Reporting on the ABC's Q&A can be as bad as the program itself. Megan Palin, in today's Courier Mail, touts SSM activist Magda Szubanski as “weighing in” in response to a NO campaigner with “a seemingly limitless supply of well-researched statistics”. No 'research' was required for Ms. Szubanski's utterances, and the ONLY statistic was wrong.

Ms. Szubanski's “supply” included: different rules for gay and and straight marriages is akin to a gay AFL player not being awarded a Brownlow Medal, but a civil acknowledgement; refuted that SSM would alter society's view on men and women; admitted that gay people were “ a really small percentage of the population” - she claimed 10% - her only 'statistic' but a wrong one. The 10% is the acknowledged number for the people claiming to be homosexual who are actually homosexual. The figures she should have used is below 3% for the genuine homosexuals.

Ms. Szubanski went on to whinge about wanting the “same rights and protections”; “oppressions” homosexuals have been through, and “murders”.

The most absurd question Ms. Szubanski asked was, how Sri Lankans would feel if they were told they could not marry!

Ms. Szubanski is a biggish name, and is respected by some people; but if she is a flag bearer for SSM, the YES crowd have no arguments. Only the usual retreat by the majority of Australians will secure SSM – otherwise they would not have a leg to stand on.

Ms. Szubanski was given more butt in time and propaganda space by the abc and yet proved totally out of her depth with false facts and half truths. I suspect her applause came from the dumbed down getup clowns who would not have any idea about decency.

I know what you mean, ttbn.

<<Ms. Szubanski went on to whinge about wanting the “same rights and protections”; “oppressions” homosexuals have been through, and “murders”.>>

I can’t stand when people talk about oppression and murder as if they were something to “whinge” about. Pfft! Grow a spine!

<<The most absurd question Ms. Szubanski asked was, how Sri Lankans would feel if they were told they could not marry!>>

How is that absurd? Both sexuality and race are something people are born with an cannot change. Her analogy was sound.

<<… if she is a flag bearer for SSM, the YES crowd have no arguments.>>

Whether the 'Yes' crowd have an argument has nothing to do with whether she is flag-bearer for them. Especially since I don't think they have a say in who is a flag-bearer for them.

The 'Yes' crowd already have an argument, anyway: equality. It’s the ‘No’ crowd who don’t have an argument. That's why they have to divert to Safe Schools and gender identity.

While we are talking about bad reporting, have to add www.news.com.au for there biased reporting of the show.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/magda-szubanski-nails-samesex-marriage-debate-in-a-nutshell/news-story/be1af32d9e7963f8bae0f9cf7e36d88c

Quote "MAGDA Szubanski has nailed the same-sex marriage debate"

Quote "Ms Szubanksi hit back with a seemingly limitless supply of well-researched statistics and arguments."

She talked rubbish and the audience must have been following a big applause sign.

I can see it now once SSM is legalized all the gay bashing's,the discrimination, the murders will stop and finally Sri Lankans will be allowed to marry, she must have researched they were all gay

I watched the same-sex marriage debate on "Q&A"
on Monday evening, 23rd October 2017. It certainly
was an interesting program and a wide variety of
views were presented. I thought the panellists argued
their points of view rather well and it was great to
see the civility between them. For me personally it
made quite a few things much clearer. Especially Father
Frank Brennan who explained the difference between
the Sacrament of Marriage and the Law in regard to
Civil Marriages. We need programs such as these so
that important issues can be discussed and different
points of view presented. Here's a link describing that
evening's program:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-24/szubanski-challenges-archbishop-in-q&a-same-sex-marriage-episode/9077620

"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They become to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on the one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology”. (Ayn Rand, novelist and philosopher, 1905-1982).

Exactly! Rand was a woman well ahead of her time, and she got it right, as is now being shown.

ttbn,

Yes, Ayn Rand certainly had a point there. The thought that people of different races could have been treated as equals was once absurd. But now that we know more about genetics, segregation and the unequal treatment of different groups is rapidly declining.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” - Abraham Lincoln

Education is a wonderful thing.

AJPhillips

That speech was made when negros were slaves. Makes sense!
Obviously though, some idiot was proposing negro slaves be treated as equals. What else would be the motivation for such an utterance?

//Ms. Szubanski is a biggish name, and is respected by some people; but if she is a flag bearer for SSM, the YES crowd have no arguments.//

Yeah, she could have prosecuted her case better. But on the other hand, she is only an actor - and she was still doing a damn sight better than that useless lawyer who couldn't even understand the very straightforward questions being asked of her. That was just embarrassing.

I thought the priests did a much better job, particularly that nice Fr. Brennan.

We are supposed to be a democratic country boasting
of our fair-go, our humanity, our love of justice
and yet within our own borders a percentage of our
population are denied the legal privileges of the
Marriage Institution by the law of the land.

According to the 2011 Census there were 33,700 same
sex couples in Australia. About 1%.
However in the most recent
Roy Morgan Research survey we are told that
Australians who
identify as gay or lesbian has increased, and in
2014 the figure had risen to 3.4%. This is not
counting teenagers who identify as being gay or
lesbian. These are the people who will be affected
by what is decided about the Institution of Marriage
in our postal survey.

In reference to Q&A, Maggot Zsubanski, (I am simply responding in kind as I have been responded to by the YES filth). Her performance was typical of the YES backers. Discredit and question everything a NO backer says. Disregard facts or figures just attack the comments and do it with conviction, observers who have no clue about why they should vote NO will believe you because you sound believable. Remember she is an actor? Well if she can lie then she has given me authority to discredit her. Actor? HAH, my arse is a better actor, and more attractive.

Actors have to perform others written scripts!

Josephus,

True. And the script writers in the case of fake marriages are not homosexuals themselves, but actually dangerous social engineers intent on having everyone singing the same tune.

I watched "QandA" that evening and found that
Magda kept stressing the fact that we should all
practice civility in the same-sex marriage debate.
She even stated that she would not call anyone
a homophobe - who had a different point of view.

A shame that her civil behaviour is not shared
by some on this forum.

I find it appalling that
a person's very personal experiences are regarded
as being false. And her views are blamed on her
being an actress? I wonder what qualifications
does a person have to have to be taken seriously?

Foxy, what a load of crap. The YES camp have been 'all things bad'. I'm not going to waste my time in breaking it down. Their actions have been the complete opposite of civil. Their conduct, (all of them) is disgusting. While you've had your head buried in the sand, (I hope you had the other end well and truly protected), they have engaged in some of the most criminal acts. The YES camp will do ANYTHING to win their point. That's how desperate they are. Only someone who knows they are wrong would try so hard to push their point. The NO camp has nothing to prove, because we know we are right. As for her 'very personal experiences', she's full of it. If you choose to believe her and get sucked in by her, that's your loss. Her views are in no way related or blamed on her being an 'alleged' actor, the reference to acting is that she is able to put a point across much more strongly and convincingly than if she was not an actor.

I have to inform everyone of an email getting around, I received it as well. It's a pity I don't know how to put it in the Forum. This email will scare the daylights out of any NO backer. It's origins are from Massachusetts in the USA. It comes complete with quotes and references so the content is believable and genuine. Most of the info is extracted from the local media. It begins when the law was changed in the early 2000's and follows through the years as things start going progressively wrong. I strongly urge anyone to look it up. The references are SSM, Massachusetts, changes to schools, literature and books, pornography, etc, etc. Once you have read this you will be able to cut down any and ALL the YES camp who even try to open their mouth.

//The YES camp have been 'all things bad'. I'm not going to waste my time in breaking it down. Their actions have been the complete opposite of civil. Their conduct, (all of them) is disgusting.//

If Fr. Brennan is uncivil, what does that make you, ALTRAV?

ALTRAV,

Yes. People who bury their heads in the sand are asking to have their arses kicked.

Toni, what are you on? I was referring to Maggot Zs&^*%$ski, not father Brennan. Again another example of the YES camp in action. Did I mention Fr Brennan? No! I've got the YES camps MO now so don't bother trying to respond, your comments are moot.

ALTRAV,

If you going to single out groups for what you think
is - "disgusting" behaviour in this country
regarding how they should be treated under the law -
then there's going to be very few people left.
But thankfully that's not how the law should work.

Every single Australian gay or straight deserves to be
treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes
of our society. You may not support same-sex marriage -
(for whatever reason) but surely you can support
civil partnerships and contractual relationships?

That is all that's being asked in this postal survey.

Foxy, The survey might be just asking one question. But it implies that the whole of society must recognise SSM is equal to heterosexual marriage. With that goes the teaching of children of this equality as is currently happening from infant schools as normal family; right through to Safe Schools in senior high

Dear Josephus,

No. this is not a competition as to which relationship is
superior or inferior. This is about granting same-sex
couples civil partnerships and contractual relationships
under the law of the land because every single Australian
gay or straight deserves to be treated equally in the
eyes of the law and currently the gays are not. They are
not asking for churches to marry them. They are asking
to be able to have civil ceremonies. That's all.

//I was referring to Maggot Zs&^*%$ski, not father Brennan.//

//Their conduct, (all of them) is disgusting.//

Fr. Brennan is part of the yes camp. So when your refer to 'all of them', you necessarily refer to Fr. Brennan.

//Again another example of the YES camp in action.//

Correct, Fr. Brennan is another example of the YES camp in action.

//I've got the YES camps MO//

Ticking a box on a postal survey?

Sounds suspiciously similar to the NO camp's MO.

The thing is equality is reversed with SSM.

See:http://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/education/court-rules-student-can-be-expelled-for-quoting-bible-on-facebook?utm_content=buffer4ae1f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Foxy you are blinkered. Same sex relationships already have civil equality contracts to De-facto relationships under the law. What did Magda say, she was disappointed she could not be married in the Catholic Church. SSM'ids are asking for Church weddings.

Dear Josephus,

No. That's not what Magda said. She clearly stated that
she was well aware that she could not be married in her
church. And what she was asking for was a civil
ceremony. Also de facto relationships do not have the same
legalities as marriages. You need to get your facts
straight. (no pun intended).

The yes camp would love 'to be treated equally, in the eyes of the law'.
I'll bet it would, but unfortunately there are situations AND people out there who are not/cannot be treated equally in the eyes of the law. The YES mob are not equal, by their own definition. So we will treat them accordingly. Equal. Equal to what? They are not equal to mainstream humans or natures definition of homo-sapien.(pun intended). They justify themselves by saying they can't help being born queer. We know that's not true. Maybe some can't be helped but the majority can be re-aligned. It is this arrogance that angers me as apparently it's cool to be queer.I will be just as unforgiving and uncompromising as the YES mob in seeing that the YES mob get as hard a time as they have given us.

Foxy if you read carefully you would comprehend I never claimed Defacto couples are equal to married couples. Let's get that straight. But your claim that the LGBTQQ are not seeking Church weddings is not true, as they claim it is discrimination not to allow them Church weddings, and that means if denied they claim inequality. I have a friend on facebook who is a yes voter supporting the LGBTQQ claim to Christian Churches for equality.

As usually, this thread has veered way off the simple topic of bad reporting – my view that Magda Szubanski did not do any of the things that a report said she did.

However, I appreciate the posts of Josephus, Altrav, diver dan, Philip S and runner.

Dear Josephus,

Of course I cannot speak on behalf of your friend.
However I am merely going by what is reported in
most of the media and the gay and lesbian
organisations that do speak on behalf of their
members. All they are seeking is equality under
the law. BTW - most couples gay or straight tend to
have weddings by civil celebrants instead of in
churches - these days.