This from 'The Australian', 29th August:

““Those f..kwits opposing ­Marriage Equality by telling kids to reject homosexuality are murdering those kids. I blame Lyle Shelton @RNDrive,” he tweeted.”

Now, pro SSM advocates are at liberty to criticise people who are against but, try as I might, I cannot see how people who are advising kids on the matter can be accused of “murdering those kids”.

Seems to me that all the rubbish and abuse Bill Shorten 'warned' about if the subject was discussed in a democratic way is now with us – but from his side of politics, not the conservative side.

Well, not everyone who is against the so-called "SSM" necessarily rejects homosexuality: myself an example.

Sounds more to me like hyperbole than abuse. Anyone who feels hurt or offended by such an obviously ridiculous statement probably has bigger issues.

Abuse will fly from both sides. That seems to be unavoidable in any heated debate. The concern with a public, as I understand it, is more to do with the fact that the 'No' campaign will say (and has now said) some things that are hurtful and (worse still) just downright false, to an already vulnerable minority. Claims such as gay people having a mental disorder and being child abusers. A good example of this is the nonsense pedalled on the posters and in the letterbox drops that a Neo-Nazi group have been distributing.

These are claims that some idiots genuinely believe and cannot be brushed of as a mere off-the-cuff remark blurted out in the heat of the moment, like that silly tweet. I don't think the vast majority of 'no' voters are going into the debate suffering from what is known as 'minority stress' because of their stance on the issue. Nor do I think we'll be seeing too many 'no' voters topping themselves because some fool equating them with murderers was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sorry, ttbn, but your suggestions - that the abuse is all going one way, and that the abuse directed towards those of the 'No' campaign is in any way comparable to the abuse being flung the other way - are ridiculous.

The no vote is not allowed to be heard. If Aj Phillips thinks the media aren't pushing a propaganda campaign for the yes vote he is kidding himself!

I was hoping for some enlightenment as to how anti-SSM people, particularly the CSL bloke, are "murdering these kids" as the idiot
claims.

seen that ' gay' marriage is a lie it is no surprise that its supporters are full of bullies and lies. Look at the fraudulent poster channel 10 had to make up when these ' posters plasted all over Melbourne' were not to be found. No doubt Waleed can't wait until pologamy is legalised although I doubt his wife will agree. Just like the gw scam whenever science is mentioned when it comes to unnatural practices the label ' hate' comes out. The left have many spiteful, hateful representatives who are showing their true colours (and it ain't rainbow). The growing left facist are becoming uglier and uglier. Bill Shorten who not long ago held to normal marriage is a total disgrace. Instead of hanging his head in shame he acts like he is some spokesman for decency. psss.

To blame everything on the left is off the planet. The attack on Western Civilisation that is ssm comes from overseas interests who never allowed people to believe in religion in the first place and we all know who that is.

The right aren't really the right: those who pretend they are on the right of the equation in this country aren't... They are equally as guilty of prosecuting false arguments for the very purpose of creating disillusionment within our communities.

The whole debate is a farce: both so called sides of this debate are being run by the same outside interests who want to bring down Western Civilisation with absurd strawmen, ad hominem, and fake accusations of slippery slope fallacies.

Wake up people: those on the Internet aren't all on the same team !

Call it wedge politics: either way we are all being played if we don't wake up and get off the Hollywood propaganda machine of stupid materialistic gain via a rotted brain! Hey, add bread and we've got the actual zombie apocalypse....

Go zombie Australia, just pathetic Australia....

//I was hoping for some enlightenment as to how anti-SSM people, particularly the CSL bloke, are "murdering these kids" as the idiot
claims.//

Have you considered the possibility that you might be placing too much importance on some random drunken halfwit's twitter outburst?

Put it this way: if he shouted it at you from some street corner whilst swaying gently and clutching a bottle brown paper bag, would you interrogate passers-by about the deeper meaning behind his ramblings? Or would you just ignore it and keep walking, being sure to give the crazy man a wide berth?

//we all know who that is.//

Yep. It's the Reptilians. David Icke was right. I should know, I'm a Reptilian hybrid.

//The right aren't really the right: those who pretend they are on the right of the equation in this country aren't//

Oh yeah, we've got it stitched up pretty tight. Three out of the four One Nation Senators are hybrids. Their full title is Pauline Hanson's One Nation Subjugated Under the Dominion of the Mighty and Eternal Reptilian Star Empire Party. You can see why they shorten it. It's the same on the other side - the Greens get that name from their true skin colour, not their policies.

//both so called sides of this debate are being run by the same outside interests who want to bring down Western Civilisation//

Yeah, not so much 'Western' as 'Earthling'. But broadly speaking, correct.

//Wake up people: those on the Internet aren't all on the same team !//

Yep, on the internet, nobody knows you're a lizard.

I wouldn't put any store in what your “ random drunken halfwit”, Toni Lavis, but was this person a random, drunken halfwit? I have lost track of the article, but I don't remember him being described as such.

meme,

It is not 'off planet' to blame the Left. The Left has been undermining the entire Western world for 50 years.

“The right aren't really the right: those who pretend they are on the right of the equation in this country aren't..” Would you explain that, please? I consider myself to be of the Right. Why do you say that I am not?”

Why is the debate a farce? What are these “false arguments you mention?

The “outside interests” you talk about are not outside at all. They are the enemy within – the Left cultural Marxists who are a cancer to the whole of the West. Trade is not the only thing that has been globalised by the Left.

“Wake up people: those on the Internet aren't all on the same team !” Well . that's obvious, but it seems to have a special or different meaning to you. Care to explain?

runner, how long do you burn in Hell for telling lies? The first TV ad from the No Campaign featured a woman who claimed;

"School taught my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it,"

A check with the school, showed that no such advice had been given to her son. The headmaster said in a conversation with that particular parent, she had expressed concern about education, but at no time did she say her son was told he could wear a dress next year. A little lie goes a long way, does it not.

Trying to link gay marriage to global warming. runner it must be all that "hot sex" they are having.

Knowing they do not have a creditable argument to oppose SSM the 'No Campaign' will resort to a scare campaign based on lies and outrageous dire predictions. They are experts at it, the religious ratbags having been lying and making such dire predictions since the year dot!

VOTE YES.

Paul,

We know that we have to take anything we hear on TV with a grain of salt; and the 'son', if he exists (the people are probably actors on both sides of the debate) can wear a dress next year if he wants to. So can I. So can you.

“A check with the school”. Did that occur? Is it documented? The “headmaster” (quaint, archaic term). The “particular parent”. Do they really exist?

As I said yesterday, all opponents of changing the Marriage Act are NOT “religious ratbags”, or not religious at all.

VOTE NO.

Since found – 'The Age' has produced a principal, John Albitson, who claims to have had no complaints, and that no option re dress was given.

However, their poster says:”everyone should be able to feel comfortable. No one should be made to feel uneasy, especially at school”. There is a picture of a boy wearing a girl's school tunic.

A wink is as good as a nod, as they say.

Conclusion: more Left lies.

The old "there hasn't been any complaints" argument which means everything they do must be OK.

He said, she said, and so it goes.

Whatever your feelings are - you will have a
chance to express them via the vote - or should
I say "survey." Then it will be out of our hands.

So decide what you want to do - and do it!

Yes, it appears that red herrings such as religious freedom and Safe Schools are being appealed to because there is simply no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

As for this poster, it appears that it was a Safe Schools poster, not a poster from the school itself, or one that they explicitly endorsed. Either way, this is irrelevant to the marriage equality debate.

But since we’re raising the idea (however fallaciously) of allowing children to wear the clothing of the opposite sex as though it were wrong, how about we ask why it’s wrong?

The idea of wearing the opposite sex’s clothing may sound weird to most of us, but that in itself is not a rational argument for the rightness or wrongness of allowing children to wear the clothing that is traditionally intended for the opposite sex, and to mistake it as such would be a fallacious argument from emotion.

Personally, I can’t actually think of a concrete reason as to why it is wrong. Especially if a young person feels so psychologically uncomfortable in the clothing intended for their own sex that the ridicule they would receive is perceived by them to be the better option. It seems we're just assuming that it's wrong.

But, then, I haven’t really given it much though until now, either.

ttbn,
Are you honestly trying to tell the good people of this forum that the right wing voters of this country are actually proud of giving their kids copper internet in the Asian century this country actually built?

We know you won't bother trying that because it is the right you define that betrays you. You're mates took all the money in privatisation scams and now the next generation have to pay... because that's how much the right you define cares about the kids of this country.

...and it's all been done with illegitimate parliamentarians sitting in parliament and making these decisions!

They don't call 'em the blue-bloods for nothing. Hey, haven't heard much of John Howards legacy lately: why is that, btw? Nor have I heard of Peter Costellos 'cosmic relationship' with interest rates lately, either- remember all that bulldust brother ay ay!

Cupric Embarrassment,

You certainly should be embarrassed! What on earth are you talking about? What has “copper internet” and “Asian century got to do with the topic, which is SSM and Left wing abuse?

How would I go about “ trying that  “? What is it that you think I should try that is in your first sentence? Is English not your first language? What is this “ it is the right you define that betrays you” business? Can you tell me how and where little old me has actually “defined” the Right? How have I been 'betrayed'?

Now, our politicians are very bad, but just how are they “illegitimate” in your opinion? Do you actually know what illegitimate means?

And, by he way, 'embarrassment has TWO 'esses'. Perhaps you could find a pseudonym you can spell before you come trolling on OLO.

Cupric Embarrassment,

You certainly should be embarrassed! What on earth are you talking about? What has “copper internet” and “Asian century got to do with the topic, which is SSM and Left wing abuse?
<<

It's got to do with the facy you are saying the left is responsbile for bringing down the Western World but you can't admit the right you define gives public assets to it's mates all the time and delivers non-cost effective infrastructure as if it was running the country like it was someone elses business.

That's what it's got to do with the topic: as much as your bulldust!

ttbn "I cannot see how people who are advising kids on the matter can be accused of “murdering those kids”."

Because gay people like myself are so weak, thin-skinned and insecure that the slightest offense will make us off ourselves. ;)

runner "The growing left fascist are becoming uglier and uglier."

They're at Hate Stage 5 going onto Stage 6.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201103/the-seven-stage-hate-model-the-psychopathology-hate

Toni Lavis "Yeah, not so much 'Western' as 'Earthling'. But broadly speaking, correct."

You're joking, but it's not too far from the truth.
The Third World is already weak and fragmented.
Western civilisation needs to be weakened by globalisation/multiculturalism (two sides of the same coin), so we all become Third World interchangeable drone slaves, working (if we can find work) for 50 cents an hour.

AJ Philips, boys don't wear dresses to school for the same reason clowns don't wear tutus and ballerinas don't wear big floppy shoes.
It's the wrong uniform.
It doesn't need to be *morally* wrong to be technically wrong.

Can you tell me how and where little old me has actually “defined” the Right?
<<
Haven't you got a brain? Once you define the left you define the right!

You're a brain dead simpleton who still can't believe he voted for copper internet for all of Australias kids in the Asian century we actually built for reasons you still can't work out and never will admit in your moment of clarity.

Do you like seafood with your cashed-upped-bogan turps?

Do you like Australia day?

...they were obvious yes's but we all know you don't actually like Australia.

Shockadelic,

Did you not know that fascism comes from both sides? All these jokes on here that go on about the left are actually talking about extremists.

They are the extremists themselves, infact, trying to bring down democracy with false debate so that no conversation can ever be had.

You will also note they don't believe in religion: hint hint hint, now you know where the real threat on Western Civilisation is coming from!

This side-steps my question, Shockadelic.

<<... boys don't wear dresses to school for the same reason clowns don't wear tutus and ballerinas don't wear big floppy shoes.>>

Which asked why it is wrong for them to do so.

But since you raise the point, ballerinas don't wear floppy shoes because they wouldn't be able to perform adequately in them.

<<It doesn't need to be *morally* wrong to be technically wrong.>>

Indeed. But others argue from the angle that it is morally wrong, and I'm curious as to whether this can rationally justified.

It is morally wrong because you are encouraging them to make mistakes that won't be easily forgiven by their peers possibly forever.

Suicides are big time in the late teens to early/mid 20s and to encourage this type of confusing behaviour is exactly what parents of teenagers have every right to complain about.

Is it morally wrong of me to say parents have every right to look after their growing and impressionable adolescents?

Dear AJ,

Talking about what's wrong with children wearing clothes
of the opposite gender - like boys wearing dresses
reminds me of a recent incident that occurred at my
grand-daughter's child-care.

The child-care had a "fancy-dress up" day. And all the
little girls apparently turned up dressed as Disney
princesses. Well my grand-daughter who's a very stubborn
little girl (she's almost three years old) insisted she
wanted to wear her four - year old
brother's Batman costume (mask and all). Well when she
turned up at the child-care, she was of-course the odd one
out. The other girls had their photos taken, and a fuss
was made over them. My poor grand-daughter was left out of
the "party." Not one carer compliment my grand-daughter on
her Batman outfit.

I personally felt rather proud of her daring to be different
and sticking to her guns. However, when I next baby-sat her
she turned up wearing a very "girlie" outfit that her mum
had bought for her. She was dressed as "Elsa" from the movie
"Frozen." Blue Tutu and all.

So there we are.
What does that tell us?

Shockadelic,

Right. I didn't connect the 'murder' idea with the bed-wetters' bleating about certain people topping themselves if we don't handle them with kid gloves. Good to see that you can laugh at the idea. Thanks for sticking to the topic and answering my question.

CE,

Yes. I do have a brain, and I can spell! You still cannot express yourself, and you are quite clearly not worth worrying about. You are an immature brat who should be working or at school rather than trying to joust with older, more experienced people. You are a joke, sonny.

I note that the other new-comer troll, meme..... is unable to explain his weird statements, either. Hope we are not going to be invaded by toddlers.

Once you define the left you define the right: ttbn can't accept logic and he expects me to believe he's mature!

//boys don't wear dresses to school for the same reason clowns don't wear tutus and ballerinas don't wear big floppy shoes.
It's the wrong uniform.//

But sometimes they wear skirts. And not just if they attend Scots College.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/uk-schools-boys-wear-skirts-protest-shorts-ban-cope-with-heat/8645352

Having worn both kilt and trews, I can assure you all that non-bifurcated leg garments are both comfortable and practical. Trousers are useful inventions if you ride horses a lot, but I think for everyday wear, skirts have a great deal to recommend them. Especially in the summer. Better ventilation, and nobody likes sweaty balls.

The downside, of course, is that if a bloke wears a skirt everybody assumes he's bent, which can get tiresome.

Dear Tony,

«The downside, of course, is that if a bloke wears a skirt everybody assumes he's bent, which can get tiresome»

Anyone who says so is himself bent: How can they say so when God's incarnation Himself, Shri Krishna, exchanged clothes with His beloved Radha?

http://www.asia.si.edu/devi/fulldevi/deviCat80.htm
http://www.harekrsna.de/clothes-exchange.htm

In many places men wear loose fitting garments
as naturally as pants. Yukata are still popular
in Japan, dhoti and lungi are popular in South
India, kilts will never go out of fashion in
Scotland. Ancient Greeks and Romans had their
loose fitting robes and togas. Traditional robes
are everyday dress for men in Arab countries -
where men still wear flowing garments. Egyptians
have wrap around linen skirts. Then you have
the men in Fiji, Indonesia, and other tropical
places where sarongs and loose fitting fabrics
are the norm. Kaftans are also popular.

Comfort not gender dictates clothing choices in some
cultures. I wonder what the men in our tropics (up North)
wear.
Surely not suits to work?

Dear Foxy,

Interesting, and here I was thinking that the problem only really lay with males dressing in more feminine clothing. I’m a little surprised by that.

That the ‘murder’ comment could have been referring to the suicide rate within the gay community (particularly where the youth are concerned) went over my head, too. Although I still think it was a silly and counter-productive comment to make, it makes a lot more sense now.

In other countries where same-sex marriage was introduced, the suicide rates within the gay community dropped by an average of 14%. This isn’t about gay people being snowflakes, as Shockadelic and ttbn naively and callously suggest.

That the hate and lies being flung around by the ‘No’ Campaign could be ‘the straw that breaks the camel’s back’ for some people already suffering from mental illness in the gay community, is understandable and to be expected. There is nothing particularly fragile about that. The suicide rate in the gay communities of countries that had a public debate rose during the debate.

Anyway, whether it’s lefties, Safe Schools, or whether it's the fact that you just can't stand those “bloody poofters”, I hope doing nothing to reduce the suicide rate with an unjustifiable ‘no’ vote will be worth your selfish little vendettas.

On a lighter note, here’s a brilliant send-up of the dishonest ‘No’ Campaign ad. It’s right on point:

http://youtu.be/eNHntd3Zavs?list=PLTN4Afxv_hgM7VnWJMTFxVGtwk434Dec9

Unfortunately one of the leading personalities of the Catholic Church
Fr Gerald Ridsdale will not be able to make an appearance for the 'No Campaigne' this time around. It seems the poor priest has just been banged up for another 3 years for buggering children over a 30 year period! Now 83 and with a 33 year sentence, the pedophile priest is most likely going to cark it in jail. We can only hope so!
For those who are interested, visiting at the prison is on Sundays after chapel.

AJ "as Shockadelic and ttbn naively and callously suggest."

I was being sarcastic. The wink ;) should have made that obvious to Mr Clever.

Another problem with teenage boys in skirts is the eternal Unpredictable Protuberance, that would clearly be visible in a skirt, but can be disguised or hidden by pants.

Yes Foxy there are many types of clothing for men, but those are *other* cultures, so irrelevant to our historical context.

' Unfortunately one of the leading personalities of the Catholic Church
Fr Gerald Ridsdale will not be able to make an appearance for the 'No Campaigne' '

yes Paul if he went to Canada he could share a cell with the paedophile architect of the ' safe' schools program. It seems they were both into gross perversion. Most of Ridsdale victims appeared to be boys.

Dear Shocker,

Actually the various clothing worn by men is very
relevant to the historical context of our nation.
As we had a variety of nations that formed a part
of this country's settlement. Even on the First Fleet.
Our history books tell us that "The First Fleet arrived.
It brought 1000 English convicts. It didn't. It brought
1000 convicts but probably they came from a dozen
different countries. As somebody put it - "English
jails were not respecters of nationality." The first
Italian arrived on January 26, 1788 - Giuseppe Tuso.
There were people from South Africa, there were people
from Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from Portugal,
from Hungary.

We are a society of tremendous diversity.

"gross perversion" "Most of Ridsdale victims appeared to be boys."
runner, why mention gross perversion, and the victims of Fr. Ridsdale being boys? Is it you would not find it gross perversion if Fr. Ridsdale victims had been girls. Interesting!
This Fr Ridsdale, it has been reported was known to deliver sermons from the pulpit bemoaning homosexuality. Also interesting.

//Another problem with teenage boys in skirts is the eternal Unpredictable Protuberance, that would clearly be visible in a skirt//

That is what sporrans are for.

The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church knows no bounds. The 2015 pastoral letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia to all Australians on the 'same-sex marriage' debate" carried the slogan "don't mess with marriage".
MESS is the operative word, as this bunch (Catholic Bishops of Australia) turns a blind eye as their clergy rampantly MESS with children. The Catholics are not alone in this, as other Christian denominations have been just as hypocritical, although the Catholic Church seems to excel at hypocrisy on most moral issues.

Paul,

There you are again bashing the Catholic Church. I find interesting that you focus continually on decades old instances in this sector and ignore the vastly greater incidences in Aboriginal communities for example in just one small town:

"Child sex abuse is so “normal” in and around the small Pilbara town of Roebourne that even jailing known paedophiles is not enough to end it. 39km north of the iron ore hub of Karratha, amid a police operation that has identified 184 child-sex victims in and near the town that is home to just 1410 people. So far police have charged 36 men, and they have 124 suspects. The operation is ­expected to run for another year."

In fact, the restrictive welfare debit card that quarantines 80% of welfare payments from booze drugs and gambling that has been so successful in reducing alcohol related violence and sexual attacks has been deemed racist by the Greens who want to block it being rolled out to other troubled communities.

I think that the Greens are not only being wildly hypocritical but a little racist too.

Shadow, I deplore all instances of child sex abuse. A pedophile is a pedophile whether he is black, white or a Catholic priest. I am not aware of any particular official stance being taken by Aboriginal organizations on same sex marriage, unlike the Catholic Church which has adopted an official position.

It is typical of the apologist to point to another evil in an attempt to mitigate the fore-mentioned evil. The apoligiest will say; "Yes... um... ah... its bad about those Catholic priests, but ah... um... what about those Aboriginal pedophiles." The inference is the second evil, lessens the impact of the first evil, even though the two are not related. Nice try Shadow.

On your opening remark, "There you are again bashing the Catholic Church. I find interesting that you focus continually on decades old instances in this sector"

Bashing the Catholic Church, yes and they have supplied a very big club to bash them with. "decades old" we can assume it is still going on, as the Church has not put into place any mechanisms to ensure its not. Old priests are still free in parishes in Sydney to wonder around school playgrounds, unrestrained. The Catholic Church admits on it own doctored conservative figure, 7% of its clergy in Australia are pedophiles.

On the "Welfare Card", sounds good at first glance, and many will aplord

Shadow, a crack down on welfare fraud is welcomed and overdue, but it has to be a genuine and honest attempt, and not some sort of political grandstanding by an unpopular government, which this appears to be. A "Welfare Card" where necessary, I'm all for it.

Foxy "We are a society of tremendous diversity."

And all the male convicts wore pants.
There was a *uniform*.

Why would anyone want to concern themselves with what other people are wearing or not wearing. I have no problem kissing gay male friends on the cheek, they do it all the time themselves, shock, ones a cross dresser, and at dinner parties and birthdays I tell him he looks nice. These are no more a problem than touching noses with Maori men, and kissing dead people, when the custom requires it.
We certainly have some very fragile folks on this forum.

"Why would anyone want to concern themselves with what other people are wearing or not wearing."

Because of the context: There is a uniform.

School is not your personal life, like a dinner party. It is a communal activity.

If you are required to wear a work uniform, you wear it.
Children will often need to do this as adults.
School is about preparing children for adult life.

Adults don't get to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. *Context* matters.
This is a lesson many millennial brats never learnt.

If you want to argue against school uniforms altogether, do so.

There have been several petitions against SSM by aboriginals here is one:
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/08/20/11/10/aboriginal-petition-against-gay-marriage

Dear Shocker,

Actually not all the male convicts wore pants.
Do your research.

cont'd ...

Correction.

Most convicts did wear pants. It was the Scottish guards
who didn't. Whether they wore underpants is still being
debated in certain circles.

//If you are required to wear a work uniform, you wear it.//

Most of the work uniforms I've worn are worn for WH&S reasons, so I'm happy to wear them.

Still, it causes me no end of amusement when I visit Sydney in the summertime and get to see the hilarious spectacle of overweight businessmen waddling about in their penguin suits, sweating up a storm. You'd think some bean-counter might have figured out by now that skirts, short-sleeve shirt and no tie would reduce air-conditioning requirements and save a packet in energy costs. But they just keep sweating it out... mental.

I keep hoping that the rest of society will wake up to the fact that fashion is a con trick played on us by already wealthy people to get us to buy more shite we don't need manufactured by children in sweatshops, and that comfort and the preservation of modesty are all that matter when selecting clothes. But I'm not holding my breath.

The dress code is miniscule compared to freedom of speech and parental rights that is lost to SSM if adopted. We have in our church a guy in his 40's who dresses in floral dresses and stockings etc. The problem is women do not know how to treat him. He was previous Buddhist in saffron robes which was recognised by the dress code.

Fashion is pushed by The Witches Wand of Holloywood.

Toni Lavis "Most of the work uniforms I've worn are worn for WH&S reasons, so I'm happy to wear them."

Most uniforms other people wear are for *identity* purposes (company B), as defined by the organisation, not the individual wearer.

Same with schools.
Name one company that has a unisex uniform.
Google "unisex uniform" and all you see is this stupid "debate" about schools.

"fashion is a con trick"

I agree.
So is political "correctness".

There are unisex uniforms in healthcare, the
military, and many other organisations in our
communities today.

Paul,

You seriously have no problems kissing homosexuals? Just because they kiss each other? When are you coming out? You also have connections with New Zealand. Know any nice sheep?

Dear ttbn,

The number of sheep in NZ had decreased.
However in Australia there are 74 million sheep to
23.5 million people. A ratio of 3 to one - and growing.
(August 20th 2014).

//The number of sheep in NZ had decreased.
However in Australia there are 74 million sheep to
23.5 million people.//

But everyone know that it's the Welsh that root sheep. You guys need to start looking beyond your own backyard... there's a whole planet out there, and more besides.

ttbn, you are the odd man out, in your prudish Protestant society! Until the 16th Century men kissing men was the norm in British Society.

Cheek kissing is a ritual or social kissing gesture to indicate friendship, family relathionship, perform a greeting, to confer congratulations, to comfort someone, to show respect, or to indicate sexual or romantic interest.

Cheek kissing is very common in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Latin America.

In Maori traditional society you kiss the females on the cheek when you meet/introduced, including all females known or unknown to you. that can be on one cheek or both. For men you place you nose against theirs with eyes wild open and no smile, for about 5 to 10 seconds. After that names can be exchanged if unknown (Maori are very good at remembering names). People you are very close to, after the initial greeting of cheek kissing or nose touching is followed by a close embrace and often cheek kissing of men and women, and in the case of women kissing on the lips as well, this could last 30 seconds to a minute or more. Often people cry with emotion at this time. When a group arrive protocol dictates you meet every single person in that group, starting with the women and children, then the men, no matter how large the group is, it could even be a couple of hundred people, and the introductions are in an ordered fashion.

ttbn, how are you at kissing dead people? Even the ones you don't personally know. if that's no problem then sheep should be a breeze. And what about those owners who kiss their dogs, cats and birds? I draw the line at goldfish, too sloppy!

However in Australia there are 74 million sheep to
23.5 million people. A ratio of 3 to one - and growing.

What is Barnyard and his cow cocky supporters upto? That proves he's a Kiwi, submit that evidence to the High court.

The High Court chucked out the challenge to Money Bags Malcolm's survey! That will open the flood gates to all sorts of survey's being conducted by the fed's. Once this SSM survey is out of the road, expect a Malcolm inspired survey on all sorts of things.

What is your favorite brand of Washing Powder? Answer, anyone that doesn't cost $122,000,000 a packet!

Paul1405 "That will open the flood gates"

And that's the major reason people should vote no.

Just as courts sometimes give a severe sentence to set a precedent and send a message to the community, we need to say no, not because it's so terrible in and of itself, but to discourage *more* activism by *other* emboldened rights activists.

A no will also send a message to politicians to grow some balls and stop wasting time and money pandering to *all* petulant narcissistic rights activists.

When the next bunch of pushy bullies demand "reform", the pollies can refer to this result and say "Buzz off. Get a life".

That’s not a good reason to vote ‘no’, Shockadelic.

<<Just as courts sometimes give a severe sentence to set a precedent and send a message to the community, we need to say no, not because it's so terrible in and of itself, but to discourage *more* activism by *other* emboldened rights activists.>>

Courts may hand down harsh sentences to convicted persons to send a message, but 'general' deterrence is one of the aims of sentencing. Punishing one group to send a message to another group, on the other hand, just because they share an interest, is irrational and unfair. It would also be an exercise in futility if (unlike the aims of sentencing) it wasn't an organised and widely-understood and agreed upon move.

Which brings me to another problem with your analogy: gay people have done nothing to deserve the harsh 'sentence' in this instance.

"Punishing one group to send a message to another group..."

You only need to attempt a conversation with a leftist to see one issue bleeds into another in THEIR totalitarian perspective.

The utopian totalitarian leftist agenda is "irrational and unfair", so boo hoo, I don't care.

The utopians must be undermined just as they wish to undermine.
Destroy the destroyers.

"gay people have done nothing to deserve the harsh 'sentence'"

"Gay people" in general never asked for reform, pushy co-opting leftists did.

Marriage customs have NEVER been part of the gay underground culture.
Not in the 60's. Not in the 70's. Not in the 80's. NEVER.

It is the Left, now with little to protest about, that co-opted gays and trans and started making all sorts of demands.

Gay people are in no different position than they were already in (where couples are already recognised as de facto).
That's hardly "harsh".

Dear Shocker,

Perhaps the following link may clarify a few
things:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/a-worldwide-history-of-marriage-equality/6549338

A test case in 1970 and some couples being "open" does not a *custom* make.

Gay culture didn't even have MOCK weddings and subversive satire is a *fundamental* part of gay culture.

"Ireland recently became the first [i.e. ONLY] country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote... Most politicians didn't actively take part for a yes vote or for a no vote. They stood on the sidelines and it was the same thing, actually, within the Catholic Church. Those priests with a younger congregation did not want to alienate those people by coming out with a strong exhortation to vote no."

In other words, it's just conformity to groupthink and peer pressure silencing people.

"Same-sex couples can now legally marry in 17 [White dominant] countries"

None of them Muslim or Asian.
Isn't diversity wonderful!

Dear Shocker,

Yes indeed religion has a lot to answer.

cont'd ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2017/05/25/after-same-sex-marriage-in-taiwan-spotlight-turns-to-this-asian-country/#5528acf53b4f

Foxy, "Yes indeed religion has a lot to answer"

Your wishes granted,
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/same-sex-marriage-and-the-persecution-of-christians-in-canada

Tres 'Progressive', what?

leoj,

Actually anything but "progressive."

Crisis Magazine is where Catholic neo-conservatives
try to shape debate bath within the Church and
within their community of followers. It's an
"Inside Catholic" publication and usually garners
some level of success amongst the faithful.
On a slow news day it's reported that you will
always find something repugnant to write about.
It's as subtle as a brick.

I think leoj was being sarcastic in regards to Canada.

Hi Foxy,

Did HTV's at LG elections in Sydney yesterday. This twit from the Liberal Party, was continually having a go at a young girl (Labor) about her citizenship, she was born in Oz, from Indian migrant parents of about 30 years, she told me so. She gave as good as she got, several stuck up for her including another Liberal. Can't repeat on here what he had to say to me and my partner "T" and our mate helping who is obviously gay, a couple of Greenie you know whats, the milder bit, we smoke dope and eat bird seed. On SSM marriage he had something to say about my grandfather and me, you can imagine what. but I also gave as good as I got, water off a ducks back. good day our gal looks to won a seat on council.
"T" laid into him "I'm an F'n Coon, want to make something of it, P&%CK!?" I told her she was being a bit strong, She then told him her ancestors used to eat blokes like him for breakfast, "I might do the same thing!" she said. Again, a bit strong worded, but he deserved it.
Not all Liberals are anything like that bloke.

Dear Paul,

Reading your narratives reminds me of how much
I miss Sydney. I remember the wide diversity
of views and interactions that could be had
there. People were more outspoken .
I love the sound of your lady. She's great!
Please give her a hug from me.

Dear phanto,

leoj - enjoys knocking people down.
Sarcasm is just one of his tools.