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 > Article Comments > History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step > Comments

History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step : Comments

By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh and Chris Peppel, published 17/8/2017

Our own history calls the necessity of this plebiscite into question, and shows that a postal vote regarding marriage equality signals a new era in Australian plebiscites.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. ...
  14. 22
  15. 23
  16. 24
  17. All
Jayb,

My thoughts and hopes are with your grandson.
I am so sorry you and your loved ones have to go through this suffering.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 27 August 2017 10:13:54 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
Phillips says“ I enclosed my alteration in square brackets to make it clear that it was my edit” Yes, so if I want to edit your dishonest posts, I just put square brackets around the edits. I cannot do that, or I would be as dishonest as you, with your unjustified “edits”. Learn the rules, Phillips, instead of making up your own..
You say: ”You are yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty on my part.”
No there are always plural instances, the starting point being your dishonest assertion that perverts have any factor which entitles them to any status or consideration in relation to marriage, which is a relationship between a man and a woman.
Whatever the relationship between perverts is, it is not marriage, and there is no basis to assert that it should be, despite the vicious, lying political wing of the perverts ensuring that the perverted, and unnamed relationships are nonsensically referred to as “same sex marriage, despite there obviously being no such relationship, as you have already admitted, with the irrelevant rider,”not now, not in Australia.
Just as relevant would be the effect on the debate when it is disclosed that the perverts fabricated the case against George Pell..
Your assertion that you have answered the fact that perverts have no status in regard to marriage is ridiculous. You say:” That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.”
On that basis, camel jockeys who are not mentioned in legislation relating to surf life saving are suffering discrimination. That is quite stupid, even for you. Perhaps you meant it in a dishonest, rather than a stupid way. Please clarify.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 August 2017 10:36:50 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
Not if the alteration you make is dishonest, Leo Lane.

<<Yes, so if I want to edit your dishonest posts, I just put square brackets around the edits.>>

Meanwhile, I’ll sit back and enjoy watching you flounder around the place trying to come up with a reason as to why my edit is dishonest.

This should be fun.

Incidentally, you are still yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty from me.

<<I cannot do that, or I would be as dishonest as you ...>>

You can if it’s honest and done for the sake of clarity.

<<Learn the rules, Phillips, instead of making up your own..>>

And what are these rules you speak of? Sounds to me like you’re the one making up rules.

<<… your dishonest assertion that [gay people] have any factor which entitles them to any status or consideration in relation to marriage, which is a relationship between a man and a woman.>>

And why can’t it be one between two members of the same sex?

<<Whatever the relationship between [gay people] is, it is not marriage …>>

So, why can’t it ever be marriage? Because your god says so? Good luck demonstrating that!

<<… and there is no basis to assert that it should be …>>

Yes, there is: equality.

<<Just as relevant would be the effect on the debate when it is disclosed that the [gay people] fabricated the case against George Pell..>>

Ooo, did they? A conspiracy theory! I loves meself a good conspiracy! Do tell.

<<You say:” That fact that it does not apply to their relationships is what is discriminatory. It does not have to actively treat them in any way, in order to discriminate.”>>

Indeed, I do.

<<On that basis, camel jockeys who are not mentioned in legislation relating to surf life saving are suffering discrimination.>>

No, because camel jockeys are not prevented from being surf life-savers based on the fact that they are camel jockeys. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from becoming surf life-savers.

You’re analogy is as stupid as it is irrelevant.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 27 August 2017 11:08:58 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
Jayb, hope your grandson is doing well.
Did the driver get charged with any "offences", relating to passengers in the back?

This is what the "safe at all costs" nanny-staters forget: Risk and uncertainty are a part of life. So is free will (or it used to be).

Just because something is desirable, doesn't mean it should be *compulsory*, just because something is undesirable doesn't mean you should ban it.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 28 August 2017 8:32:27 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
Phillips says:” because camel jockeys are not prevented from being surf life-savers based on the fact that they are camel jockeys. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from becoming surf life-savers.”
Right, and perverts are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are perverts. Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.
Your assertion of marriage inequality is therefore baseless and dishonest.
A relationship of perverts is not marriage, so they are not excluded from marriage.They cannot marry each other, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
What they wish to do is not to marry, but to destroy the institution of marriage, and hi-jack the name for something which is not marriage.
Understandably, your support for this travesty has to be dishonest, because there is no honest basis for its support. That explains your dishonesty, but does not excuse it.
“Marriage inequality” is an outright, baseless lie.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 August 2017 8:52:23 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
You are yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts, Leo Lane.

<<Right, and [gay people] are not prevented from being married based on the fact that they are perverts.>>

But, you’re right there. The Marriage Act, nor the common law, make any reference to perversion.

<<Nor is there any legislation or common law preventing them from being married.>>

Yes, there is. The Howard government amended the Marriage Act in 1996 to specify a man and a woman. This was done to reflect the common law.

<<Your assertion of marriage inequality is therefore baseless and dishonest.>>

No, it’s not. Gay people are not allowed to marry. That’s inequality right there.

<<A relationship of perverts is not marriage, so they are not excluded from marriage.>>

Again, you are yet to demonstrate that they are perverts.

<<They cannot marry each other, because marriage is between a man and a woman.>>

In Australia currently, yes. But there is no reason why this cannot change.

<<What they wish to do is not to marry, but to destroy the institution of marriage, and hi-jack the name for something which is not marriage.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that their intent is sinister, or that their relationships can never constitute a marriage. Go on, give it a go without appealing to a god. I’d like to see how you do that.

<<“Marriage inequality” is an outright, baseless lie.>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 August 2017 9:02:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. ...
  14. 22
  15. 23
  16. 24
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy