as it relates to the SSM issue. I would not be surprised if many of those who are pushing the immoral aspect of homosexuality, and therefore demanding a "No" vote do not themselves engage in immoral acts, such as self masturbation, or havuing at sometime engaged with a prostitute. Something that the churches that condemn homosexual acts also condemn as being against gods law. Maybe those people are also double-faced as you put it.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 28 September 2017 8:51:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I wonder, was it allowed to walk naked in public BEFORE the Victorian era? Since the Victorian elite was so double-faced as you noted yourself, how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?//

Haven't you guys heard of Lady Godiva? Possibly just a myth, but an old and enduring story even if it is a load of cobblers. You should have a read, Yuyutsu - folktales are very instructive. Lady Godiva's story gives us a fairly good indication of the attitude towards public nudity at the time it was created. I won't give away any spoilers.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 28 September 2017 9:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a short announcement to make:

Following the abusive threat of Senator Bernardi to send robots to intrude on people in the privacy of their homes (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/cory-bernardi-behind-robocalls-to-urge-millions-to-vote-no/8998500), I no longer support the 'No' campaign and had I known in advance about Bernardi's repugnant intentions before I voted, I would have surely boycotted this survey.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 September 2017 1:43:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's big of you Yuyutsu, but I could not understand your logic for voting in the first place, given your stance on government intrusion in peoples private lives. You did give reasons why you voted.

The "No" campaign is equally intrusive as the "Yes" mob. One side wants the law a certain way, the other side wants it another way, but they both want a law.

I can't understand the logic of that joker, Senator David Leyonhjelm who claims he is for the rights of the individual. Despite that there is Leyonhielm a member of a political party sitting in the parliament making lots of new laws.

Takes this from the Liberal Democrats;

"The Government is comprised of politicians and public servants with no special insight or wisdom." Does that include Leyonhielm?

"it (Government} constantly tells us what is best for us and how to run our lives" Every time Leyonhielm votes yes for a new law, he does exactly that.

"The Liberal Democrats believe government have neither the expertise, nor the rights to tell people how to run their lives." If Leyonhielm actually believed that, he would not be in there doing exactly that.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 29 September 2017 4:54:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Call the Cory Hotline today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1weahou0k

//Following the abusive threat of Senator Bernardi to send robots to intrude on people in the privacy of their homes... I no longer support the 'No' campaign and had I known in advance about Bernardi's repugnant intentions before I voted, I would have surely boycotted this survey.//

I hear you, Yuyutsu. I hate being called by robots - especially if they're going to play me a recording of Cory. Apparently this guy is so out of touch with the Australian public that he doesn't know that EVERYBODY hates telemarketers and their ilk. This is why we have the 'Do Not Call' register - although what's the bet that Cory, in his hubris, will go ahead and ignore the register?

I don't mind the 'no' campaign advertising, leaflet dropping etc. I may disagree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it - unless they say through the medium to a telemarketing call, in which case they can go fornicate themselves.

For those of you who are as annoyed about this as Yuyutsu and myself, I propose engaging in a bit of direct democracy. Here are Cory's phone numbers (so good of him to provide them):

http://www.corybernardi.com/contact

Since Cory so fervently believes that we're all desperate to hear the sound of his whiny voice, I'm sure he'd be equally thrilled to receive lots of phone calls from people telling him their opinions on telemarketers.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 29 September 2017 7:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernadi’s decision to do the robocalls is a strange move given all the feigned outrage over the ‘Yes’ campaign’s text message.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 29 September 2017 7:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

«I could not understand your logic for voting in the first place, given your stance on government intrusion in peoples private lives.»

Mitigation. Preventing a bad situation from getting even worse.

Also a strategic vote, so that disappointed 'Yes' voters will turn instead against the whole institution of legal/state-sponsored marriage.

«The "No" campaign is equally intrusive as the "Yes" mob.»

Yes, I have learned about it yesterday and I'm sorry for helping them.

The means are at least as important as the goals!

«One side wants the law a certain way, the other side wants it another way, but they both want a law.»

Yes, but I was hoping that the disagreement between them can result in the cancellation, rather than the replacement of the current law.

«I can't understand the logic of that joker, Senator David Leyonhjelm who claims he is for the rights of the individual.»

To the best of my knowledge, the Liberal Democrats support individual freedoms, rather than rights.

When first entering office, Leyonhjelm promised that he will never support any legislation that further encumbers on individual freedoms or increase taxes. In practice, life is much more complicated and parliament is full with horse-trading/pork-barreling. What to do for example when government brings forward a new piece of legislation which repeals some restriction on the freedoms of 70% but imposes new restrictions on 10%? It's a very difficult situation and I wouldn't want to be doing that dirty work myself.

«"The Liberal Democrats believe government have neither the expertise, nor the rights to tell people how to run their lives."»

Yes, so do I, but they have only one representative in parliament, so it comes down again, to mitigation.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 September 2017 3:24:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy