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!