Madlin Sims, the owner of Capital Kids Parties fired 18yr old Madeline for posting on Facebook that because of her religion that she would be voting No.

On her Facebook page, Madlin claimed that she had fired an employee for voting No as she was a homophobe and bigot and unfit to be around children.

Madlin has now gone to ground probably realising that what she has done appears to break several laws and defames Madeline.

I'm interested in OLO's thoughts

Madlin's right , kids in Europe have been brought up by celibate homos for many centuries and what harm did it do? The orthodox gays ought to marry and when Father asks "do you take this man to love and aid ?" the gays need to ask Father has he fathered before marriage.

sounds like Madlin would be a thousand times better role model for kids than the bigot who fired her. Refreshing to see everyone has not been dumbed down and perverted like the getup clowns. Maybe there is some hope for this nation.

SM:

Calling someone a homophobe or a bigot should be punished under the new laws unless those things can be proven.

What about the mental health of all those young people who are insulted and derided simply because of their refusal to agree with SSM? Will they be helped to deal with their 'rejection'?

It is an interesting one for a number of reasons.

The lady in question had been asked to take it down by the business owner's brother but had refused.

Her facebook page was linked to the business' facebook site. Further the owner claimed the contractor was 'out and proud' about her negative views on homosexuals.

She had been recently appointed, having done one party for the owner but was not permitted to do a second. Up until that point the owner appeared to be within her rights to terminate the agreement between the two.

However what was disturbing was the way the owner framed her reasons;

"Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge they feel 'it's okay to vote no'. Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech."

This to me was a step too far and directly impinges on free speech.

It does raise the question of employer's push to have their businesses connect with employee's social media.

Australia's Catholic Church is threatening to fire
teachers, nurses and other employees who marry
their same-sex partner if same-sex marriage is
legalised, in a dramatic move led by the country's
most senior Catholic. Archbishop of Melbourne,
Denis Hart pointedly warned the church's 180,000
employees were expected to uphold its teachings "totally"
and defiance would be treated "very seriously."

"I would be very emphatic that our schools, our parishes
exist to teach a Catholic view of marriage," he said.
"Any words or actions which work contrary to that would
be viewed very seriously."

We then have another church which cancelled a wedding
because the bride and groom supported gay marriage on
Facebook.

The Presbyterian Church, Ebenezer St. John's in Ballarat,
by Minister Steven North, refused to marry a young couple
and cancelled their wedding plans because the bride
expressed support for same-sex marriage on Facebook.

Our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that churches
can marry whoever they like. Therefore they are within
their rights to refuse to marry anyone they feel is
unsuitable.

By all these accounts it would appear that the employer
who fired the teenager for saying that she'd vote No
on Facebook is also within her rights to do so.
I believe that there was more to why the teenager was
fired - but there you have it.

However, it would be interesting to see what the results
would be if the teenager who got fired took her case
to court for "unfair dismissal?"

The same question could be asked if that happened with
the hundreds of thousands of employees that the Catholic
Church plans on firing. It could prove very lucrative for
our courts and lawyers.

Interesting times ahead.

the absolute deceit of the ' yes' campaigners say its all about equality. Soon they won't want normal people teaching in schools. Already men are nearly obsolete in classrooms. Then again many of the school teachers who could not get into any other courses at uni are far from normal.

"Normal," runner. What's "normal"? Only people exactly like you, I suppose?

' "Normal," runner. What's "normal"'

Herenow

people who understand that biology dictates that if you have a penis you are a boy and if you have a vagina you are a girl. Also normal is having adults that don't feel they need to shove their own confused lives on to children who by and large just want to be children. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

If large orginizations like your place of employment, or your church can fire you because of how you vote, then it's no longer a free vote. The debate is now heated enough for violent protests. Be warned.

One big problem I see today is a small number of people without consultation think they can speak on behalf of a large number of people without actually asking them for an opinion.

As an example.
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/afl/a/37160041/afl-makes-powerful-same-sex-marriage-statement/

The AFL has made its stance on same-sex marriage very clear, with CEO Gillon McLachlan sending a strong message of support.

The AFL on Wednesday altered its official logo at league headquarters, chaging the letters 'AFL' to 'YES'.

Their official Twitter account also posted the following: "The AFL is committed to equality & diversity, & we support the rights of all Australians to live, work & play free from discrimination."

The move follows McLachlan's public statement on the matter on Tuesday night when he told AFL 360 how important it was that he make his stance known.

“I think that we are a leader (in the community), whether people like that or not, and this is an issue that means a lot to many of our players and many of my employees and a lot of people in the community,” McLachlan said on Fox Footy.

“I think our position is that we need to have a strong statement — even if it was only for our staff — but I think it’s broader than that.

Bet a lot of people in this organization do not have the same opinion.

Dear Phillip S,

You opined;

"Bet a lot of people in this organization do not have the same opinion."

Do you think that would extend to those within the Catholic system that Foxy referred to?

Philip S:

It is bullying and intimidation by any other name. When people fear for their jobs because they do not have the same opinions as the organisation about issues which are peripheral to the reason for that organisation's existence then it is a bad look for that organisation.

There is no need for them to take a stance one way or the other. They arrogantly proclaim 'leadership' entitlements which no one has given them. The rest of society does not need 'leadership' and are quite capable of making a decision based on the arguments presented.

Same-sex couples should distance themselves from these organisations who seem to trade on implied threats. If the YES case is strong enough then it does not need to align itself with these kinds of tactics.

SR,

To frame the context, I voted yes because I don't believe that government should determine people's relationships. However, I believe that this is a clear case of bullying and defamation.

In Madlin's Facebook page, her reasons for firing Madeline were solely based on the "it's OK to say No" filter that Madeline added to her profile pic meant that she was a homophobe and a danger to children.

According to Madeline that the filter she added to her profile pic was the only comment that she had on the issue and had no obvious links to Canberra kids parties. Neither had she discussed SSM or homosexuality with her boss.

It is clear that Madlin Sims has gone way past inappropriate and has landed herself in a legal pickle if Madeline chooses to sue.

SM Correct. If the comments were intended as her personal view then the employer is at fault. If on the other hand the comments in some way led back to the employers site and appeared to give the perception that the employer was on her side as well, then the employee was at fault.

Forget yes or no to SSM, I think the person doing the firing is going to find herself coughing up big bikkies when she is taken to court on 'wrongful dismissal' charges. The fallout from this ridiculous attempt to change the Marriage Act will be horrendous and very bitter, irrespective of the result.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think there are a number of questions that need to be answered especially around the facebook page.

Under what circumstances was the employer accessing Madeline's facebook page. Was it a prerequisite of employment? Was it part of an employee profile? Or was it simply because Madeline was a friend of her brother so facebook linkages would mean those accessing his fb page also meant accessing hers?

The fact that she was asked to take it down the offending filter, extensibility as a condition of continued employment, yet refused to do so does put some of the onus back on her don't you think?

I have let employees go because of their attitude toward the opposite sex. If it was raised in a court of law I probably would have had a hard time showing convincing evidence that my actions were justified.

Further I think the Catholic Church, which accepts billions of dollars of taxpayer's money, should probably be held to a higher standard than a private employee. Don't you?

Anyway I do not think the employee Madeline has any recourse for unfair dismissal as she was obviously a contractor. Religious discrimination is a maybe. Defamation? Unlikely given that she wasn't named in any of the employer's public posts.

You wrote;

“Neither had she discussed SSM or homosexuality with her boss.” That is not clear however she did have a long conversation about her views with the boss's brother.

Finally I find little difference between the employee claiming SSM will mean a risk to children and the boss claiming the same for her. Do you see any?

Steele:

“Do you think that would extend to those within the Catholic system that Foxy referred to?”

When people apply for work in the Catholic Church they are asked quite openly whether they are prepared to support the Catholic ‘ethos’. Either you agree or you don’t and that would determine whether you are considered for the job. SSM is clearly not part of the Catholic ethos.

Is it part of the AFL’s ethos? They claim they are about inclusivity and good for them but inclusivity means that you allow all people to be involved in AFL. Anyone who excludes people from being involved in AFL should be punished for not upholding the company ethos. Voting NO does not exclude anyone from being involved in AFL. It is a personal opinion held by employees about a situation which has nothing to do with the ethos of the AFL.

This is the problem with these organisations. They seek to control situations which are outside their stated responsibility. It is up to the AFL to protect inclusivity. It is not up to them to dictate or seek to influence what the marriage law should be.

Dear phanto,

I think you are attempting to stretch this into something it isn't my friend.

As you say the AFL is not contending those who might vote no are not to be employed within the organisation, the Catholic church however is pretty much taking a stance against employees would would be inclined to vote yes.

You say;

“This is the problem with these organisations. They seek to control situations which are outside their stated responsibility. It is up to the AFL to protect inclusivity. It is not up to them to dictate or seek to influence what the marriage law should be”

The gay community is being excluded from the institution of marriage and the AFL, which is independent of government, is perfectly within its ethos or self described mandate to support its inclusion within the wider community.

But the clincher for me is the fact that many positions within the Catholic school and health systems are almost wholly funded by the wider taxpayers of Australia. Why on earth are they getting to dictate acceptable views within those positions to such an extent?

You seem to be struggling with the distinction.

SR,

You said:

"Finally I find little difference between the employee claiming SSM will mean a risk to children and the boss claiming the same for her. Do you see any?"

There is a huge difference, one is a concept (which there is not a jot to suggest that Madeline gave voice to), and one is a direct attack on a singular person, (which is in writing) and unless correct is defamation. That Madlin left little to no doubt about whom she was writing, it will be difficult to dodge that bullet.

Secondly, to be an independent contractor Madeline would have to meet some strict criteria such as having an ABN and submitting invoices for work completed, which as a 18yr old is unlikely:

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/rights-and-obligations/independent-contractors-and-employees#employeecontractor

Thirdly, the "it's ok to vote No" filter on her profile pic had a short window and was gone before Madeline was fired, and Madlin's anger when she discovered Madeline's views is a strong indicator that the subject was not discussed before.

Fourthly, the issue of the Catholic church is a red herring, as I have yet to see one person fired for advocating a for a yes vote.

Finally, if it does go to court, what is written is gold and hearsay (which makes up most of your argument) is worthless.

Steele makes a valid point about the Catholic Church and taxpayer funding. The threat made to employees by the bigoted bishops, see Foxy's post, should not be tolerated. If the Marriage Act is changed to accommodate SSM, and I confidently expect that will be the case in the not too distant future. Those so licenced by the state to officiate at marriage ceremonies, be they secular or religious, but attempt to discriminate in violation of the law, on the grounds of sexual orientation, should have their authority to perform marriage ceremonies terminated. If that be the case, I expect some bigoted clergy to be in for a rough ride, starting with that bunch or moronic bishops.

Oh! the joys of being a Catholic.

Paul, Foxy,

Public servants can be fired for publically voicing political views, this is because the very nature of the public service requires it to be non-partisan, and employees contracts are very specific in this. However, contractors to the public service are not so constrained.

Similarly, the Catholic church is very specific in its employment terms that employees need to demonstrate Catholic values, but so far I don't believe that there is a single case of anyone being fired for advocating a Yes vote or for SSM, so this is a moot point.

There is no indication that Madlin Sims terms of employment prohibited "No" advocacy, and as the "it's ok to vote no" slogan had been removed by the time she was fired, it appears that Madeline was fired for her political opinion.

As for the wedding cancellation, I personally think that it was going too far, but having grown up Presbyterian, I know that they take their doctrinal preparation for marriage very seriously (which is why I didn't get married in the Presbyterian Church). However, the fact that at the cancellation took place nearly 4 months before the wedding would not have put the couple out of pocket.

Paul, your threat to remove the protections on religion is exactly the type of bigotry that the No campaign is warning against.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Look I think the whole 'contractor' / 'employee' setup which so many small businesses now use to handball their obligations is a complete crock. It is free market, anti-union driven scam. It is very pervasive especially around casual labour of younger people. But it is thoroughly supported by your side of politics so for the moment we have to live with it.

I am heartened to hear you thought it was implausible in this situation. Perhaps you see the injustice of make a young person jump through these hoops just to work at the odd party for the employer and I couldn't agree more.

However in this case the employer stated “She provided a service, sent an invoice, and we paid it”
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/boss-fires-worker-over-same-sex-marriage-views/8961658

I am kind of tickled by the fact that in almost any other circumstance you would be defending the employer's rights to the hilt. Why do you imagine this might be different?

You wrote;
“There is a huge difference, one is a concept (which there is not a jot to suggest that Madeline gave voice to), and one is a direct attack on a singular person”.

Not quite. From the article;
“She also said her views was based on concern for children - similar to the arguments in the Coalition for Marriage's 'Vote No' TV ads, she said same-sex marriage would lead to more 'Safe Schools' sex ed programs. She said it would "change the way things are done in school" and "the way kids are adopted into same-sex families." “

Given the business employed members from the gay community why wouldn't they feel directly implicated by her views especially given the fact that gay couples can adopt children now.

Steele:

What does it really mean to ‘support’ SSM? SSM should come about because it is reasonable that it should. Arguments should be put forth from both sides and the most logical arguments should determine what action is to be taken.

People should not be swayed by anything other than logical arguments. When the AFL says they support SSM what exactly are they doing? Are they trying to get people to vote for SSM because they like footy? What new arguments does the AFL bring to the table that have not already been aired? Do they have special insights or information that makes their opinions more valuable than the average footy fan? Why would they say they support SSM unless they were somehow trying to manipulate the outcome by appealing to the loyalty of AFL fans? “If you really love your footy then you will agree with us about SSM”.

This would be of little comfort to same-sex couples who want SSM because it is reasonable. What value is there in having the support of people because they follow footy?

Unless they have something to add to the arguments in favour of SSM then there is no good reason why any business needs to express an opinion. Again there is little comfort for same-sex couples in knowing that the AFL agrees with them. They want real people to agree with them and not inhuman organisations. The AFL will not be a participant in the postal survey so who cares what they think.

As for the Catholic Church they have specific arguments which are unique to their position. They are trying to protect their position and the position held by most of their members. It is reasonable for them to oppose SSM to protect what they see as their interests. The AFL has no interests in the outcome of the SSM debate. Footy will continue exactly the same whatever the outcome.

SR,

You are right, it would appear that Madeline is a contractor which limits her rights. As for the employee benefits, it makes it possible to write off expenses against tax, which probably doesn't help for a 18yr old, but in my time as a contractor, it significantly reduced the tax I paid.

If Madlin had simply not continued to use Madeline and restrained her impulse to virtue signal to the world and vilify Madeline, this would be a non-issue. I heard that in the ACT, that even terminating a contractor based on religious discrimination is an offence.

With respect to Madeline's views, If Madeline had claimed that Madlin Sims was a danger to children because of her views on Facebook, that would be equivalent. However, Madeline saying in an interview that she has concerns for the children of SSM is both after the fact and not even in the same ballpark.

It has been legal for gays to adopt for more than a decade under laws introduced by Howard. As for the other employees are you saying that their difference in political opinion is a cause for termination?

"When the AFL says they support SSM what exactly are they doing?"

Usually, such statements result from an approach being made the for CEO or organisation. The easiest course is taken, otherwise there will be the continuing nuisance likely with serial nags and activists involved, and escalating allegations might even be made. 'Outing' as being 'opposed', where an attempt to sit on the fence is twisted, construed to be opposition or lack of 'sensitivity'.

To take an example, an environmentally conscious' person living near a public park approached the City Council complaining that mowed clippings were being removed from the park and being 'dumped'. She recommended that instead, the clippings be placed around the trunks of trees to 'save' water.

While the clippings were in fact already being used for central composting and used elsewhere and placement of the clippings around the trucks of trees encouraged collar rot (if the brush turkeys left it there), town and city Councils routinely comply with the request. Because to do otherwise wastes hundreds of hours dealing with the repeated complaints and escalation that ensues.

There are many other examples where the squeaky wheel gets the oil. There always were serial complainers. Twitter is ready made for whiners with little to occupy themselves, who get a buzz out of making 'authority' genuflect. That gives the whiners and activist types a feeling of power.

leoj:

That is a good point in which case CEO's should say to 'activists' that it is inappropriate for them to try and emotionally manipulate their followers one way or the other.

Also the organisation does not need to have an opinion since the organisation does not have the right to vote.

phanto,

Also it is a sign of the times that some people, CEOs included but more often fading actresses and wannabes, virtue signal for personal publicity. People wake up to that in time.

Talking about the local netball club right through to major corporations, public embarrassment (deserved or otherwise) can undo the good work over years by many.

To top it off, there is the finding by social psychology that even where a false claim is corrected soon after, the original wrong persists in the mind of those exposed to it and worse, the public correction can increase, cement, the false claim. Activists and propagandists know that. So of course do the social psychologists who are sometimes too willing to put their professional ethics at risk by aiding with suggestions for 'nudges' and so on where they themselves believe a social change is for the 'good'.

Sadly, the ABC often descends to using Twitter comment to sensationalise and provoke a reaction and it has been doing that for years. It doesn't always see a need to get a balancing view, despite its claims to be doing that. But what does (say) the head of the transport department do where the hack journo (speaking of most!) lobs a whinge grenade from some activist with a beaut title who has everything twisted up? What response is possible in seconds of TV video grab, where the reporter is likely talking over the reply, dubbed later?

The best we can hope for is achieved by protecting freedom of speech. But it is a hard fight.

Paul1405 - Quote "Steele makes a valid point about the Catholic Church and taxpayer funding."

Correct me if I am wrong but the stadiums that the AFL play in were built by public money or are given tax breaks etc as well as the clubs themselves.

There is a lot of public money going into sports organizations in one way or another.

Shadow, Australia is a secular society, with authority over marriage vested in the hands of the Federal Government. Any person so licenced by the state to perform a marriage ceremony should be required to act in accordance with the law. Any person who feels that with their conscience being as it is, they cannot act within that law, they should voluntarily surrender their licence, failure to do so should see them stripped of their authority. That should apply to secular marriage celebrants, as well as the religious kind.
That has nothing to do with religious freedom, but much to do with the law.
Any unlicensed person can conduct a "marriage" ceremony, no laws involved. However it will not be recognized by the state, unless the participants go down to the Registry Office and go through the appropriate state required process to register their marriage.

What is disgusting is the misleading advertising by the "No" Campaign, linking SSM to the nonsense that their will be some hellish forced sexual orientation realignment of children in schools. The "No" Campaign with that lie, is pathetic in the extreme.

Paul,

People are not 'bigots' just because they disagree with you on SSM. And, I'll bet you haven't called the person who sacked the girl for voting NO a bigot, have you? The catholic bishops you hate so much are surely no different from this bimbo, who has offended against employment law, as would any bishop sacked a person for voting YES.

If you are going to call people bigots, have to be prepared to also be called a bigot by others who disagree with YOU.

There are already laws to protect employees from the bimbo and the bishop – nothing to do with the Marriage Act – but your little post has highlighted the very thing that may people are concerned about if the Marriage is changed: that freedoms will be lost by those who do not wish to endorse or enable SSM. They “... should have their authority to perform marriage ceremonies terminated” you say!

You are on very shaky ground calling anyone else a bigot, Paul.

All in all, this discussions has emphasised the real political motive behind the push for changing the Marriage Act – to divide us and to cause chaos, with us all at each others throats over something that is so trivial. Homosexuality and SSM are merely sides shows to the main putsch.

And, the Presbyterian minister who refused to marry a normal man/woman just because the said they would vote YES is a creep. And, the AFL, now a political organisation, is a laughing stock.

Philip S, "There is a lot of public money going into sports organizations in one way or another"

A lot of that money too comes from the subs of thousands of players including juniors. The cash is funnelled to facilities and pays for the elite, but it is money that the parents, volunteers and players of local clubs can ill-afford to lose.

Dear phanto,

You wrote;

“Also the organisation does not need to have an opinion since the organisation does not have the right to vote.”

The obvious question then my friend is does this apply to the Catholic Church and if not why not?

Dear Shadow Minister,

As I said in my earlier post I felt the owner had overstepped the mark.

You wrote;

“As for the other employees are you saying that their difference in political opinion is a cause for termination?”

You tell me. What was your stance on Yassmin Abdel-Magied?

Looks like biased MSM are on the job for the yes vote.

A quick look at headlines for stories you get these.

'Yes' vote could 'prevent 3000 teen suicide attempts' a year

The 'bleeding heart' lawyer who opposes same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage off the table if 'no' vote: PM

Gay Muslims shake off conservative image to back same-sex marriage

BCA boss on same-sex marriage: 'I've spent my whole life feeling like an outsider'

- Could not find any on the site in favor of NO vote.

I'll correct you for being wrong Phil. The AFL pays substantial rent for the use of those public facilities. What "rent" does the Catholic Church pay the state? Nothing, not a dime, in fact just the opposite, they have received billions in benefits from the state.

There is nothing wrong with a business/organization taking a particular view on laws, and proposed changes to laws, it is seen at times, as good business sense to do so. Business spend lots of money lobbing government to have new laws, and changes to existing laws,and government policies that favour them. As this issue seems to have some moral aspect to it, it is controversial that some businesses have come out in support of change. But if the business believes that they will be perceived as better by the public, as being part of the community for taking that stand, then they do so freely. Why not?

Paul,

The three pillars of democracy that shouldn't interfere with each other are the state, the courts, and the churches. While it is already illegal for a layperson to discriminate on the basis of religion by withdrawing services based on the race or sexuality of the client, it is entirely another kettle of fish to force religious leaders to perform religious ceremonies contrary to beliefs. You are calling for exactly that, and confirming the claims that the No case is making.

That and other gay activists calling for the compulsory implementation of the discredited "safe schools" program is confirming their worst fears, as does firing people for their opinions.

SR,

It appears that we are in furious agreement.

As for Yasmin Abdel-Magied, I believe that she is a smart cookie that realised quickly that if she said enough outrageous crap and played the race/ religion card she could get famous, the left fawning over her, and a bucket load of cash. It worked for Trump and Walled Ally.

Steele:

“The obvious question then my friend is does this apply to the Catholic Church and if not why not?”

The Catholic Church already had an opinion on marriage long before the postal vote came along. They do not have to express an opinion and they can hardly take back an opinion when it has been fundamental to their teaching for centuries. Whether they can vote or not is irrelevant in their case.

The AFL has only now voiced an opinion. You don’t need an opinion unless it is in support of action. The AFL cannot act so it does not need an opinion. It can however be seeking to emotionally manipulate its followers.

Paul1405:

“What "rent" does the Catholic Church pay the state? Nothing, not a dime, in fact just the opposite, they have received billions in benefits from the state.”

Why should they pay rent on properties they own? They have received billions in benefits from the state but the state has also received billions from them. If they pulled out of schools and hospitals how would the state be able to afford to educate and hospitalise all those people cared for by the church? It makes good business sense and the state should adopt principles of good business sense

Holy Crap, it looks like common sense is prevailing...
No, it can't be, I must be seeing things

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/no-voter-fires-back-after-getting-the-sack/news-story/cebbf3ff4a85c80b01c842f271b9f604

Quote>>When Ms Sims was asked whether her views were hypocritical and counter-productive to her message of equality, she said: “We’ve got views and then we’ve got sexuality and it really breaks my heart that in this day and age it seems to be a common theme that … you get into more trouble for being a hypocrite than you will for being a homophobe.”<<

More trouble for being a hypocrite than being a homophobe?
Lets think on this.
Hypocrite?
Maybe that she promotes so called equality, but that she thinks her views and stance give her a right to attack and vilify others?
Homophobe?
Simply exercising her right to free speech.
I see this issue 'where the attack on free speech' is the greater issue in question, not one or another persons opinion on a particular issue.
Without free speech society would never have gotten this far as to allow gays in society in the first place.
does anyone disagree?
People on the Pro-gay side what's your opinion?
Free Speech Yes / No ?

- The left are insane if they think their views give them a free right to attack others, they're far more dangerous than conservatives; that's what I think.

I hate to be the one to remind everyone of the old saying 'never discuss religion or politics'. Everyone has missed the point about the religious controversy. Religion is a spiritual thing. We all have differing views on many topics but religion has preached it's message for hundreds of years. Not all religions are the same. What we MUST all consider is that religion has it's own laws that transcend any human laws and must override any clash of laws that conflict with any religious preaching. It is the absolute right of a particular religion to marry or not marry someone. The YES campaign is well out of order demanding the church to change it's stance on marriage just because they say so. There are many other religions, I'm sure there is one who wants more parishioners, queers being their main following. They will have to reject many of the bibles teachings, which will then force them to reform their church, just like in Henry the eights action back when the Church of England was formed so he could divorce his wife.

Dear phanto,

My goodness this seems to be a case of you arguing with yourself rather than I. To quote you once again “It is up to the AFL to protect inclusivity”.

Perhaps you are unaware but the AFL has been on this path for nearly a quarter of a century, arguably since that famous action by Nikki Winmer in 1983.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Winmar#/media/File:Nicky_Winmar_gesture.jpg

They have expanded their inclusion ethos from indigenous matters to celebrating diversity and have lately made great strides in elevating womens football.

Two years ago they conducted the first Pride Game between St Kilda and the Swans. This is now an annual part of the fixture.

The individual clubs can go their own path but most have supported the AFL in their advocacy. Carlton is probably the most glaring exception but given its very strong ties to Liberal party identities over the years this is probably not surprising.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/carlton-blues/weak-hollow-disappointing-fans-condemn-carlton-on-marriage-equality-statement-20170920-gylk2b.html

There has been resistance to every single one of the initiatives put up by the AFL but thankfully the weight of public support has allowed them to flourish.

So for you to contend only the Catholic Church has right to claim a history in this matter is wrong. The AFL is doing exactly what one would expect given the strong stance of inclusion it has adopted over many years.

Dear Arm Chair Critic,

This is pretty simple. Gay people who are working for tax payer funded positions within the Catholic health and education systems are told to not to display their relationships openly.

“It's the great unspoken rule of Church organisations that gay people must fly under the radar. A 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is implied, but all of us are acutely aware we work in one of the few jobs not protected by anti-discrimination laws. This black cloud hangs over our every public action because, for some reason, teachers' lives are something our communities feel entitled to know and talk about. Whether it's our social media posts, or even just holding our partner's hand in public, we must carefully curate our outward appearance so as to not technically break Church rules, even if many of us live in a 'glass closet'.”
https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=52973

Why should they be denied that right?

Free Speech Yes / No ?

Hey SteeleRedux,
I think is some ways its a 'who came first' deal.
The church was there with its values long before that employee was born, why should the church change its fundamentals to accommodate them?
I see no reason why they should...
However, the issue of tax certainly makes it more complicated.

What are you referring to when you mean tax-payer funded?
If you're saying they are direct recipients of money given by the government who take it from taxpayers, then all taxpayers including gays have an interest in what goes on in that church.
There's a kind of basis where if they are receiving public money they have an obligation to all taxpayers, I'll accept that.

But if you are trying to say they are tax-payer funded by simply being 'exempt from paying tax' then I do not agree.

That they are exempt from tax does not necessarily make them taxpayer funded because they are not spending money taken from all taxpayers, they are just exempt, and it's not the same as taking money from everyone.

They are not spending our money, so they cannot be taxpayer funded.
Just 'exempt' nothing more nothing less'

Some charities should not be charities and I think in most cases the churches are the least worst offenders.

I still don't think you answered the question on whether you think the right to 'freedom of speech' is a right that is more important than single issues themselves, you'll have to explain better sorry.

' The debate is now heated enough for violent protests. Be warned.'

Yeah Not_Now.Soon we have seen the violent bigots at work a lot lately. YOu know the tantrum throwing mob who are still sooking over Hilary and her embarassing loss. Many of them are cowards wearing masks. Shows you why corporal punishment should never have been done away with. The getup clowns are among the worse.

School ‘wear a dress’ fundraiser hijacked by SSM debate
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/school-wear-a-dress-fundraiser-hijacked-by-ssm-activists-on-both-sides/news-story/fe53cd4b306b989f0564cbdfe8b2b383

Instead of wearing dresses maybe the white kids could all show their solidarity instead by going to school in blackface?
This would be less gender specific, after all why aren't boys included?
Do boys not suffer in Africa, only girls?

Steele:

Inclusivity as determined by the AFL should apply only to their jurisdiction. The examples you gave fall within their jurisdiction. They have a say on how indigenous footballers should be treated but not on indigenous policies in general. They also have a say on whether women should be allowed to play their game. They also should have a say about the incorporation of minority sexualities into football. All these things affect football and it is appropriate for them to have opinions and policies in this regard.

SSM has no effect on football. The current legislation has no affect on football nor will any future legislation have any effect on football. Seeking to influence society outside of football is inappropriate. Society is quite capable of making change without the input of the AFL.

Many people agree with the inclusivity of the AFL but disagree with SSM. There is nothing illogical about this unless you think that inclusivity means agreeing with every opinion that is promoted by the homosexual lobby.

Re the Catholic church;
Why would you employ someone who you think supports a lifestyle you
believe is not just wrong but abhorrent ?
Would you permit them to be teachers of children for whom you are responsible.

It comes back to the question I raised some time back;
If you were a public servant in the department approving adoption of
children, would you approve homosexual men adopting young boys ?

Could you risk that boy coming back to sue you in say 20 years time ?
Lots of precedents for historical offences !

any violent protests at Muslim no campaign? Thought not. Hypocritical cowards.

The shadow attorney general has made it quite clear that repressive
legislation will be introduced when when next labour attains office.
Just watch what people with opinions like Philip 1405 indicate.

Go off and read what has been happening in Canada and the UK.
Canada is in the process of tightening the screws with new legislation
to be introduced quiet soon.
It starts out with legislation directly related to the subset SSM and
then morphs to LGBYQXYZ legislation as SSM is included in the set LGBYQXYZ.

It is simply logical.

About 4.6 per cent of the population is believed
to be homosexual according to a new Roy Morgan
study, although many of these people also have
some heterosexual experience and many actually
marry. The great majority of gay men and lesbian
women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships
with a person of the same sex at some time in their
lives. Changing attitudes have made these unions far
more socially acceptable than in the past, and , in
fact, some churches are now willing to perform
weddings for gay couples, although these marriages have
no legal force (as yet).

A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness of
many courts to grant custody of children to a gay parent.
In some cases, families with two gay adults are created
, usually when a divorced lesbian mother forms a
relationship with another woman - as in the case of
Dr K. Phelps.

It should also be noted that for several years, moreover,
social welfare agencies in New York and other large cities
have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys -
who are unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the
custody of gay males, usually couples.

Another interesting fact is the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination, if
they so choose, lesbian women may well be able to become
mothers without having had any heterosexual relationships
at all.

Times are changing.

Don't get in the way of radical YES voters.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has minor injuries after being assaulted in a Hobart street.

Mr Abbott was allegedly head-butted by a same sex marriage supporter, Sky News has reported.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/37177037/tony-abbott-assaulted-in-hobart/

Were the police called? Was an arrest made? Or is this another Bolt type beat up.

Failing to report a serious indictable offence is a crime. A serious indictable offence is one that comes with a maximum penalty of 5 years or more and includes assault. If Abbott is concealing a serious indictable offence he should be arrested!

Paul1405, 'was the police called'? 'Was an arrest made'? If you are typical of the YES campaign, you have displayed your unworthiness to be in ANY debate and just destroyed any chance of being taken seriously. In fact you have shown yourselves to be of the lowest of everything good about society. Let's just have a go at answering your ignorantly conceived questions. The answer to both questions is NO! If Abbott was even contemplating it, and he had every right to, he did not get the chance because the low life YES scumbag did everything in his power to escape from being held to account. Again another irrelevant YES voter who won't stand and take any criticism but are the first to dish it out.
I had an opinion when this campaign started, now more than ever you have helped me cement that opinion because you and your YES queers have been so disgusting and shown yourselves to be of a lower cast than 'normal' human beings. You do not deserve the right to anything since you have chosen to conduct yourselves in the way you have.

Dear phanto,

You had written;

“It is bullying and intimidation by any other name. When people fear for their jobs because they do not have the same opinions as the organisation about issues which are peripheral to the reason for that organisation's existence then it is a bad look for that organisation.”

I agree.

But you seem to be contending that rather than being peripheral to the Catholic Church's existence, resistance to the right of gay people to marry is instead pivotal? That to me would be a pretty sad indictment on the church and its many efforts of social justice and care.

The Church may well be opposed to SSM just as the AFL is supportive. Neither position could be called pivotal to the respective organisation's existence. Your attempts at delineation to make your argument are neither sound nor consistent. Perhaps another tack might be in order.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The Catholic school system alone consumes nearly 1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer's money each year. This is not tax foregone but directly out of the pockets of all Australians.

Therefore I think they are under more of an obligation to accommodate people expressing the values of the wider community than a small business person who employs a dozen odd contractors to do childrens parties.

Ultimately I am not an absolutist when it comes to free speech. There were those on this forum who defended Monis' right to send hateful letters to the widows of slain Australian soldiers (Bazz). Even those who are diehard free speech advocates recognise it is not without consequences.

But I do think Australians have a strong perception of whether those consequences are fair, and rightly enough those reading the statements of the business owner in case are voicing their concerns, including myself.

ALTRAV, do you really think I was being serious? Arrest Abbott, I don't think so. Got to get up early in the morning to fool one as sharp as you.

There are probably millions out there right now waiting with baited breath for your next bout of incisive prognostications on all manor of subjects that are discussed here.
I particularly liked this pearler from you "I hate to be the one to remind everyone of the old saying 'never discuss religion or politics'."
So what do you want to discuss on a political forum. Betty Crockers Cook Book?

Paul1405, I do appologise I am not as witty as most people and unfortunately I have had trouble separating the the wit from the s#!t. I try to make my position and comments as clear as I can. I try not to detract with levity or go too far off topic. I am never sure who is for and who is against on the forum. The comments and their respective responses do not always say what they mean, adding to my frustration. For clarity and transparency may I ask if you are a YES or a NO.

Steele:

Resistance by the church to SSM is based on their fundamental stance in regard to homosexuality. They do not approve of homosexual relationships and see it as a fundamental moral failing. Morals are not peripheral to their existence at all.

The AFL do not have a tradition of being involved in moral questions and would not see the issue of SSM as a moral issue. Certainly they have not said anything about the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. Homosexuality does not threaten their core reason for existence.

Hi ALTRAV, I don't take the Forum all that serious at times, its mostly a little club with a few regular contributors, its not changing the world, but I do enjoy the debate the goes on, I think I've been here for about 7 years, so it must have something going for it. I think I can be satirical at times, serious sometimes, but unfortunately stinging at other times. I tend to get up the nose of some of the more conservative contributors. Every now and then when I go over the top, Graham will put me in the cooler, deservedly so, spent a day in there last week.

Enjoy the interaction with other 'Forumites', some come and go, others have been here for yonks. All having their different cyber personalities, those differences is what makes it fun to be a part of. Imagine if we were all the same, posting the same opinions. all in full agreement....how boring that would be. I wouldn't last 5 minutes.

To answer your questing I voted YES.

'Today Tonight' poll 21/9/17:

Always planned to vote YES 15%
Recently changed vote to YES 1%
Always planned to vote no 66%
Recently changed vote to NO 18%

In Hobart, YES thug head butts Tony Abbott.

Reliable stuff there, ttbn.

Those results are hardly surprising given the demographic of TodayTonight’s viewers, I mean, who actually watches the evening news now, anyway? All randomised polls over the last 13 years, including a 13-year study involving the same 17,000 subjects, find the opposite.

<<In Hobart, YES thug head butts Tony Abbott.>>

In Brisbane, NO thug bashes Kevin Rudd’s gay Godson.

I’m sure we can all find examples of undesirable behaviour to commit the Association fallacy with.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

Those of us who have logic and reason on their side, however, will not need to.

"Those of us who have logic and reason on their side, however, will not need to."

He says after having a need to mention the attack on Kevin Rudd's godson.

Talking about homosexuality and Churches.

It appears that not all Churches share the same
views as the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality.

The following link explains:

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

We're told that 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.

Dear phanto,

What makes you think I “needed” to point out that incident? That incident occurred nine days ago now. Had I “needed” to commit the Association fallacy by raising it, one would think I would have done that by now.

Furthermore, you’ll note that I used the precise format and grammar used by ttbn, changing only the necessary details to make my point. This alone should have been enough, for any reader not attempting to be obtuse, to understand the point I was making.

There is nothing to suggest that I needed to mention that incident regarding Kevin Rudd’s Godson. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise, I am afraid.

Philips:

So others need to do it but when you do it then it is not out of need?

Irrespective of what some churches think about homosexual marriage, there is only one Christian view on the matter, and that is NO. Most reformist churches are now little more than socialist, political organisations, who have lost their places in society by ignoring doctrine.

Dear phanto,

No, it has nothing to do with who the individual is. In no way did I imply that that was the case, and it would be less-than-honest for one to suggest otherwise. Please read what I had said to your good self again.

Further to the points I had made to you earlier, I would also point out that my statement - immediately preceding the statement of mine that you quoted - explicitly noted that one could point to undesirables on either side of the debate. This too should have made it obvious, to even the most casual of readers, that I was making a point about the futility of cherry-picking incidences to suit one’s narrative.

It would be most appreciated if you could refrain from engaging in obtuse interpretations of what I say.

Thank you.

To settle the latest argument here you will have to keep score.
As far as I can see the YES vote has the highest score.
This is especially so if you count dismissiles and demands for doctors to be struck off.

Philips:

The most casual reader would have deduced that you were involved in a tit-for-tat with TTBN. Then you realised how bad that looked and decided to make a blanket denunciation of all such examples. You were virtue-signalling to try and cover your own behaviour instead of just owning up to the fact that you also indulged in that same behaviour. That would be the honest thing to do.

Dear phanto,

Yes, it was a tit-for-tat of sorts, and I have explained my actions twice now. I did not feel that it looked bad at all, however. To the contrary, I believe what I had done was rather effective. Indeed, the tit-for-tat can be very effective communication strategy, depending its utilisation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

<<Then you realised how bad that looked and decided to make a blanket denunciation of all such examples.>>

Unfortunately, you cannot have read my mind, and, as I have already explained, my actions and the circumstances do not support your hypothesis. But since you have shown an interest in what I was thinking, I will tell you:

I was considering just how dishonest the technique utilised by ttbn was. I then thought to myself that there simply HAD to be a fallacy to describe it. It did not even take me a second to then realise that what ttbn had done was commit the Association fallacy. At least this is what his actions suggest, given the hastiness with which he reported the incident and did not accompany the revelation with a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

But thank you for taking an interest in my motives. I am always happy to confirm or clarify your interpretations of them.

Philips:

How is TTBN’s ‘technique’ dishonest? Is he lying about the facts of the incident? He merely presented an example of bad behaviour by a member of the YES group. He is not suggesting that we vote NO because of this one individual’s behaviour - that would be absurd. He wasn’t presenting it as an argument and yet you claim to be responding to it as if it were an argument. If that is what you call an argument then you need more study about arguments.

Why would you respond to it as if it were an argument unless to cover up your own response which was equally invalid as an argument? Why would you go off to Wikipedia in search of a fallacy definition when it wasn’t a fallacious argument because it wasn’t even an argument to begin with?

hehehehe
The hypocrisy of the bigots.
One week screaming that business owners can do as they please with their own business.
The next week screaming because a business owner did as they pleased with their own business.
LOL.
Its nearly over bigots.

phanto,

While I appreciate that you still believe that it is possible to reason with a person like AJ Philips, I have tell you that it is not possible; he is best ignored.

It is a long time since I read the garbage he posts. The only reason I know that he referred to me in any way is because I read your posts. I told the fool several months ago that I was not prepared to to read or respond to his arrogant, ignorant bullying nonsense, and I meant it. I scroll bottom up, and when I see his moniker, I keep right onto scrolling. He has nothing to say that interests me or affects me in any way at all. If you have the patience to deal with the rabbit, good luck!

Dear phanto,

An excellent follow up question. I thank you for it. Prima facie, there is nothing dishonest about what ttbn had said.

<<How is TTBN’s ‘technique’ dishonest?>>

However, when the first contribution one makes to a discussion, such as this, includes a statement regarding the fact that someone from the ‘Yes’ camp assaulted Tony Abbott, with no expressions of regret or examples of violence from the other side, then one could be forgiven for suspecting dishonest intentions.

It is for this reason that I gave what ttbn had said some further consideration and, subsequently, realised the fallacy that had been committed - which is indeed dishonest. I then reported back with my realisation and noted that such tactics are not necessary when one has logic and reason on one's side.

<<Is he lying about the facts of the incident?>>

No, he is not. Nor does he have to be.

<<He merely presented an example of bad behaviour by a member of the YES group.>>

Not “merely”. See above.

<<He is not suggesting that we vote NO because of this one individual’s behaviour - that would be absurd.>>

That is correct. And indeed it would be absurd.

<<He wasn’t presenting it as an argument and yet you claim to be responding to it as if it were an argument.>>

The circumstances did indeed suggest that ttbn was implicitly presenting it as an argument. Or, at the very least, insinuating something. See above.

<<Why would you go off to Wikipedia in search of a fallacy definition when it wasn’t a fallacious argument because it wasn’t even an argument to begin with?>>

The premises in this question are flawed and, as of yet, unfounded.

--

Dear ttbn,

If you can point me to anything I have said before that is ignorant, arrogant, or bullying, then that would be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Talking about the Tony Abbott head-butting incident.
I believe that there is no footage of it. A
witness has claimed that the man who police have
arrested did not say anything about same-sex marriage
to Mr Abbott. Which does raise quite a few questions
about Mr Abbott's motives in using the incident for
political mileage.
I dare say more may come out eventually as police
investigate this incident.

Here is a link that asks a few questions:

http://newmatilda.com/2017/09/22/is-tony-abbott-lying-about-getting-head-butted-for-marriage-equality/

Early days, but the ABC reports that support for homosexual 'marriage' has slipped 4% this week, linking it to the self-defeating YES thuggery.

And, the 38 year old moron who assaulted Tony Abbott after telling his victim that he wanted to shake his hand has been arrested by Tasmanian police and charged with common assault.

I wonder why the people always quoting the ABC have not mentioned this.

Possibly because the attack on Mr Abbott had nothing
to do with same-sex marriage. It was an attack by
an anarchist who had a long-standing grudge against
Mr Abbott and saw his opportunity and took it.
He made it quite clear that it was a sole action and had
nothing to do with the "YES" campaign as George Brandis
and others have confirmed to the media.

Just saw on 7News the half-wit who assaulted Tony Abbott. He has no regrets and probably would do it again, he said.

He was wearing a YES badge when he attacked Abbott. Given the fruit loops now regularly seen heckling and harassing people who don't agree with them, it will be very hard to convince anyone that the homosexual nonsense was not the reason for the attack. The assailant himself certainly would not be believed.

As someone in the media wrote a day or so ago, the YES camp seems to be doing everything they can to ensure that they fail.

Philips:

A fallacy is a failure of logic.

If you can demonstrate dishonesty then why would you bother to look for failures in logic? Why would anyone entertain any post which was so obviously dishonest if that is what you claim it to be. Why not just point out the dishonesty of it? What did he say that was dishonest?

You seem to be trying to excuse your search for a failure of logic when no such search is required if the post is dishonest.

Some people may not believe the man who claims that
his head-butting of Mr Abbott had nothing to do with
the YES campaign for same-sex marriage. That he saw the
opportunity and simply took it because he held a
personal grudge against Mr Abbott. Be that as it may.

However, to quote in part from the link given earlier -

"What is certain is that the offender almost certainly didn't
jail men, women, and children seeking asylum, he didn't
send troops to foreign countries to carpet-bomb them, and
he probably didn't punch a wall behind the head of a
woman at Sydney University a few years back."

Foxy,

I can't believe that you are condoning violence?

Firstly TA didn't report the incident, but a number of witnesses did if you'd care to read other sources than the absolute crap from NM. who don't have a competent journalist amongst the lot. Neither did Tony Abbott jail asylum seekers nor sent soldiers to carpet bomb anyone nor hit a wall next to a political opponent. I suppose mentioning that Juliar killed 1200+ asylum seekers and labor set up all these camps is forgotten?

I guess that the only reason the intellectually retarded author didn't post her name on the article is to avoid a defamation suit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You might enjoy the following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/scott-marsh-mural/8893108

Foxy,

That the Yes campaign managers were not involved in or condone the incident does not mean that the individual did not use the SSM as a pretext to attack Abbott.

In much the same context that a man stabbing someone whilst yelling Allahu akbar has nothing to do with Islam.

Time after time it is the left whingers that are by far the most violent.

Dear phanto,

Your definition of the word 'fallacy' is correct. At least where logic specifically is concerned.

<<A fallacy is a failure of logic.>>

Such a belief or insinuation, that this one thug’s actions say anything about the ‘Yes’ campaign as a whole, would be a failure in logic. A good Venn diagram illustrating why, can be found at the Wikipedia article on the Association fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#/media/File:Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg

<<If you can demonstrate dishonesty then why would you bother to look for failures in logic?>>

Because, as I have alluded to above, the two can indeed overlap.

<<Why would anyone entertain any post which was so obviously dishonest if that is what you claim it to be.>>

Because not everyone (note that I did not say everyone else apart from me) would necessarily understand that.

<<Why not just point out the dishonesty of it?>>

By pointing out the fallacy committed, this is precisely what I had done. Whether the intended target is oneself or everyone else, dishonesty is being employed when the Association fallacy is committed.

<<What did he say that was dishonest?>>

The Association fallacy is, in and of itself, dishonest. The links I have provided, regarding the fallacy, should adequately explain why.

<<You seem to be trying to excuse your search for a failure of logic when no such search is required if the post is dishonest.>>

I hope the above clears this up, then.

Words from radical YES voter.

"I was thinking: 'there's Tony Abbott, I'm going to headbutt him'," he said.

“I decided I was never going to get the opportunity to head-butt that c** again, so I seized the moment."

“I believe in human rights and that's largely why I hate Tony Abbott because he doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality,” he told 7 News.

He will be able to test his rights in jail.

If he gets a slap on the wrist it will be open season on EX & current politicians.

Phil, we are all equal under the law. I to seen the perpetrator, 'The Abbott Butter', on the telly, obviously an idiot. As for locking him up, well yes, but jail is not the place for him, a psychiatric ward in a secure facility would be more appropriate.

Paul1405 - I would agree with you if there was a history of psychological symptoms otherwise I will stick with the jail term as a lesson and deterrent.

Foxy:

“Some people may not believe the man who claims that
his head-butting of Mr Abbott had nothing to do with
the YES campaign for same-sex marriage. That he saw the
opportunity and simply took it because he held a
personal grudge against Mr Abbott. Be that as it may.

However, to quote in part from the link given earlier -

"What is certain is that the offender almost certainly didn't
jail men, women, and children seeking asylum, he didn't
send troops to foreign countries to carpet-bomb them, and
he probably didn't punch a wall behind the head of a
woman at Sydney University a few years back."”

So that makes his behaviour quite acceptable then? Violence is never OK.

Paul,

Why don't you sign the head butter up for the greens? he will fit right in. The idiot has done more to boost the No campaign than probably even Abbott himself.

Foxy,

Why would I be interested in an unoriginal mural done by a mediocre artist whose main intention was self-promotion by appealing to a left whinge media who predictably lapped it up?

Here's something of the same genre:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/10/25890DD200000578-2947101-image-a-7_1423570325415.jpg

Frankly Foxy, I am surprised at you. An act of violence against a politician and you cannot bring yourself to condemn it, instead, you busy yourself justifying it.

As to the incident itself, the left whinger was wearing the YES campaign logos and unprovoked, attacked Abbott the leader of the No campaign with clearly the intent to physically injure him. As to the motives, unless the left whinger knew Abbott personally, the motive was political.

The political issue at the time was SSM, and it stretches credulity to believe that the left whinger, (who probably now realises the implications of his actions) is not simply trying to undo the huge boost to the No campaign that he has just delivered with yet another left whinge inspired act of violence.

"Tony Abbott 'headbutted' by SSM supporter in Hobart, both sides of marriage debate condemn violence"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/tony-abbott-headbutted-by-ssm-supporter-in-hobart/8970658

The assailant was a SSM supporter.

It was revealing that the first instinct of SSM supporters and on OLO too, was spin: to spread a false story that the attack had not happened at all, to try to deflect, minimise and failing all of that to laugh at the victim of the attack. One of the OLO's perennial gay activists (as opposed to homosexual supporter, there is a vast political difference of recent origin) went to the extreme of justifying the attack by insinuating the victim deserved it somehow. Shameful.

It was soon later when the pigeons were coming home to roost because the Aussie public reject violence, that there was a switch. Although noticeably, some helpful, biassed, (hack) journalists had already tried to minimise and deflect through closed leading questions.

Yes. This morning the media is still reporting that Abbott was attacked by a 'SSM supporter', so the unrealistic denial from the homo camp has gone down like a lead balloon - nobody believes it was not motivated by SSM hysteria.

I reckon that homosexuals were most ill-advised to allow the faux Marxist feminists and 'Progressives', along with the bullying Gay Pride activism imported from the social strife-ridden US of A to take over and lead them by the nose.

Those political elites and stirrers draw the serial nuisances like raw chicken draws the blowies.

Most homosexuals just wanted to fly under the radar while being accepted as different. Outlaws who could flex arrangements to suit themselves because they were not institutionalised by the feckless politicians, bureaucrats and Big Brother, now Big Sister(hood), State. The freedom was well worth some minor inconvenience for the few very well offs (namely pollies, academic and other bureaucrats) who wanted to claim some 'married' entitlements.

The gent who headbutted Abbott is allegedly part of the inner urban fringe demographic, that Greens and Shorten's Labor (NOT traditional Labor members!), fight over. Just as those parties elbow each other to 'win' the similarly easily influenced inner urban Hipster, with the 'significant to moi, but the same as everyone else' tatts, triangles and such.

I don't take that fool as representing homosexuals as such, leastways not the cowed and silent majority of homosexuals. But then I don't imagine that many of the steamrolling 'Yes' crew represent traditional homosexuals' opinion either.

//the cowed and silent majority of homosexuals.//

Oh here we go, the 'no' voters actually represent the silent majority of homosexuals. Good one XD

You 'no' people really are getting desperate now, aren't you?

Either way, there's strife ahead.

I did have to mention raw chicken :(

Homosexual does not imply homogeneity of world view, lifestyle, expectations and opinion. The tide of homosexuals opinion was always massively against marriage. It was the butt of jokes. Do you imagine that those homosexuals are so fickle as to change their tried and tested lifestyles, outlooks and views overnight? They are being ignored.

Very few homosexuals, only the educated middle class elite (mainly women bureaucrats) gain from marriage and for that matter, from the Gillard feminist idealogical extremism that extended the definition and coverage of de facto 'relationships' (Common Law marriage). Most others lose by having the State's interference in their lives. The example already given is the cost of divorce and the 2-4 years Federal Court delays.

The feminists and self-titled 'Progressives' have criticised marriage unrelentingly for decades and want it demolished. For them if marriage was the dead parrot of the Monty Python sketch they would be ecstatic. But they are all for pushing it onto homosexuals, why?

//Either way, there's strife ahead.//

... said Hanrahan.

//Homosexual does not imply homogeneity of world view, lifestyle, expectations and opinion.//

Of course not. And yet somehow, inexplicably, you know what the 'silent majority' of homosexuals think. Divine revelation? Been taking lessons in mentalism from the Amazing Phanto? Random conjecture?

Anyway, they'll all get a vote in the survey, same as everybody else. And I'll take this opportunity to remind you that the survey asks if the law should be changed to allow SSM, not if the law should be changed to make SSM compulsory.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course violence is not OK.

And of course the anarchist's headbutt of Tony
Abbott had nothing to do with the same-sex marriage
campaign. We see some awful actions undertaken by
certain people on both sides of political campaigns.
But we don't assume that everyone is guilty of
them. It just takes a few nutters to give things a
bad name. The following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-samesex-marriage-anarchist-dj-who-headbutted-ton-abbott-speaks-out-20170922-gymu2z.html

I cited the other link of the street artist because I
assumed that you did have a sense of humour - and I
thought you may see the funny side of his actions as
opposed to the violence of the other guy.

Both men expressed their feelings in totally different ways
and this was an illustration of the direction that political
campaigns can take for different people.

Here's another link that presents another perspective:

http://theconversation.com/on-marriage-equality-australias-progressive-instincts-have-been-crushed-by-political-failure-83796

Toni Lavis,

Any self-respecting leftie should be waking up to the stupidity of allowing the State to further limit social bonding options. The State can do that automatically in many more cases now, thanks to Eighties rad feminist Gillard. Now marriage to top it off and push in the reinforcement rods? And what for, to line the already bulging wallets of the already privileged middle class, mostly bureaucrats, academics and pollies?

Particularly where there are already doubts, evidence, that what is already in place is not working for many people and is creating casualties. Instances of the last mentioned would be individuals, couples, who lose their assets of years of saving to legal processes, and the sheer numbers of alienated people, adults and children, parents, carers, grandparents.

However for social, health, housing, transport, energy and a host of other reasons we should be encouraging innovation in different living and alternative bonding, arrangements.

I will leave it at that because any with wit should be stimulated to think of high rise group housing in lieu of those terraces and stand alone houses in Sydney for example. Maybe homosexual group housing is an option to consider? What about the aged, where it is abundantly obvious that the Seventies ideal of a unit or single room in an everything provided low rise facility in a way-out-there suburb fails them in all of the valued dimensions, social, health, autonomy and financial? They live impoverished lives and die early from boredom and the diseases of physical and mental activity. Why shouldn't they be able to continue life as their fitness dictates, including socially and sexually? Possible with development of high density housing in inner city. What about no need for private transport? Shared gardens too.

Honestly, the faux leftists and so-called 'Progressives' are anything BUT progressive. 'Their' solution is to rub the Xtians' noses in the do do. A certain but pyrrhic victory. They should be running a mile from marriage and demanding change to Gillard's presumptuous 'initiatives'.
Old School and authoritarian? Yes.
Innovative, human, adventurous and caring? No.

"self-respecting leftie". Is there such a thing, leoj?

Research shows conservative and progressive brains
are physically different, with right-wingers being
much more susceptible to fear.

So the next time you want to chat someone up here's
what you do. You just figure out if they're Labor,
Greens or a Coalition supporter and then you either
make them think or scare the life out of them.

Piece of cake.

What research was that then Foxy?

"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."
- The United States Declaration of Independence

//Any self-respecting leftie//

And what about those that aren't lefties? I'm guessing you didn't watch Q&A on Monday night - too many lefties - but if you did you would have got to hear conservative American journalist Bret Stephens making the following comments:

"You know, you made the argument for equality. As a conservative, I make the argument from a standpoint of freedom. People have a right – at least in America and it ought to be everywhere – to pursue their own happiness. That’s fundamental.
And by the way, that’s fundamentally a conservative idea, that the individual in his or her pursuit of happiness ought to be the primary concern of a fair-minded government. Government should not stand in the way of your ability to make the most important decision of your life, which is who you love, and to love them with dignity and openness in a sense that this is absolutely OK for not just for yourself but for everybody."

Now, I don't consider myself a Tory, but I found myself nodding in agreement far more with Bret than I did with Penny Wong or Sarah Hanson-Young. That's pretty much my view position on SSM, except without the 'as a conservative' bit. Other than that we're in furious agreement.

I'd be interested to see how you'd respond to the very reasonable arguments of a self-confessed Tory, since you're so desperate to turn this into some sort of political football instead of engaging with the arguments put forward. Which, by the way, is making the ad hominem fallacy: arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the identity of the person making them.

Although I suspect it's just going be 'no true Scotsman...'

Dear Toni Lavis,

I also watched QandA on Monday evening and I agree
with you. The conservative journalist made a very favourable
impression on me as well - certainly better than some
of the other panelists. Thank You for giving us his quotes
here on the Forum.

Dear ttbn,

There are quite a few studies listed on the web about
the differences in conservative and progressive brains.
If you were to Google "Differences in Conservative and
Progressive Brains" or "Biology and Political Orientation,"
they should come up. There's examples of studies done
in Scientific American, Wikipedia, and other sources.
Your choice as to which ones appeal to you.

“Government should not stand in the way of your ability to make the most important decision of your life, which is who you love, and to love them with dignity and openness in a sense that this is absolutely OK for not just for yourself but for everybody."

What has this to do with SSM? Do only married people love each other? Cannot unmarried couples also have dignity and openness?

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Governments should have no role in anyone's personal relationships. It most certainly should not be sponsoring or endorsing fake marriages for homosexuals as both the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Greens are shamelessly doing now.

Foxy,

I believe your 'studies' are junk science and psycho babble. I understand that the slur against conservatives would have appeal to you, though.

Toni Lavis,

What you and Foxy (seeing you are joined at the hip according to dependent Foxy) are avoiding is the disadvantage the public are labouring under in being forced into a black or white, yes or no, vote on something that is only the tip of a whole bundle of seemingly intractable problems, wicked problems, that are NOT being discussed and every time anyone asks for elucidation s/he is shooed away and sledged.

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the discussion of SSM has been the preserve of the political elite, which includes activists such as yourself and Foxy, who have the inclination and time to dwell on the subject, avidly watching Q&A and Googling endlessly. very likely it is your meal subject too.

But the greatest majority of people have not been privvy to access to those sites inner sanctums of activists and so on. The public is more concerned with other things such as providing for themselves and family and they have other, usually broader interests.

It is completely unreasonable that they should be put in gthe position of having a y or n vote only and are to be excluded, as before, from knowing about and discussing the practical issues that could impinge on them and their loved ones. Besides, feminists and 'progressives' 'know', they are adamant, that marriage is broken and has always been hugely disadvantageous to women. So why are they suddenly all for it and pushing it onto homosexuals?

Go outside the Family Court and interview the sad and much poorer victims (feminists and 'Progressives' would call them victims and in this case they are) of marriage. What about the delays of years and alienated children? No interest in fixing any of that, not even in talking about it.

Trust 'them' to turn marriage on its head and do more political deals behind closed doors? What, when 'they' haven't 'fessed' up to their mess?
You are kidding, not likely and NO. Clean up the messes before proposing SSM.

I wonder why the politicians would not reveal just what legislation they will be debating if the YES vote comes out on top before they issued the 'survey' papers. If the vote is NO, that will be the end of it until Labor gets into power and enforces a non-democratic decision as they have threatened they will; but a YES vote doesn't end the matter entirely. We don't know how far they will go to 'protect' the fake marriages.

We are being kept in the dark. We are allowing ourselves to be put to sleep. This is how totalitarian regimes are created.

//the discussion of SSM has been the preserve of the political elite, which includes activists such as yourself and Foxy//

So because I post on OLO I'm a politically elite activist? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the Venn diagram is to be constructed that way, you're as much as of a politically elite activist as myself.

//who have the inclination and time to dwell on the subject//

Et tu, brute.

//avidly watching Q&A//

Avidly? It's only on for an hour a week, and not all 52 of the year. I watch more porn than that.

//and Googling endlessly//

Actually, that bit is true. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

//It is completely unreasonable that they should be put in gthe position of having a y or n vote only and are to be excluded, as before, from knowing about and discussing the practical issues that could impinge on them and their loved ones.//

Whilst that is a lovely utopian ideal, Joel, a representative democracy where everybody is a representative is entirely impractical and little better than anarchy.

//So why are they suddenly all for it//

Are you sure they're all for it? Have you really asked them all? What did I just say about not being taken in by that charlatan the 'Amazing' Phanto? He doesn't know how to read minds, and he'll just spend your tuition fees on gin. You've been had, lad.

//and pushing it onto homosexuals?//

And once again I must remind you that everybody gets a free vote in the survey, and that if the 'yes' vote is carried, nobody will be forced to get gay married. This isn't about anybody pushing anything onto anybody, Joel.

No rebuttal to Bret's argument, then?

SSM radicals at it again.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/samesex-marriage-women-kiss-on-stage-in-protest-at-no-event/news-story/6de2aea40cd923f468af85e8f6ec065a

TWO female protesters stormed the stage of a Coalition for Marriage “vote no” rally last night, embracing in a kiss before being escorted away.

The woman are seen kissing on stage for more than 20 seconds. They are then pulled offstage by a man as they remained kissing before security guards intervened.

It is alleged the women made several attempts to enter the room and were heard chanting “burn churches not queers” and “crucify Christians”.

Foxy,

While the SSM campaigners might have had nothing to do with the assault, that the Left whinger declared his opinion clearly on his shirt makes it highly likely that the SSM campaign contributed. His statement to the contrary is barely credible.

As for the mural, the same theme has been done for Putin, Trump and many others. What was amusing the first and maybe the second time...

I've also read an article in Scientific American about the maturation of the brain, and its relation to determining risk. Younger brains under 25 tend to undervalue risks and consequences compared to adults >30 which why insurance premiums for younger drivers, especially under 25, are heavily loaded. Insurance companies believe that a little more "fear" is a safer more rational option. Now compare this to voting trends and it is clear that younger voters <30 are more "progressive" and older voters >30 are more conservative.

From what we can see progressive brains are less fearful than conservative brains, but also perhaps less rational, less mature and more violent.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As usual, I enjoy our robust discussions.

You always manage to make me think outside the box.

Thank You.

Philip,

I glad I didn't see that. Yuk!

Foxy,

Just when you thought that the Yes campaign had some deniability:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKdeS4nVYAAwCNE.jpg

It is also easy to manipulate statistics to get a result one desires. I remember a recent article that said that up to 50% of University postgrad thesis are guilty of some form of data manipulation to get the desired result.

Also, "fearful" can be interpreted as cautious.

Nothing new about the young and those older.
By the time one reaches 30 you may have seen somebody near your age
known to you die.
That has a tendency to make you contemplate your own mortality.
It reduces your recklessness and those attitudes normally cross
into other areas of life like politics.
Also by that time you may have a wife and children that depend on you
for the necessities of life.
Delete all the feminist thoughts about that last sentence, It is the
natural way of things.

Experience is a cruel master and only the really stupid do not learn from it.
So do not blame the young you see in those demos on the Yes side they
will eventually learn that there are long long traditions behind the
NO case that have been tried and tested over 100,000s of years.

By the way an article about a "soldier" that says it is not female
and not male so they just refer to it as Cadet so&so.
Next we will have a campaign for equal marriage rights for "its".

Bazz, well said.I too have seen the article and it beggars belief that a mentally ill person can hold the various institutions, (govt or private) to ransom. I expect leaders to lead and not cow-tow to these sick and twisted 'IT'S'. It's as if the world is being taken over by zombies, in that reason and common sense are a thing for the 'oldies' and therefore not progressive enough for this bold new generation of 'IT'S'. I am reminded of 'The Adams Family' and cousin 'It'. I think that's a reasonable analogy.

Hi Foxy and Shadow,

<<From what we can see progressive brains are less fearful than conservative brains, but also perhaps less rational, less mature and more violent.>>

Not so Shadow, conservatives through their position of wealth and privilege, tend to have a greater dominance, and therefore a greater say in society. The only violence a conservative considers is the illegal kind, such as perpetrated by this nutter in Tasmania.
There is also the state sanctioned forms of violence, police action, military intervention, etc. The conservatives totally discount those forms of violence with the justification, "it's legal". It is only legal to the point that the conservatives had the dominant say in formulating the laws which made it legal in the first place. A good example of conservatives enforcing state sanctioned violence was the apartheid laws, and the way they were brutally applied in South Africa. A small minority of conservatives through their position of wealth and privilege, which also gave them power, made laws which favoured themselves over the majority, they also had the means to violently enforce those laws, a well armed, well trained, paramilitary police force. What I will agree with is most conservatives tend not to involve themselves in violent acts directly, rather they rely on a police or military force to do it for them. The police and military personnel are also mostly conservatives.

If acting with violence in self interest is considered rational and mature, then I would have to agree with your statement.

What 'progressive' brains would those be? Show the research and the specific findings.

The problem here is that 'Useful Idiots' the faux leftist political elite are feeding manure cannot discriminate between liberal and 'progressive'.

As for 'Progressives', that is another kettle of fish. There are as many variants as there are self-proclaimed 'Progressives' and many are 'Trots', or avowed international socialists (eg Labor leader Shorten), explain that.

'Progressive' is being employed as just a cloak, a convenient camouflage and often with self interest in mind. What is underneath can be all manner of conflicting beliefs. Anything from totalitarian Greens 'Eastern Bloc' and very selective bigotry such as hatred of 'white men' (quick, diversify them out of existence) and radical feminist fear and disgust of 'traditional' marriage, through to anarchists.

Come to think of it, if Shorten and ors, the treacherous Greens as well, say they are all 'Progressives' why not form a party, define and post the progressive policies and get a mandate from the electorate? No, they are all leafing through those glossy tour guides (Xmas break pending, but avoid flights near Nth Korea), while wasting Parliament's time on SSM.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

There are topics where progressives and conservatives
will never see eye to eye. It would be great however
if as Tiernan Brady has pointed out - if opposing sides
can try to cultivate mutual respect.

I came across an article in Scientific American recently.
It's an older article but quite relevant today. I'll quote
just a bit from it (due to the 350 word limit) that I feel
might be useful to this discussion. I will use the word
"Progressive" instead of "Liberal" because in the US
"Liberal" does mean "Progressive."

Here goes:

"Although conservatives and progressives are fundamentally
different there are hints emerging about how to bring them
together - or at least help them coexist."

"In his recent book, The Righteous Mind," psychologist
Jonathan Haidt of the New York University (NYU) Stern School
of Business argues that progressives and conservatives need
not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth
control, gay marriage, or health care reform."

"Even if these two world views clash, Haidt has a message for
both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's
emphasis on law, institutions, customs and religion is
valuable. Conservatives recognise that democracy is a huge
achievement and that maintaining the social order requires
imposing constraints on people. Progressive values on the other
hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of
weaker members of society are respected, limiting harmful effects,
such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to
others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and
ways of life."

"Haidt is not out to change people's deepest moral beliefs.
Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree
with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral
principles, some of the antagonism would subside."

"It's yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both
sides are wise in different values."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

Readers should critically examine what Foxy has just done, substituting her own words for those used by the original author and still presenting the passage as a quote with the link.

Foxy has explained what she has done and
why she did it. She cannot be held
responsible for those who are lacking in
comprehension skills or who are deliberately
out to attack and stir. Foxy's message is
one of respect unlike the other poster -
whose post speaks for itself.

cont'd ...

Also Foxy did not attempt to hide anything.
She gave the entire link so that posters
could read and understand the message in the
article for themselves.

Here are two other links that explain the differences
between the term Liberal as used in the US and as used
in Australia:

http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Australias-Liberal-Party-named-that-when-it-is-in-fact-conservative-and-centre-right

And -

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/liberals-are-conservative-while-labor-is-the-true-party-of-alfred-deakin/news-story/396a97b83d76c5bbd0c5d048e7cea

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo of the second link.

Here it is again. Hopefully this time it will work:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/liberals-are-conservative-while-labor-is-the-true-party-of-alfred-deakin/news-story/396a97b83d76c5bbd0b60c5d048e7cea

Foxy,

Your claim was bogus, no 'progressive' brain had been referred to. That was your invention,

"Research shows conservative and progressive brains
are physically different, with right-wingers being
much more susceptible to fear".
Foxy, Saturday, 23 September 2017 12:10:29 PM, page 17 of thread

You even enlarged on your deception here and others were led astray as the discussion ensued
Foxy, Saturday, 23 September 2017 4:07:48 PM

Later, when challenged by me to provide the research, here, at page 20
leoj, Monday, 25 September 2017 8:38:59 AM
in reply you had the audacity to copy and paste a long passage, substituting your key words instead of the person you were quoting but still representing the words as his through double quotation marks and the link. Thus implying that the author and the original researcher/s supported your view.

leoj,

I am not going to be baited by you.

Hi Foxy, why bother, you don't fall into the trap of reading those long meandering posts do you? They are full of incoherent waffle, progressive this, feminists that. Only a forum masochists would even bother glancing at them, reading them is an exercise in mental torture! I gave up long ago.

Steve Martin could have been reading Leoj when he said this in 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG81ptfPz7I

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your advice. I have to admit that I do
tend to ignore posts that don't
contribute anything productive to a discussion.
Responding to rants not only lowers the bar, it also
feeds and encourages troll-like behaviour.

Anyway,
On a happier note ...
I was going to watch QandA last night and instead they had
the Invictus Games. What an inspiring program that turned
out to be. It totally lifted my spirit.
What an awesome group of people they were. I believe that
the games will be coming to Australia in 2018. Something to
watch out for.

Foxy,

Your claim was bogus, no 'progressive' brain had been referred to. That was your invention, as demonstrated, to suit your prejudice.

If you have proof regarding your claim regarding the 'Progressive' mind, put it up, but don't be putting your own words into the mouths of others.

leoj,

I have provided a variety of links if they do not satisfy
you or you have problems understanding the points being
made that is something over which I have no control.

However, there is plenty of material on the web that discusses
studies done on the brain differences between "Liberals"
(Americans use this term to mean "Progressives") and
"Conservatives". If you doubt the links I have cited you can
Google this information for yourself. I am not in the habit
of providing "bogus" information and your finding it to be
"bogus" is your problem not mine.

Hi Foxy, the Invictus Games is certainly a worthy pursuit. Although I detest the circumstances that caused the participants injuries in the first place, it is good that they are able to compete and be recognized in that way. A well done to Harry Windsor.

Could you please say you were wrong, so leoj can stop having one of his tizzy fits. Otherwise nursy will up his medication again, and he wont be allowed to play Parcheesi tonight. Playing Parcheesi on a Tuesday night with the other inmates at the home is the highlight of Leo's week.

//Your claim was bogus, no 'progressive' brain had been referred to.//

Really? You didn't know that Americans use 'progressive' and 'liberal' synonymously? Maybe time to step outside your bubble for some fresh air, Joel. In most parts of the world the liberals are on the left; we do it differently because we're upside down and thus do things backwards: Christmas in summer, clockwise cyclones and Liberals on the right.

//Hi Foxy, the Invictus Games is certainly a worthy pursuit. Although I detest the circumstances that caused the participants injuries in the first place, it is good that they are able to compete and be recognized in that way. A well done to Harry Windsor.//

Oh for God's sake, can nobody discuss the Invictus Games without mentioning that useless inbred ginger twat? I saw a report last night - a brief mention of one Australian athlete, and then the rest of the report was devoted to what Harry and his girlfriend have been up to. Because apparently all those inspiring stories and amazing physical feats just aren't as interesting or newsworthy as Harry and whats-her-face.

Sometimes I hate the modern world.

Dear Paul,

I also hate the reasons behind the injuries that
these men and women now have to live with for the rest
of their lives. But the Invictus Games at least gives
them a goal to strive towards.

I'm not really interested in any further discussions
with leoj.
I work part-time as a volunteer - with dementia patients
at my mum's nursing home. I don't need any more work of this
kind.

Dear foxy,

Don't feed the trolls has always been great advice. The only reason I read our resident troll's posts was because you were suddenly talking about yourself in the third person and I needed to figure out why.

With posts I always scan for the author first before investing any time in the substance.

Dear Toni Lavis,

The Invictus Games are the creation of Prince Harry
who got the inspiration to help wounded and sick military
personnel and their families after his two tours of duty
in Afghanistan.

This is the third Invictus Games - about 550 competitors
from 17 countries, including Australia are slated to compete
in 12 sports over the next week.

I don't begrudge the publicity that Prince Harry and his
fiancee brought to the games. Meghan Markle is a Toronto-based
actor so her appearance at the games' opening ceremony in
support of her fiancee makes sense. Also the presence of
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and US First Lady Melania Trump
added to the prestige. All for a very worthwhile cause -
for wounded veterans.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thanks for your advice.

I will take it - and in future scan the authors
before reading their posts. It may save on the stress.

Paul,

Firstly my reply to Foxy was a little tongue in cheek, and I am surprised that your reaction was full-on conspiracy mode.

Secondly, the example of "progressive" regimes are Venezuela, China, Russia, Cuba etc, all of which would make South Africa look like a paradise.

Thirdly your example of South Africa is wrong in that the relatively progressive English government was voted out by the essentially Afrikaans National party in 1948 whose voters were mostly dirt poor and threatened by cheap black labour. It was this party that brought in apartheid and put in Keynesian policies to employ the poor whites and restrict jobs. Similarly, it was the lower paid working class that voted in Trump.

If you don't like the police, who would you prefer to protect the law? Masked neo-fascist Antifa thugs?

Foxy,

Liberal for me has always meant minimal interference by the state in the affairs of individuals and takes a light touch where it cannot avoid doing so. By this definition, the liberal party is far more "liberal" than either Labor or the greens.

Toni Lavis,

What term was used in the research? Why? And no, you cannot just come along later and substitute yours, even if you imagine some similarity.

Apart from that, it is not alright for the reasons given.

Again, if anyone has proof regarding Foxy's claim regarding the 'Progressive' mind, put it up, but don't be following Foxy's lead and be putting your own words into the mouths of others.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You may find the following link interesting:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/liberals-are-conservative-while-labor-is-the-true-party-of-alfred-deakin/news-story/396a97b83d76c5bbd0b60c5048e7cea

I need a new computer.

Here's the link again:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/liberals-are-conservatives-while-labor-is-the-true-party-of-alfred-deakin/news-story/396a97b83d76c5bbd0b60c5d048e7cea

The link doesn't open. Another recycling of Andrew Leigh's waffle of years ago? Labor is forever twisting words, a Marxist thing.

Foxy,

I hardly consider Andrew Leigh as a balanced judge in these matters. A few points:

The liberals are interested in minority rights but not the segregationalist identity politics that Labor revels in.

A colossal carbon tax designed specifically to distort the market is far cry from liberal economics.

The coalition has been aggressively pursuing free markets while Labor has opposed every single free trade deal, and Labor has thrown $bns at subsidising uneconomical local industries while maintaining tariff barriers.

So, in short, I believe Andrew is full of BS.

Dear Shadow Minister,

http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Australia's-Liberal-Party-named-that-when-it-is-in-fact-conservative-and-centre-right

Dear Shadow Minister,

Once again excuse my typo in the previous link.
Here it is again:

http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Australias-Liberal-Party-named-that-when-it-is-in-fact-conservative-and-centre-right

And here's another one:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/about-town/the-real-difference-between-liberal-and-labor-20130910-2th8s.html

I must say that I am disappointed and surprised to read that you thought Andrew Leigh was full of BS. The man does write opinion
pieces for The Australian newspaper and his background is quite
impressive. He has a BA with First Class Honours and a Bachelor
of Laws also with First Class Honours from Sydney University.
He obtained a Master in Public Administration and a PhD in
Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
And he was awarded the Economic Society of Australia's
award in 2011 for having made a significant contribution
to economic thought and knowledge.

Here is a link that is worth a read about the man:

http://www.andrewleigh.com/2940

//The Invictus Games are the creation of Prince Harry
who got the inspiration to help wounded and sick military
personnel and their families after his two tours of duty
in Afghanistan.//

Yeah, alright, fair play to the useless ginger etc. Actually, as royals go, he doesn't seem too bad (except for the ginger). I'd have him as King if Bill shuffles off the mortal coil before his due date.

But do we really need the celebrity angle? Every single one of these athletes is a hero in their own right - aren't they celebrity enough (in the sense of celebrity being a person worth celebrating)?

//What term was used in the research?//

Liberal.

//Why?//

'Coz the authors were seppos. They don't speak the language quite the same way we do, bless them.

Shadow according to you, Andrew Leigh is full of BS. You would much prefer the raving of the pompous ass Andrew "Beat Up" Bolt, or the sock horror opinions of Piers Akerman in 'The Daily Telecrap'. That's understandable given your point of view on most issues.

"The liberals are interested in minority rights" Will have to agree with you on that one, billionaires are still a minority in Australia,and in need of big Liberal tax cuts. Rupert is not even Australian, and therefore less than a minority. The Liberals do what ever they can to look after Uncle Rupert. the bloke is about to expand his Aussie media empire, thanks to those concerned Liberals, true humanitarians, helping the needy and the greedy like that.

I see your point Toni, the 6 o'clock news, Invictus Games, Aussie played Kiwi at wheelchair tennis, that took 10 seconds to cover. Then the real news, 5 minutes of Prince Harry and his dishy new love Megan Markle sitting in the grandstand.

BTW, as an after thought the TV reported the Kiwi' won, didn't bother with the score. What's important did Harry score after the match?

Can you imagine the Wimbledon men's final, Federer and Cilic, if on match point the commentator had spied Harry in the grandstand. Instead of covering the tennis, the camera pans onto Harry and his love. The commentator then gives a blow by blow description of what's with Harry, and never makes any more mention of the tennis. I'm sure that would go down well.

Foxy,

I never said that AL was stupid only that what he writes has a very deliberate ALP slant. The article is a mixture of half-truths and omissions that with his economic credential he must know is BS.

For example, the reason that the electrical network is such a cock-up at the moment is that the "market mechanism" has been completely distorted by vast subsidies that make the building of intermittent renewables far more profitable than reliable fossil-fuelled plants. The results of which can be seen in South Australia and soon in Victoria.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I did not say that you thought that Andrew
Leigh man was stupid. I was surprised and
disappointed that you thought he was full
of BS. And, I responded accordingly to your
statement.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that each of us tend to be selective
in what we think is important to stress. You of all
people should at least acknowledge that.

Another radical YES voter.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/37235980/same-sex-marriage-yes-voter-swears-at-no-campaigners-in-video/

'We've accepted you into this country': Yes voter goes on explosive rant against no campaigners

A gay marriage supporter has been caught on camera abusing and swearing at a group of ‘No’ campaigners on a busy street in Sydney.

The man in a long-sleeved shirt, with stubble and a black ear piercing was filmed yelling at a man and a woman as they handed out “It’s OK to vote No” pamphlets at Chatswood.

The man aggressively points at the campaigners.

“I respect equal rights. People like you in this country are what are bringing this f**ing country down,” he says.

“You've come here. We've accepted you into this country.”

The woman hits back saying “we’ve accepted you into this country too”.

But this just fires the man up and he keeps going.

“I’m Australian — my parents are Australian. I’m not being racist! I’ve got Aboriginal family. I’m not being racist at all,” he says.

Follow link above for video this guy is a real racist fruitcake.

More radical NO voters.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-25/same-sex-marriage-swastika-southern-brisbane/8984768

yeah AJ sure put there by antifa supporters. Wasn't you was it? Lying is not difficult for 'yes' campaigners.

Oh... Hi runner.

Sorry, I had this lengthy and considered response typed up for Philip S, thinking it was him who had posted that last comment of yours. Then I saw it was you.

*Delete*

AJ Philips So as not to disappoint you, here now it is me as well.

yeah AJ sure put there by antifa supporters. Wasn't you was it? Lying is not difficult for 'yes' campaigners.

This would not be the first time people have defaced their own property to put the blame on an opposing side.

Philips S,

So, you don't deserve a considered response either? Thanks for warning me. Anyone who could copy a response from runner and post it as their own has completely destroyed their credibility. I'm sorry you weren't aware of that.

Two can play that that game. I could simply claim that all the alleged radical 'Yes' voters are just 'No' voters pretending to be 'Yes' voters.

Were the 'Yes' campaign responsible for the other Neo-Nazi 'No' leaflet drop?

It's pretty easy to see which side has had to resort the the most lies, too, when the 'No' campaign has not only had to rely entirely on red herrings (they've barely even mentioned marriage), but has even lied about those, too.

Tell me, though, why are you so vigilantly reporting on what the more radical elements of the 'Yes' campaign are doing? What do you think it will prove? So far, all it demonstrates is that you don't have a rational argument against same-sex marriage. Would I be right in assuming that?

AJ Philips, To quote you "you don't deserve a considered response"

I achieved what I intended to achieve which got you to come back with a considered response which upon reflection does not appear to be very considered or thought out.

Sorry, Philip S, but that was nothing like what I had typed up before.

I note with interest, however, that you did not explain what the purpose of your vigilant reporting of the 'Yes' radicals was all about. My explanation is that it was a substitute for the sheer lack of an argument against same-sex marriage, and you haven't challenged that in any way.

Interesting.

Foxy,

As you have often said, everyone is entitled to form their opinions but not their own facts. I like everyone else have my own opinion, based on my interpretation of the facts available that many on OLO disagree with.

However, when someone smart like AL cherry picks some facts and misrepresents others to make a politically partisan point, then I call BS.

Labor is the party of government regulation and control, high taxes, high spending, and protectionism which is everything that is anathema to anyone that considers themselves "liberal" in the original sense. The coalition government actively tries to reduce regulation and taxes and has passed every single FTA this century.

Since I started this thread about the bad behaviour of SSM supporters, more and more examples have emerged.

In the past a joke used to be.

That Labor come into power give the voters everything and stuff up the economy so the Liberals then had to come into power and take everything away from the people and fix the economy.

With the two jokers we have now Shorten and Turnbull they both seem to want to stuff up the economy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I wouldn't be defending the Coalition Government
and blaming Labor so easily if I were you. Neither
side is perfect and most voters are getting sick
and tired of all the outrageous things politicians
and their supporters say and do and are not held
accountable. Voters are sick and tired of double-
standards, inappropirate behaviour, of the lies,
the division and disruption, the misinformation.
What politicians don't say themselves they have
surrogates say for them. And so it goes.

Can we bring back honour and truthfullness, leadership
and governing.

I wonder. Pointing fingers at the other side is an
outmoded tactic that no longer works nowadays.

' Oh... Hi runner.

Sorry, I had this lengthy and considered response typed up for Philip S, thinking it was him who had posted that last comment of yours. Then I saw it was you.'

yeah not nice when people see straight through your deceit is it AJ?

Yes, runner. Yes. That was totally it.

<<yeah not nice when people see straight through your deceit is it AJ?>>

I remind you, runner, that you are yet to point to a single example of deceit from me.

I won't hold my breath.

Shadow Minister, who is AL?

Dear runner,

If you stop lying about AJ
he'll stop telling the truth
about you.
(If you ask him nicely that is).

Foxy,

Both Labor and the Libs have their strengths, however, anyone with even a basic understanding of economics and history would know that free markets and labour flexibility are not a Labor strong point.

I agree that Andrew Leigh should not be pointing fingers especially on this issue.

And Shadow, what is "labour flexibility" is it some sort of euphemism for exploitation. Are Bangladeshi workers more "flexible" than Australian workers? Are 'Seven Eleven' workers more "flexible" than others within the industry? Please explain what you mean by "labour flexibility". I bet you're not too flexible when it comes to your own pay and conditions.

How to get teeth into research like this and think without the first screen being how to make political capital out of it,

http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/SPRCFile/Unpacking_Youth_Unemployment__Final_report.pdf

It was always concerning to me when volunteering with youth, often sports, and the social talk shifted to 'what to do after school', that precious few had ever had any information and encouragement to start thinking about life and employment. Let alone have teachers making a routine out of drawing pupils (it should go back to year 5 and on from there) attention to the relevance of what was being learned to their future employment and lives.

But there is also an environment where girls are being strongly encouraged to tertiary courses no matter what (as boys used to be), which can end up with a big bill and no future they they want or might win. A carer as a public service bureaucrat?

The boys are disengaged. It is a tragedy. I will not say more about that.

What I am saying is that the government cannot be proactive later. Parents need to get onto the Net and examine reports such as the one linked to above and what initiatives are being taken overseas, use Twitter and social media. Then take an interest in the P&C and push for school principals to take the initiative.

Political parties and governments are not the way of preparing for the future. Thay are not practical and are moved by other priorities.

Paul,

Before I try and explain work flexibility, you would need to know the meaning of work and flexibility, both concepts foreign to the gangreens.

Foxy
' Dear runner,

If you stop lying about AJ
he'll stop telling the truth
about you.
(If you ask him nicely that is).'

With the total lack of judgement you show, I certainly feel more confident in my assessment.

Dear runner,

Unfortunately, that is the sad state of
affairs in your case.

Suddenly at the tap of the keyboard "labour flexibility" has become "work flexibility"

Some labour concepts Shadow you would applaud;
work (hard), toil, slave (away), grub away, plod away, grind away, sweat away, struggle, strive, exert oneself, overwork, work one's fingers to the bone, work like a Trojan/dog/slave, keep one's nose to the grindstone.

Does all this "flexibility" have anything to do with Howard style Work Choices?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You need to stop passively accepting "truisms"
that long ago ceased to be true. And you can
start with the myth about the Coalition's
superior economic credentials.
They don't stack up to objective unsentimental
analysis. But obviously, there's no talking to
you about that. Anyway, I've lost interest
in any further discussion.

Cheers.

I think this post has run its course. We NO believers are never going to convince the other side that what they seek is un-natural and therefore un-acceptable to the rest of the sensible, clear minded, and responsible thinking world, so let's just leave it at that, otherwise we are simply going round in circles, like talking to someone in a mental institution or a university. Hah, there I said it. So I will try very hard to avoid this particular posting as I go through the index and spend my time actually making a difference on other more important and relevant issues. So long, till the next topic (debate).

Foxy,

Truisms are there for a reason. For about the last 3 decades the Coalition governments have outperformed the Labor governments on just about every economic measure.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Sorry Sir, but the facts do not support your claims.
It will be interesting to see what the results
will be at the next election. Because currently
they are not doing so well. They're on a down-hill
slide. No Thanks to their internal problems.

Foxy,

Actually, the facts do not support your claims, perhaps you would care to back them up?

P.S. the election is roughly 2 years away.

"For about the last 3 decades the Coalition governments have outperformed the Labor governments on just about every economic measure."

Lol