The SSM results are in, from the ABS site: 61.6% Yes, 38.4 No with participation rate of 79.5%.

This now leaves us in an interesting situation because while the majority of participants voted yes it is incorrect to say that the majority of egilible Australian voters said yes since 61.6%*79.5% is 48.972%. ie: The overall majority did not show their support in the survey.

So what happens now?

So what happens now? SSM will be legalized before Christmas. Oh no! apply some distorted mathematics and you come up with 49% minority yes vote. If only 49& said yes, therefore 51% must be saying no. For those who didn't cast a vote. well tough.

a much sought after boon to the legal profession.... and a guaranteed overload to the court calendar
Let us all rejoice in clarifying.....?...oh yeah...equality

What now? A bill will be introduced and will likely pass both houses. It is simply unthinkable that the ‘No’ campaign could have achieved a narrow victory had everyone voted. No polling since 2004 has suggested anything of the sort, and the results of this survey are in line with all other polling.

I don't think there is an “interesting situation” at all.

So convinced that they were a majority, the marriage equality opponents wanted a vote - wrongly claiming that anything else would be anti-democratic - they got that vote and it's blown up in their faces. The excuses as to why things turned out the way they did have been amusing. I look forward to hearing more.

If anything, I think the ‘Yes’ campaign would have benefited from more votes, there could have been a lot of apathy from ‘Yes’ voters who assumed they had it in the bag, and the age group most likely to vote ‘yes’ were the least inclined to use the postal system. (Is it any wonder the survey wasn't conducted online?)

What happens now?

Well today people are celebrating,
tomorrow the government will be legislating.

Australians have made their feelings clear.

Tony Abbott's electorate of Warringah - 75% voted Yes.

Malcolm Turnbull's electorate of Wentworth - 80.8% voted Yes.

Melbourne and Sydney had an 87% Yes Vote.

Most No voting seats were Labor held and located in
Western Sydney.

Interesting to see the way the voting went state by state
and electorate by electorate. Some surprising outcomes.
Tony Abbott seems to be "Dead man walking!"
It's now up to the Senate to make a start this afternoon
with the passing of the Bill to get
legislation under way by Christmas.

The simplest way forward now is to reverse the 2004 alterations of the Marriage Act.

Change it back to "persons" and start getting married in accordance with the same law that millions of others were previously. Objectors *could* challenge in court at their own expense, and I think be met with some highly precedential decisions or even throwings-out.

If our legislators were to be bold, they could take out the "two" so that that component too can evolve. In addition, the unpoliced and unenforceable requirement for fidelity could also go, as it is more likely to embarrass those who like it than those who ignore it.

All should be done by the current government who should expect no great kudos for doing so as they are simply cleaning up a mess they made for themselves, and ought to do so before leaving.

Rusty.

Dear Foxy,

So, outside the affluent lo-fat kale-and-goat-cheese circles (probably in other cities as well), I wonder what the split was ?

And, since there is no such thing as a slippery slope, this is the end of it all ?

Love,

Joe

While I've not a doubt that the law will be changed to allow SSM, what this result wil bring to the surface is what type of democracy we really have regarding the results of plebiscites/surveys.

For example:

- If the result of a general plebiscite/survey were to be truly democratic, ie. where the only thing that counts is 50% of the voting population plus 1 vote, then in this case the law shouldn't be changed.

-but if we were to have a true representative democracy (which is what many claim we theoretically have) where each electorate has a representative that is meant to represent the will of their electorate (where will means what 50%+one constituent want) then each MP should take the YES vote of their electorate and multiply it by the participation rate of the electorate and vote accordingly.

/

But for those who think that a simple majority of respondents is all that should ever be required then ask yourself these hypothetical questions:

1) How would you interpret the result if instead it were reversed, ie. 61.6% said No, 38.4% and a voter turn-out rate of 79.5%, would you still accept it?

2) How would you interpret the situation where the issue voted on had a lot more at stake, such as the introduction of Sharia law where gays are executed. What if in this poll the public said 50.001% Yes but only 80% voted. Would the 50.001% be sufficient to change the law?

3) How would you interpret a result if it were an the extreme event where only 1 person voted and said YES- would you still really feel that the majority supported it?

[PS: by-the-way: I'm not for nor against gay marriage, rather I'm in the camp that Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. However, I am interested in how this result should be interpreted- it raises deeper interesting issues regarding what type of "democracy" we really have.]

Expected. Turnbull has already decided that the Bill he doesn't like won't get a look in. For mine, it's another step down the path to perdition for Australia, and further proof that people with no historical or biblical memories can be fooled into accepting anything.

Dear Joe,

Every state and territory voted "Yes" by more than 60%
except for NSW where the Yes vote was 57.8% and the
No vote was 42.2%.

As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said -

"Australia voted Yes for fairness, commitment and love.
It is unequivocal, it is overwhelming."

He added -

"And now it is up to us here in the Parliament of Australia
to get on with it, to get on with the job the Australian
people have tasked us to do and get this done this year,
before Christmas. That must be our commitment."

Hopefully, this will herald the end of all discrimination in this country and we can get on with the task of creating true equality.

Looking at the survey results by electorate, 'Yes' was likely carried by young urban.

http://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

4,873,987 were against, ie voted 'No'.
20% did not vote, which is another large number.

However what will be more interesting and hopefully will be the subject of PhD research is the involvement of social psychologists in 'nudging' the 'Yes' vote (and shafting the other side), here and overseas. Such manipulation has become common in US Presidential elections, as an obvious example.

Are academics, researchers, in this case social psychologists, putting their ethics and the credibility of their science at risk in taking sides, even though they might justify it for what they perceive to be a 'just' cause?"

Dear Is Mise,

Australians by voting Yes for fairness, commitment, love -
have taken a positive step forward toward a more
equitable society.

There is light at the end of the tunnel.

thinkabit,

Personally, I don't think a simple majority is all that should ever be needed. If that were the case, then interracial marriage should be banned if that was what the majority wanted. Similarly, if the results of this survey were reversed, that would not mean that same-sex marriage should not be legislated for. The analogies are endless (vaccine effectiveness and safety, you name it...). What counts for more is what the evidence says/suggests. Not everyone can be experts in everything.

--

Joe,

In all but 17 electorates, the 'Yes' vote won:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636?sf170340146=1

"Hopefully, this will herald the end of all discrimination in this country and we can get on with the task of creating true equality".

I should think that this will be only the beginning of serious discrimination against people opposed to fake marriage, because that is what has happened in other countries who have voted for it, or had it forced on them.

Nobody forced Australians to vote "Yes"
they decided that all by themselves to
ensure that the time has come to end the
discrimination against same sex couples
by the laws of this land.

This country can only improve as a result.

The losers are clutching at straws.

thinkabit; what are you going on about.
ttbn; what is a biblical memory?
joe; the goat cheese mob must have all gone bush, the bush voted yes as well, by a big margin.
leoj; loser!, its all the work of those commie, pinko, greenie watermelons you incessantly prattle on about. loser!

Issy; I totally agree.

Foxy; Its time to move on, the No's copped a thumping defeat on this, as expected. The out of touch bigoted Kevin Andrews wants hate legislation enacted to protect his desperate band of supporters. That will be the excuse trotted out, the right to hate, the right to be a bigot, the right to be a racists, Andrews wants it in law.

Rusty; $8 per vote, $100 million buys a lot of 'Ajax' to clean up the Coalitions mess. Pity so much had to be spent to satisfy an insignificant hard right minority within the government.

AJ; The last word, spot on as usual.

Something for the multi-cultis and diversity-lovers: NSW electorates with the highest numbers of NEB immigrants had the lowest yes votes. Labor seats, of course, where the MPs are always sucking up to Muslim constituents and the more conservative immigrants who stick to their traditions. Might see some changes in those seats in the future, now that fake marriage will be a goer. The luvvies might have to make some serious choices between their open-borders attitudes and their political backsides, because there is no way that the people they try to curry favour with are going to accept SSM, and there are more of them arriving all the time.

Stop all discrimination:

No longer discriminate between green and red lights at intersections.
No longer discriminate between summer and winter: wear the same always.
No longer discriminate on taste and texture: eat rocks, plastic bags, hot coals, your friend's ears and whatever else comes to hand.
No longer discriminate on age: send them all to school, from babies to nursing-home residents.
No longer discriminate based on medical conditions: give everyone an aspirin.
No longer discriminate between good and evil: burglars, druggies and child molesters should be awarded "Australian of the year" just like everyone else... and everyone should also do equal jail-time.
No longer discriminate between pools that are filled with water and pools that are empty: jump into both, head first.

Every developed form of life discriminates, even amoebas - perhaps we should only allow viruses to live... Wait, that's discrimination!

Yuyutsu,

Once again, you commit the Equivocation fallacy with regards to the definitions of the word 'discrimination'.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

Hanging bakers and now discrimination towards traffic lights. Your hyperbole has really stepped up a notch, hasn't it?

Dear Is Mise,

Great sentiment. I also agree wholeheartedly.

Dear Paul,

It was sobering to see how the recent immigrants teamed up with the right-wing in this country to make up a sizable chunk of the “No” vote. Strange bedfellows indeed. I'm sure there will be more of it coming our way unfortunately.

The statistic I love more than any other was that around 80% women between the ages of 70 - 74 voted yes.

Matriarchal perspective from those who now presumably have grandchildren. Love it.

Well there you have it. I would never have thought that so many Aussies would have approved of anal intercourse and anal licking. Funny thing is that I have yet to find anyone that will admit openly that they practice anal sex and anal sex is still seen as dirty by the community. After all that is what gives homosexuals a bad name.

I have said that Australia has gone backward since about 1970 and this is proof of that.

My prediction is that 'marriage' will lose its status and fall into disrepute because of it being associated with those that engage in dirty sex. Genuine hetrosexuals will be more likey to avoid marriage in future. That is a pity. Like the word gay has become and offensive word, its tainted.

A Dallas Rogers, western Sydney resident and YES voter is surprised to learn that 12 out of 17 electorates in her area voted NO.

"This is a blow for our strong cultural diversity credentials out West", she said.

Dallas is one of those luvvies who likes to see people of different skin colour, speaking different languages and wearing different clothes, because she supports 'diversity - but not diversity of thought, or the culture immigrants bring with them, if they don't think the same way she does about fake marriage between people of the same sex.

Sorry, Dallas. When you sign up to diversity, you have to take the full package. And there are many more of these people coming to live near you. (ABC.net)

In a land of no discrimination, there will be a level playing field and after the appropriate legislation is passed we can look forward to stopping the churches from discriminating, after all why should a church be allowed to discriminate and excommunicate a person just because they disagree with some of that church's teachings?

//Funny thing is that I have yet to find anyone that will admit openly that they practice anal sex//

Don't give up hope Banjo... I'm sure you'll find your handsome prince one day.

Toni,

That was a bit below the belt!!

Is Miss,

Are you saying that churches should be discriminated against for abiding by their doctrine? They should have no right to refuse to marry same sex people? Can you give an example where homosexuals have been 'excommunicated' simple for being homosexual? If homosexuals "disagree with some of that church's teachings, why would they want to have anything to do with that church? There are civil celebrants. There are churches like the Uniting Church who are just glorified social workers who will marry them. Half of the ministers are homo or lesbians themselves. These people have moved so far away from Chistianity that they are no different from atheists. Christian dogma is against same sex activities. The churches that don't hold to that are no different from non-christians. They are wasting their time trying to keep up the pretence.

Good on ya, Banjo. Bugger the sneerers and the perverts. There will be consequences for their actions - ones that we don't have to worry about.

Is Mise,
Don't be concerned about Toni.

She has always been mentally below par.

ttbn,

It doesn’t sound to me like you know what an atheist is, even though you used to be one.

<<These people have moved so far away from Chistianity that they are no different from atheists.>>

So long as they believe in a god, then they are different from atheists, as this is the only question atheism addresses.

<<Christian dogma is against same sex activities. The churches that don't hold to that are no different from non-christians.>>

According to that logic, denominations that allow women to speak in church are no different from non-Christians, too.

One could have all sorts of fun with your statement by swapping out, “is against same sex activities”, with any one of the many things Christianity now allows that it once forbade.

--

Banjo,

You seem to have missed Is Mise's little joke there. He was being literal.

Steeleredux,
This is one thing I cannot blame the Muslims for. They stuck to their principles, unlike the sheeple.

When the Muslims do take political control it will be easy to identify the homos, its on a register. Action could be swift.

Lucky for them our three major cities have many tall buildings. Some even have express lifts.

Banjo, still crying in your beer I see, get over it. If you think heterosexual sex is all "conventional" in the style of Queen Victoria, lights off, lay back and think of mother England, you must have lived a very sheltered life indeed. Surprise, surprise heterosexual couples get up to a lot more than that. Never heard of oral sex for one, and that's just for starters. shocked, oh dear where have you been. Three Hail Mary's and a Our Father and all is forgiven.

Paul,

Be a good chap and read up on Victoria, when she was in bed with Albert, England was not on her mind!!

thinkabit you are using logic, and unfortunately logic does not cut the mustard on this site.

It would be logic to think that of the 20 odd% that didn't vote, the vast majority would have been no voters that simply could not be bothered.

But hey, as I say that's logic.

As for now what, well, let the fun begin. But at least now we will start to see the 'real agenda' come out because I for one doubt this was about two queers wanting to get hitched.

Issy, who was watching? Was it a threesum? and he lived to tell the story, I am mortified! "We are not amused!" Bring on the republic!

If some large, very large, un-named church was to condone paedophilia, based on some loose interpretation of Biblical dogma, Would it be unreasonable for government to enact legislation to protect the religious freedom of that church's ecclesiastical clowns, so they can practice what they will, and keep them safe from prosecution. Based on what been said today about religious freedoms, seems fair to me.

Paul,

Read Vitoria's letters (published in at least two volumes) and biographies; Google has good links.

ttbn,

"Can you give an example where homosexuals have been 'excommunicated' simple for being homosexual?"

No, but the Catholic Church excommunicates them if they refuse to give up homosexual practices.
Other Christian Churches have much the same outlook and the major Christian Churches all condemn homosexuality.

What a fabulous day for the reasonable people who believe in marriage equality.

In one vote, we did what was right, we did what was fair, and we strengthened human rights by allowing marriage equality. Yes that's correct - The right to marry the person you love if you so choose!

Well done Australia!

Now let's get it through the parliament and into law and the people who don't understand love and loving relationships can go back to their dark dreary existences and we can all move on.

For those who will support someone's right not to marry two gays, or not to make a cake for the wedding of two gays, please put a huge sign in your doors stating that.

We the majority and unbigotted Australians will simply not buy from those stores either...

Love defeated illogical fear today!

You lost No voters - Get over it... This is how democracy works!

' You lost No voters - Get over it... This is how democracy works!'

bit rich coming from those who are still throwing tantrums over Trumps victory.

What's wrong runner did your world collapse today?

Never mind...

I think you have the wrong person... Trump or Clinton was a loss for common sense.

Now be brave and try not to wallow too deeply in your defeat...lol

Keep smiling

rehctub: You say, "It would be logic to think that of the 20 odd% that didn't vote, the vast majority would have been no voters that simply could not be bothered."

Actually rehctub, I don't draw this conclusion. For me what I say is that vote on a single issue like this doesn't just have YES and NO, but rather YES, NO and OTHER. Where the OTHER is shown by not voting/invalid voting and is composed of people who either
1) Abstain - this is my position, cause I don't believe government should have anything to do with marriage, hence I didn't vote to support SSM it nor vote against
2) Don't vote due to apathy - this is probably a large part of the 20% non-voters, but these votes can in no way be used to support the YES vote but at the same time cannot be considered as NO votes. However, they have the same effect like no votes to the extent that that they are not yes votes and so don't get counted as yes votes.
3) Don't vote or cast invalid votes for other miscellaneous reasons- such as they forget or were out of the country or were too sick/incapacitated or too stupid to understand the voting process, etc. This group of people would be very small.

What I've found truly amazing of this whole exercise is that most people don't seem to realise that a majority of eligible voters means 50%+1person out of *all* eligible voters. All day we've been hearing that the definite/overwhelming/landslide "majority" have voted YES but in reality less than 49% did. Just as an example of how many people think that a majority voted yes- the last comment on the thread before I started writing this was by Opinionated2 and includes this "We the majority and unbigotted Australians... "

Is this correct?

48.972% of Registered Voters who PARTICIPATED voted 'YES'
30.528% of Registered Voters who PARTICIPATED voted 'NO'
20.5% of Registered Voters ABSTAINED from PARTICIPATION in the Postal Vote

Also, an unknown number of extra citizens weren't registered to vote;
- Or did not have current address updated to receive a ballot.

So around half of Australia voted, if we have approx 25million people in Australia. How can it be a resounding victory for the YES camp if the calculations are made using only half the population? Moving on I note that the YES camp are attempting to justify the final numbers. It is easy to understand. The YES camp, knowing full well they were staring down the well of defeat mustered all their people and went on a destructive and well co-ordinated offensive against anyone or anything that smacked of NO! If the hugely naive and precocious YES camp think they have won, hah! All they have done is widened the gap between queers and straights. The fun part will begin once the final draft of the Bill is passed. The govt' is still on notice because if they do not take heed and study very closely what happened in Massachusetts, USA, they will be putting the queer community in a very bad position, in that they will have to learn to look over their shoulder a lot for fear of retribution. I take my lead from the family courts. They wrongly interfere with a families interactions and the fall-out from their interfering has been the death of one or more of that family. This will have similar consequences!

Wait, we have to hold another $100 million survey for ALTRAV, three year old's didn't get to vote. Yes they did, you got to vote ALTRAV, along with the rest of the forums 'Usual Suspects', what are you bitching about.

//So around half of Australia voted, if we have approx 25million people in Australia.//

Kids can't vote.

//It is easy to understand.//

Yep, you were out-voted. Build a bridge and get over it.

//All they have done is widened the gap between queers and straights.//

No they haven't.

//The govt' is still on notice because if they do not take heed and study very closely what happened in Massachusetts, USA they will be putting the queer community in a very bad position, in that they will have to learn to look over their shoulder a lot for fear of retribution.//

The Salem witch trials?

Nope, I can't see violent mass hysteria breaking out. The only person around here that seems to be hysterical is you, and I can't see it catching on because I don't think anybody agrees with your incitements to violence. Looks like you're on your own [deleted for abuse]. Good luck with that.

Armchair Critic: Your numbers are not correct, the correct ones are those I gave in the original post of the thread, ie:

# Yes vote- 61.6% of those of voted validly

# No vote- 38.4% of tose of voted validly

# Participation rate (ie: percent of all eligible voters who actually voted validly)- 79.5%

- This gives 21.5% didn't vote validly (ie. 100-79.5)

- Multiplying the participation rate by the Yes vote gives the actual percentage of all eligible voters who voted yes- 61.6*79.5/100 = 48.972%

So overall we had a majority of those who voted vote YES but NOT a majority of all eligible voters. Which means that if we are to consider the survey as a truly outright democratic event (ie: 50%+1voter of *all* eligible voters required), then the YES vote failed to get enough support.

However, we live in a representative democracy (well at least we claim that the lower house is anyway) which means that the MPs are meant to represent the "will of their electorate"- ie, the MPs are meant to follow majority (that's 50%+1voter) of their constituents. So, theoretically each MPs should take the Yes vote of their electorate and multiply it by the participation rate of their electorate and vote accordingly.

[PS: I haven't see any breakdown of the participation rate by electorate, but presumably it is downloadable somewhere on the ABS web-site. So with a simple spread-sheet we could calculate how each MPs should vote (if we are to assume that our "democracy" is a representative one) and thus calculate of the overall vote by parliament.]

Opinionated2, do you actually have marriage equality? Simply being given the right to marry (if passed) does not mean a gay marriage is the same as a straight marriage, and there in lies the problem as this is not about two queers getting married, its about marriage equality and I suspect this may haunt them for ever and a day.

As for calculating the vote, and after giving more consideration, I am of the opinion that the result should be calculated on the number who voted, not the number who were eligible to vote as the vote was not compulsory. Just trying to be fair and I will always stand corrected if I think I am wrong, even if it means correcting myself as I have which is the case here.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever hear the end of this. If only they could have found another word and been accepting of such as equality can never happen if all things are not equal, as is the case here. Equal in rights yes, any better or worse, no, but equal, no.

From the posters here Homosexual relationships are called a "Civil Contract" or "Social Contract". The term must now be the legal term and replace the term marriage, because it is a legal term should be handled by solicitors before a Magistrate, where the contracts are signed by the parties and witnessed by persons known to the parties. That all contracts of relationships, currently called marriage, to live together be removed from Celebrants and religious Celebrants and placed in the appropriate hands, i.e. the Courts of petty sessions. Pre nuptial agreements be also registered, and in the dissolution of the contract the courts would hear the reasons and dissolve the contracts.

This would allow Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques to bless and celebrate the union of two people in a religious ceremony after the contracts of intention to live together have been registered with the State.

The people on here who are still referring to gay people as queer are actually the queer ones.

They are queer between their ears... bigotted and dense would be a better term for them.

Many are worrying about religious sensibilities... I say who cares about the feeble religious amongst us.

Why do the religious get a big say?

They believe GOD drowned innocent babies, and innocent children in a flood that never happened, they say God killed all the first born of Egypt when that never happened and they use fear to scare children by teaching about hell that doesn't exist and Satan who doesn't exist.

If anything religions are anti-God!

Finally love has defeated you...lmao

Marriage equality is simply a legalised structure where two loving people can share their love and commitment. It's that simple!

You lost!

Fair, honest caring Australians won!

Is Mise,

You admit that you cannot give me an example then, in the next breath, you repeat your unsubstantiated claim.

Yes. The simple-minded have enabled people of the same sex to 'marry', and Turnbull is so overcome with joy that he will be even less interested in Australia as it goes down the gurgler. However, homosexuality still remains disgusting and unnatural - that will never change.

What is next? The manipulators and spin doctors have convinced the idiots that it's desirable for people of the same sex to play house; who can predict what will become 'normal next. Incest? Bestiality? Polygamy? Some as yet undiscovered perversion? We really shouldn't be discriminating against anyone, should we?

The ridiculous little loudmouth, Derryn Hinch, was heard to say yesterday that 'the sky had not fallen in' when other countries went pervert. What a silly thing to say. The damage will be gradual and permanent, and most of the morally jaded population will not even notice. The young, who will grow up accepting that this vile behaviour is normal, will have their beliefs shattered by Islam, against which we are losing the war. 30,000 terror attacks since 9/11 and increasing, while the West sinks down into it's sell-dug Cass pit.

Hopefully, this will herald the end of all discrimination in this country and we can get on with the task of creating true equality.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 2:41:40 PM

Absolutely - let's stop discrimination and have welfare based on needs only - and not race based.

ttbn,

"Can you give an example where homosexuals have been 'excommunicated' simple for being homosexual?"

No, but the Catholic Church excommunicates them if they refuse to give up homosexual practices.
Other Christian Churches have much the same outlook and the major Christian Churches all condemn homosexuality"

Your question was answered, I cannot give an example where homosexuals were excommunicated simply for being homosexual but they have been excommunicated for continuing homosexual practices, which is an entirely different thing.
In simple terms they are not excommunicated for being but for doing.

Dear Josephus,

Exactly: "legal marriage" and marriage are two completely different things.

«This would allow Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques to bless and celebrate the union of two people in a religious ceremony after the contracts of intention to live together have been registered with the State.»

Why "after" rather than "before" or "instead"?

And BTW, Jews do not usually marry in synagogue (unless the building happens to also have a nice big hall) and technically, both the blessing part and the celebrations are optional: all that is required is a male groom over 13, a female bride over 12, a ring (bought with the groom's own money and worth at least two cents) and two eligible (sane, not deaf, over 13, Jewish and male) witnesses. Contrary to common belief, a Rabbi is not required.

The marriage survey result shows that Australia is
better than our politicians give us credit for.

Opinionated 2, you apparently are under some misapprehension that the word queer is offensive to gays. Exactly where do you think the letter Q comes from when the term LGBTQ comes from?

Narelle47 and Is Mise,

Hopefully, this will herald the end of all discrimination in this country and we can get on with the task of creating true equality.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 2:41:40 PM

I cannot agree with you. We need to discriminate so as to stop further entry of those persons or groups that will not/cannot integrate into our society. It is ridiculous that we continue to bring in people that will not accept our societies norms and have contempt for our laws. Sometimes the cultural gap is simply too great.

Banjo,

That is discrimination OUTSIDE of Australia and I agree with you on that.
I was speaking a little 'tongue in cheek', we will continue to practice discrimination, legislate discrimination and encourage it for the foreseeable future.

For example, discrimination in sport will never end.

Dear Big Nana,

Originally "Queer" was used in a derogatory sense.
Today many LGBTI youth have embraced this word.
However, the "Q" in LGBTIQ also stands for "Questioning,"
not just "Queer". So it has different meanings for different
people.

Despite their whopping defeat at the hands of the Australian people. The forums collection of right wing wackos, and religious fundo's, the "No" voting brigade, are still kicking and screaming, protesting loudly, they continue to fight some pathetic rear guard action trying to stop marriage equality becoming law. Not satisfied with suffering an utter defeat at the hands of the people, they prattle on in ugnorence with totally ridiculous nonsense as they plummet earthwards in their Wingless No Campaign Machine, fella's you are about to crash and burn, at any moment a new law will be enacted, giving ALL Australians the same rights when it comes to marriage!

For the Churchies, It wont be long now until the newly weds Martin and Luther nail their legal marriage certificate to the church door.

Foxy, "The marriage survey result shows that Australia is better than our politicians give us credit for"

That is a switch. It is the 'Progressives', the leftists, who sledge Australians with allegations of all manner of foul 'isms'.

It is good though that Australians have been confirmed as tolerant and accepting.

I see it as utterly invalid to try to re-evaluate the result by doing calculations showing that 'Yes' got less than 50% of the potential vote. Equally a mere 30% voted 'No'. We can't give the apathetic vote veto status. Democracy can't work that way.

____________________________________________________________________-

So "what happens now?".

Well we are told, every time we slip a little further down the slippery slope, that there is no slippery slope so clearly we won't be slipping any further down that which doesn't exist. So this is obviously the end of all the 'progressive' demands on this issue. <sarc off>

On the other, I see a few further issues (which absolutely aren't slippery nor sloppy) which might arise. I'd guess that the next push will be to enforce adherence to the new paradigm. Anyone voicing opposition to SSM will be hounded irrespective of whether the new legislation purports to protect them or not. Celebrants demurring to officiate at homosexual weddings will be excoriated and forced out of the industry. Churches likewise will be attacked and protested against such that the will seek to keep their heads down. Any research done into SSM which doesn't reach the approved results will be treated as homophobic and will be effectively career-ending. Thus no such research will reach the light of day.

Ultimately the aim will be to teach dissenters that opposition is worse than useless so as to clear the path for further 'reforms'.

There will be a contest between the polyamory lobby and the transsexuals as to which grievance group will be next cab off the rank .

In the same way as we started to see, about a decade ago, only positive depictions of homosexuals in popular culture look for positive depictions of polyamorous groups - "Three's Company" meets "Modern Family". But I think the Transsexual lobby will gain the main support of the 'progressive' next since they are already halfway there. Look for the outrage at some used-to-be bloke denied entrance to the girls loo, or not called "madam" by some hapless shop owner.

But its all OK because equality.

leoj,

Not at all. It just shows that times are changing,
at least for some. People remember a different
Australia when open displays of same sex affection
were greeted with violence rather than celebration.

Marriage is a very old custom, but in many ways a
modern construction. As many have pointed out, the
current law dates back only to 2004, when a cynical
John Howard amended the Marriage Act to mandate
heterosexuality, and to outlaw same sex marriage
overseas. It was an act of political opportunism
that has set the tone for the way both major parties
have treated the issue ever since.

But as I stated earlier the marriage survey result shows
that Australia is better than our politicians give us
credit for.

Really Big Nana?... Do I now have to explain the difference between someone calling themselves questioning or queer and others using queer as a derogatory term to discriminate and belittle people?

The people here aren't using it in a nice way... WAKE UP!

They are using a deliberately chosen, bigotted term against the whole group of people who have different sexual orientations to them... They are truly ugly, hate-filled people!

You do realise that when a person who is different to you, uses a word like queer about themselves, that this is a method of disempowering the hurt contained in that word... Did you realise that?

It's like African Americans using the word Nigga ... It doesn't mean that the rest of us should then go back to using the other N word with the er on the end.

Trust me... I can tell when a bigot uses a discriminatory word to hurt others - they are obviously cowards!

So what's next ? Since there is no slippery slope - that's just anti- propaganda - we won't hear demands to legalise surrogacy, or for changes in adoption law, etc. ? Anybody taking bets ?

Joe

It appears that the hatred and mendacity of the No
campaign still lives on for some. What a dismal
glimpse of the narrow confines of some minds.

It appears that the hatred of the left continues. They won't be happy until every kid is poisoned by there perversion. And we were told it was about 'marriage'.

//Celebrants demurring to officiate at homosexual weddings will be excoriated and forced out of the industry.//

Given that they don't defrock priests even when they rape children, that seems unlikely to say the least.

//Churches likewise will be attacked and protested against such that the will seek to keep their heads down.//

2000+ years and still going strong (well, strongish). I'm not convinced that SSM is the grave existential threat to religious freedom & expression that some would try to paint it as.

I think religion is considerably more tenacious than many of our tory friends give it credit for, and that the relentless march of science poses a vastly greater existential threat to its continued acceptance in our society. But it's still alive and kicking quite vigorously, some five centuries past the Copernican revolution... I really can't see gay marriage as the death knell of religion.

//Any research done into SSM which doesn't reach the approved results//

No, that's not how research works... if we already knew the answers, why would we waste time and money trying to find the answers?

//Ultimately the aim will be to teach dissenters that opposition is worse than useless//

Yeah, because yes voters are all secret fascists.

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Bit sad when your caricature of your opponents turns out to be plagiarised from some lame 90's sci-fi baddies...

//There will be a contest between the polyamory lobby and the transsexuals//

I do hope it will be jelly-wrestling.

//Look for the outrage at some used-to-be bloke denied entrance to the girls loo//

Well they can't bloody use the men's, that's for men. Says so on the door. This is even simpler than foreigners in the Parliament: sheilas are not welcome in the men's, and I for one won't stand for it.

Although this raises the question of just where they may relieve themselves: if ladies can't go to the lady's because they used to be men, and can't go to the men's because they're ladies... should they be allowed to pee in the bushes?

//Anybody taking bets ?//

I really should start a book; with all the completely mental prophecies flowing so freely from the lips of disgruntled no voters, a fella could make a killing... assuming they actually believe all that nonsense enough to back it with a wager and aren't just having a whinge because change upsets them.

Dear Paul,

«For the Churchies, It wont be long now until the newly weds Martin and Luther nail their legal marriage certificate to the church door.»

It would be nice indeed for churches to bless same-sex marriages. Some already do.

But why a certificate? Did Adam and Eve have any? If I ever need to look for your address, then my best bet would be to knock on the door to which the council's "notice of rates" is nailed.

---

One progressive thought:

The clearest indication of gender discrimination is in keeping and hanging onto one's genitals. Surely we cannot reach equality until the law demands that we cut it off (or fill it up as the case may be) - and those who refuse should be equalised by force.

'It would be nice indeed for churches to bless same-sex marriages'

no, one may as well join the god denies and sodomisers rather than bless what God curses.

Hey thinkabit,
Pretty sure my numbers were the same as yours - 48.972%

Tony Burke could find himself looking for a proper job after the next election. A 70% NO vote in his electorate of Watson.

//Is this correct?

48.972% of Registered Voters who PARTICIPATED voted 'YES'
30.528% of Registered Voters who PARTICIPATED voted 'NO'
20.5% of Registered Voters ABSTAINED from PARTICIPATION in the Postal Vo//

Yes, credit where credit is due. Armchair's facts are correct.

//This gives 21.5% didn't vote validly (ie. 100-79.5)//

Nope, thinkabit.

100 - 79.5 = 20.5

ttbn,

Tony Burke would be no loss to his electorate.

Opinionated2,
I note you have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

//I note you have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.//

Pot kettle black.

MPs who will be voting NO: Kevin Andrews ; Bob Katter

Senators voting NO: Slave Rockman; Don Farrell; Cory Bernadi; Lucy Gichuhi (remember how the Left barracked for her); Bridget McKenzie.

There are also 45 politicians sitting on the fence to see what the two Bills say about freedom of speech and action, including protection for religious objection, say.

Not quite over yet.

Josephus... I notice you are ignorant on most issues... So which issue is it that you have deluded yourself to thinking I know nothing about... Fairness? Honest intentions? Dishonest haters? Marriage equality? Religion? Bigotry?

Do you have a tissue so you can wipe your widdle uninformed eyes?

Come on be a brave little soldier. lmao

ttbn, I hope you are praying fervently for what you want... So far your sky buddy isn't helping you much at all...lmao

The weak cowardly ultra right made us have this postal vote and they lost convincingly. The people have spoken... Perhaps it is time for the losers to stop crying.

So what have gays done to all you poor dejected ones? Oh that's right nothing - you just hate them!

Hang on they have done something almost unbearable to you...

They whooped your collective butts in the plebiscite and now get to enjoy you all crying like poor, immature, stuck pigs...lmao

Aint democracy grand when it works like this!

Op2,

Have you and your boyfriend set a date for your nuptials?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Users of slippery slope arguments should take
skiing lessons. They really can choose to
stop.

OUCH! ttbn... As I am straight I think you have just proven yourself wrong again...

Sop what happened to you turning the other cheek?

Oh that's right you don't really follow you just say you do....

What happened to "Do unto others"- Once again you don't really follow you just say you do...

What happened to "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone "OOPS! Another fail on your part..."

What happened "Judge not lest ye be judged"- OOPS! You forgot that one too...

Did you forget "Do not bear false witness?" Another classic fail! lmao

You should be a preacher? You could start with

"Don't listen to me... I will get it all wrong as usual!...lmao

You could change feet every time you opened your mouth so that you at least have one foot in your mouth each time...

Now go ask for forgiveness you just failed Jesus and Bible 101...

61.6% Yes, 38.4% No with q participation rate of 79.5%; that's one of the highest participation rates in the world.

Gives the "YES" vote a margin of 23.2%; I don't see the problem.

Could replace Tony Burke with one of yours from the Pauline Puss Sucker Party, right Leo. With this resounding yes vote have you considered mobilising the parties brown shirts yet, sorry citizens militia under your personal command.

Armchair Critic: "Hey thinkabit, Pretty sure my numbers were the same as yours"

Apologies, yes you're right. I skipped the word "registered" and totally miss-read want you said.

Thanks also Toni Lavis for correcting my maths mistake.

Is Mise: " Gives the "YES" vote a margin of 23.2%; I don't see the problem. "

It should not be the margin of the vote that matters but rather whether the majority of the Australians actively want SSM or not.

To demonstrate this, consider the hypothetical where only 10 people voted out of the whole of Australia, 9 said the Yes and 1 No, that's a margin of 90%,. Would you honestly claim this as a resounding win for the Yes camp that faithfully represents the desires of the majority of the whole population?

So what happens now? I think ttbn has covered it very well. It now goes to the 'soft cock' brigade and let's see if they grow a spine and vote according to conscience and their faith. Or whether they are going to prostitute themselves and go the way of YES because it is politically profitable to do so, and what the heck they will retire with a fat pension soon so who really cares.

The "hold out" mob are unbelievable, in desperation they demanded. and got, a very expensive plebiscite. Hoping beyond hope that their mythical god would work some kind of miracle, along with a whole lot of scaremongering on their part, they though somehow this would convince enough Australian to vote No. FELLAS IT FAILED BADLY. Get over it, get on with it, suck it it in, and get real.

thinkabit, think a bit about this, your distortion of the result is pathetic nonsense. Fortunately for you, you have the anonymity of the forum to hide behind. Just don't go public with your clap trap, because you will become a public laughing stock, you wont be able to walk down the street without having people rolling in the gutters in stitches, chuckling as you pass; "here comes that fool with his statistics!"

How do you count beyond 24, what do you do when you run out of fingers and toes?

Toni,

I know that your primary attack weapon is to (deliberately?) misconstrue what others say and then mocked this misconstrued version. I won't try to take that away from you since then you'd be struck voiceless. But...

when you say " I really can't see gay marriage as the death knell of religion" I do need to point out that is not even close to what I said. I simply opined that the churches would be harassed into silence on the issue. They will continue to speak about it furtively within their community but advocacy will eventually be off the table. The Tasmanian churches have learned that publicly advocating their views has adverse consequences (just as Victorian churches learned not to criticise Muslims by quoting the Koran). Religion won't be destroyed but it will withdraw into itself and cease to be an obstacle to the next 'progressive' agenda item.

Foxy,

"Users of slippery slope arguments should take skiing lessons. They really can choose to stop."

The next slide on the slippery slope isn't inevitable but it is always easier. All of the arguments used to advocate for SSM can be applied to polyamory and transsexual 'rights'. And having been made and made mainstream it will be easier to apply them when next needed by whatever 'disadvantaged' group wants to do so.

It was a mere decade ago that such luminaries of the left such as Rudd, Gillard, Penny Wong, the Obamessiah, Clinton and myriad others were of the view that marriage was a man/women thing and the homosexual community would have to be happy to gain civil union rights only. When Howard clarified that by changing the marriage act it wasn't done against any opposition to speak of. There was general agreement on the change. But a decade of #hashtag trendiness utterly changed societal views. It will be much easier to do it the next time around

Paul,

"plebiscite
noun
the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution."

It was a postal vote, not a plebiscite.
The YES camp was firmly against a plebiscite, probably because it would have required all eligible voters to attend a polling booth/otherwise vote, the postal vote was voluntary.

thinkabit,

My best advice to you is live up to your nome de plume.

"It should not be the margin of the vote that matters but rather whether the majority of the Australians actively want SSM or not."

The majority of eligible voters had their chance and in these sorts of things, those who don't vote are considered to not care how the vote goes and, consequently, to be happy with the result.

Opinion2, here we go again, it looks like this stupid stupid man is going to get these laws passed, then talk about it, i.e. debate the protection of the likes of religious freedoms, education etc.

I just can not believe how governments are so set on implementing plans then discussing the details at a later date. Insulation, mining tax, carbon tax, Traverston dam, the list goes on. Meanwhile, we the tax payer just keep sitting there helplessly watch our taxes being pissed away on brain fart after brain fart and it doesn't matter which party or leader we have.

What on earth are our chidrens grand children likely to inherit.

//I simply opined that the churches would be harassed into silence//

Hah! We should be so bloody lucky. Their raison d'etre is sticking their nose into everybody's business. Good luck getting that mob to put a sock in it.

//Religion won't be destroyed but it will withdraw into itself and cease to be an obstacle to the next 'progressive' agenda item.//

I really should start taking wagers...

I think the chances of the churches not having a whinge about things they don't like are slim to say the least.

//But a decade of #hashtag trendiness utterly changed societal views.//

So it's all twitter's fault? But I don't even use twitter.

My views were mostly informed by Mill, and he's hardly a recent philosopher...

Maybe those societal views in favour of increased liberty are older than you think.

I have a question for everyone. If the institution of, or the word marriage and all that it means today, is so important to the queers, how can they get 'married' if they cannot 'consummate' their union?

Hi MHaze,

You concerns about the future are understandable.
However I am sure that Australians will tackle each
issue that arises with fairness and equity. They have
shown that they are capable of doing precisely that.
Personally I am optimistic that the "fair go" in
Australia will survive. But to achieve that our
country will require genuine leadership and a willingness
to confront both the difficulties and opportunities that
the country will face. My feeling is that we are
uniquely placed in Australia to be able to do precisely
that.

Hi ALTRAV,

I think that you are confusing the word "consumate"
with "procreate". Same sex couples are quite
capable of having sexual intercourse - therefore
they can "consumate" their union. Your concern
about being able to "procreate" is unwarranted
and actually irrelevant because with the advances
in the availability and technology of artificial
insemination; if they so choose, lesbian women are
able to become mothers without having had any
heterosexual relationships at all. Adoption or
surrogacy is also an available option. Besides
there are many heterosexual couples who are married
who are unable to have children or who choose not to
have children or who are too old to have children.
And that does not make their unions invalid.

The new laws on the sale of children will be following soon as surrogacy becomes legal in Australia. Heterosexual couples wanting to adopt will be denied as preference is given to homosexual males. Children will be removed from parents who do not approve SSM. Businesses will dismiss staff that do not approve of SSM and these have already happened. Open discussion on SSM will become illegal and considered the same as racism.

As shown on this thread SSM opinionated persons will become immature and disrespectful of difference of opinion and seek every opportunity to bully.

Dear Josephus,

The Dean Smith Bill that has been passed in the Senate
has all the necessary protections to prevent what you
are suggesting from happening. Plus additional amendments
to the Bill are also being discussed and will continue
to become part of the Bill. Our parliamentarians will
see to this happening.

The Smith Bill has only the provisions the lunatic Left allowed, or it would not have passed the Senate. The only way that decent people with morals might be protected is the other Bill, which Comrade Turnbull has already said will not get a look in.

Toni,

"So it's all twitter's fault?"

There you go again..deliberately misconstruing a point then mocking the point. Does that work for you?
To make it easier for you I'll make my point again. When I say #hashtag trendiness I refer the whole social media mindset where short-term herd mentality causes a groundswell of moral panic or outrage or virtue signalling which overturns, with little thought and less understanding, long held societal norms. When such things like the #bringbackourgirls lunacy occur they have little long-term effect other than providing amusement for those studying the herd instinct. But sometimes, as with SSM, the effects are permanent and profound. Its no way to run a society but is increasingly the case.

"Their [the church's] raison d'etre is sticking their nose into everybody's business." Yeah that's why they exist. Nothing to do with communion, Christianity (or Islam). Sheesh!

"Maybe those societal views in favour of increased liberty are older than you think."

Increased liberty as a societal aim has been around for several millennia. That's beside the point here. You might (now) claim that SSM was always about liberty yadda yadda, but if you had even a modicum of memory you'd realise that it wasn't always the case. When Rudd, Gillard etc were opposed to SSM where they opposed to increased liberty or equality. I have little time for them but even I wouldn't be that harsh on them. SSM was turned into an equality issue so as to achieve a particular aim but it wasn't always an equality issue. But being a good follower of the herd means knowing what to forget and it seems you've learned well what needs to be forgotten.

"We should be so bloody lucky.[that the churches be silenced].

A devotee of Mill (yeah sure!) hopes for the silencing of a large minority of the populace. That's too comical to even parody.

Here are the facts concerning the private member's
bill from Liberal Senator Dean Smith to legalise
same-sex marriage. It passed in the Senate and it
now heads to the lower house when it sits on
November 27th 2017. James Patterson withdrew his
bill saying he believed that a majority of Senators
believed the Smith bill "is where we should start."

However the Coalition backbencher along with conservative
colleagues will be looking at amending the Smith bill over
concerns that it does not go far enough to protect
religious freedoms.

"I will now work constructively with my parliamentary
colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to ensure
that the strongest possible protections for the freedoms
of all Australians are enshrined in the final legislation",
he said.

And the government's leader in the Senate, Attorney-General
George Brandis said he wanted to see further protections
for people who did not want to be involved in same-sex
marriages.

Brandis flagged plans to amend the bill when it goes to
committee to extend the right of conscientious objection
from ministers of religion to include civil marriage
celebrants. And "to put the matter beyond doubt".
Brandis also wants to add an amendment "that nothing in the
bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express
the views of their own religion on the subject of marriage."

It couldn't be fairer.

Still to be decided in SSM is who will the Mister and who will be the Mistress.

SSM couples are advised not to honeymoon in Russia, among a number of other places.

Oh you poor thing Josephus...

You started it with this comment...

Opinionated2,
I note you have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 16 November 2017 4:44:00 PM

So you can dish it out but can't take it when you get it back... You poor little petal..lol

You promote ridiculous scare tactics because you are a sore loser... You claim children will be sold... What next!

It is the loony right who are bringing up all these ridiculous objections...

Why do religious rights need to be protected? The religions didn't protect children in their care when they allowed them to be abused and covered up the crimes. What happened to the children's rights when this went on for decades probably millennium?

With that outrageous behaviour why should we even listen to religions at all?

What about the rights of the intelligent people who are non-religious, and who don't fall for goat herder fairy tales being protected by legislation? No school prayers in public schools for one... No attacks on people being told they are going to hell... a place that doesn't exist and that is a total insult to God?

How about we protect children against being scared when they are taught the great lies about the devil, hell and eternal damnation... Is lying to children and scaring children a form of abuse, indoctrination and mind control?

If we are going to legislate religious freedoms we should also legislate to stop religions scaring people with absolute falsehoods!

How about we introduce a right on behalf of taxpayers that the tax office audit the books of religions? Let's document for the taxpayers who subsidise religions where ALL the money goes!

Op2,

Since you are curious about where the money goes, you could start with St Vinnies.
https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/Publications/VICTORIA/Annual__Financial_Reports/

try this and follow on.

www.google.com.au/search?q=annual+financial+statement+diosese+of+sydney&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=annual+financial+statement+diosese+of+sydney&aqs=chrome..69i57.28933j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

//When I say #hashtag trendiness I refer the whole social media mindset where short-term herd mentality causes a groundswell of moral panic or outrage or virtue signalling which overturns, with little thought and less understanding, long held societal norms.//

So you're still arguing that progressive politics are exclusively the product of the modern age? Or have I misconstrued again?

I still maintain that increasing liberty for minorities isn't a new idea: women's suffrage, the civil rights movement... these existed long before the social media or indeed the internet. Letting gays marry is just a specific example of a generalised phenomenon which has been occurring in democratic nations for some time now.

//Yeah that's why they exist. Nothing to do with communion, Christianity (or Islam).//

Yeah, I wasn't being literal.

//We should be so bloody lucky.[that the churches be silenced]

A devotee of Mill (yeah sure!) hopes for the silencing of a large minority of the populace.//

Well now who's deliberately misconstruing points? You know that it's still putting words in somebody's mouth even you wrap those words in brackets?

I'm not in favour of anybody being 'silenced'. That implies some sort of government goons going about treading upon people's right to free speech with jackbooted heel, and I'm not in favour of that sort of crap. But I'm totally in favour some people voluntarily putting a bloody sock in it. To paraphrase Voltaire "I may be willing to defend to the death your right to free speech, but I do wish you'd pipe down a bit."

foxy don't bother to try to get around this one. It is and has always been and will forever be the domain of a man and a woman. Stop trying to justify an unnatural act as being the norm, especially on such an occasion. The fact that heterosexual women, apparently don't mind 'copping it up the arse' does not mean it's OK. It's not and that's the end of it. The heterosexual couples engaging in such acts are as disgusting as the queers so don't expect any straight people to sanction the queers perverted antics simply because some straight people have gone the way of the sick and twisted. I don't get it we have this beautiful thing called 'woman'. She has all the god given gifts and attributes to pleasure a man no end. Why the f@(k would you not indulge yourself (in this wonderful thing called 'woman'). You queers have no idea what you are missing out on. Viva la femme fatale.

Gee Is Mise a couple of published annual reports... I now know everything...lol

It's a little more complicated than that I am afraid, but feel good about your big Google find...lol Do you know anything about auditing?

If publicly released accounts are so accurate how come some corporations manage to have so much money in tax havens that don't appear on their accounts.. Golly gee that's a tricky one!...lol

You seem to be accepting of "trust me I'm a religious group and I have publicly documented accounts"...lol

Now of course these accounts might be absolutely accurate and I'm not saying they aren't, because I didn't look at them...

As can be seen by all the crime and coverup in the churches and other groups there can be no trust.

Would you trust a group that covered up the horrendous crimes against children committed by it's people for years?

Would you trust someone who lied to children about talking snakes justifying the oppression of women since their laughable beginning of time - (about 6000 odd years)? lmao

Would you trust a group who scare children with lies about the devil, hellfire and damnation, and spending eternity in the sulphur lakes of hell - All which don't even exist?

It seems you would...lmao

Some of us are a lot smarter than that and have realised that these places need to be looked at very closely and very often. The problem is because of the insidious nature of religion they seem to escape true investigation and remain a tightly closed shop.

But thanks for your expertise in finding stuff using Google... Seeing we have Google we should do away with auditors all together...lmao

Keep up the good work...lmao

ALTRAV writes: "She has all the god given gifts and attributes to pleasure a man no end. Why the f@(k would you not indulge yourself (in this wonderful thing called 'woman').

Lesbians do.

Again with the focus on male homosexuality. If it's not anal sex, then it's bewilderment at how gay men could not be attracted to women.

Following this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, ALTRAV must sympathise with lesbians and wonder why not all straight women are gay.

I know I do.

Op2,

"How about we introduce a right on behalf of taxpayers that the tax office audit the books of religions? Let's document for the taxpayers who subsidise religions where ALL the money goes!"

You asked the question so I guided you to Google, as you seemed incapable of finding any info for yourself.
Now that you know about Google you can get a few facts before putting the terminal portion of your crus into your oral vestibule.

ALTRAV,

You seem to be fixated on the sexual habits of
same-sex couples. I find this rather odd.
Because the survey was about granting same-sex
couples the same legal rights as the rest of us
have in this country - the legal right to marry.
It did not involve any questions about their
sex lives. And whether you find same-sex couples
disgusting is totally irrelevant in the general
scheme of things. What we think of certain
individuals should not have any impact on the way
they are treated under the law of the land.
Our personal opinions are just that - our opinions.
They should not come into play as far as the law is
concerned - under which we should all be treated
equally and as the results of the survey showed -
most ordinary Australians agree. The marriage survey
result shows that Australia is better than our
politicians give us credit for.

TY for pointing out for the second time that you used Google to find nothing but a public document... lmao

Do you stand up to think because I think sitting may just prevent the blood getting to your brains...lmao Google that!...lol

Please don't tell me you believe in talking snakes...

I was chatting to an Eastern brown snake the other day and he said that he was an underling and I needed to talk to the King brown....

So I managed to get a meeting with the King Brown and he was rolling on the ground next to this tree full of very nice fruit.

He said to me "You can partake of the fruit you won't die..."

I replied "no thanks" but this guy Is Mise and a whole heap of fairy tale believers on online opinions might be tempted... They will believe anything...lol

He told me he was one of the "Sons of God" and he had been sent to Earth because God didn't like him anymore...

I was shocked and said he was full of crap but reiterated "there are people like Is Mise who would believe him..."

Google talking snakes and see what you get...lmao He's pretty old... About 6000 odd years from memory... lmao

... Cont

... from above

We laughed how God created the Earth in 6 days and even he had to rest on the seventh...

He told me there was a lovely warm place somewhere for all those believers who spread lies against God... You know lies like "God drowned all the people including helpless babies except for 8 in this flood that never happened.

Or the one about all those plagues that never happened.

We screamed with laughter that people believe God killed all the innocent first born of Egypt - He said God wouldn't laugh though... God apparently doesn't like being called a murderer.

You'll love that good old King brown... He suffers a bit from dementia because of his age... but hey people who believe these stories have dementia caused by religion...

He laughed really loudly about the story of the 144,000 virgin boys and no women being chosen in Revelation... Apparently good old John of Patmos loved snorting the methane in his cave...lol

He agreed it all sounded a bit gay to him... Perhaps Johnny was gay and didn't realise that people would actually believe his methane trip stories...lol

And boy did we laugh when he mentioned Daniel

Daniel 1:9 Now GOD had brought Daniel into favor and TENDER LOVE with the prince of the eunuchs.

They weren't just mates apparently but hey God condoned of it... lmao

He said God would be thrilled that in Australia Daniel and the Eunuch could now marry ... God really loves love. Apparently he created it...

Poor Johnny of Patmos is a lost cause though... He's hooked on the methane and now thinks he is God...lmao He still thinks Jesus only wants to hang with young virgin males though - the methane has affected him that badly...lmao

I didn't need to use Google once to know this stuff... But quick all you chicken littles' - Put your egg shell hats on or aluminium hats if you prefer - the sky is falling!

How do you spell Google again?...lmao

foxy, you can't 'cherry pick' comments to try to make your argument. It's all the facts or none at all.
AJ I happen to like women. Of course I am fixated on anal sex. Just because you won't accept this, does not make me wrong. I can sympathise with these people who have been born with these differences. But I cannot justify equal anything when they conduct themselves in a manner not equal to society. We already agree they are different, no one is disputing that. We treat them the same as any other person in many things, but because there is that difference, we must acknowledge the difference and deal with it accordingly. The fact that queers want the church to change it's stance on marriage is no different to the Muslims wanting us to change our Christian traditions because it offends them. The two are in the same vane. I would no sooner comply with one as I would with the other. A person should be allowed to feel comfortable in themselves and their beliefs, especially when they are in the majority. Don't even think about quoting me the figures on the plebiscite, not relevant to this discussion. Last time I checked we still had freedom of speech here so it is my right to say what I want, as it is your right not to take any notice of me.

Toni,

"So you're still arguing that progressive politics are exclusively the product of the modern age? Or have I misconstrued again?"

Nowhere have I said that. I have said that this particular change is a product of a very modern campaign using very modern tools.

I'll point this out again...less than a decade ago the prevailing view on the left and those who fancy themselves 'progressive' was that marriage was a man/women thing. For example as recently as 2010 Penny Wong was espousing that view. The Obamessiah ran in 2008 with that as his platform. As did his Democrat opponent.

(I know that you and your ilk don't like to be reminded of this and that in leftist circles these facts have received the Winston Smith treatment. But it is a fact no matter how much you might desire it otherwise.)

Other societal changes that you mentioned took place over decades and often generations. This instead was a change that was achieved in a short time based on a social media inspired groundswell of groupthink.

I know you won't agree, being caught up in the hoopla of the occasion, but I think it was an ill-thought out leap in the dark which will do society no good.

In terms of the future, which this thread was originally about, the terms of engagement and means toward change have now been set. Other aggrieved groups seeking their slice of what they consider liberty have a road map and will be effectively unstoppable. Especially after the groups who would normally apply the breaks to such head-strong leaps in the dark, have been cowed into silence.

You see this as simply an issue of equity which is of coarse how its been framed so as to move from societal opposition to societal giddy agreement. I see it quite differently.

Don't worry, ALTRAV, I accept that you are fixated on anal sex.

<<Of course I am fixated on anal sex. Just because you won't accept this, does not make me wrong.>>

I just think it's very unhealthy. Had you not been on the same side of the debate as him, I'm sure our resident amateur psychologist, phanto, would have a very unflattering and fascinating incite into what exactly your fixation on anal sex is indicative of. As for me? Personally, I think it's the only way an ignorant person, unable to tolerate or comprehend complexity and uncertainty, expresses their bigotry.

Make you wrong about what, by the way?

Op2,

Such a nice long post, seems that I got to you.

Is Mise... If getting to me means me having lots of fun at your expense you got me real good. Keep up the good work!...lmao

Altrav - The church has changed in the past on another huge issue... slavery. The fact the churches and the Abrahamic religions are completely wrong on everything is just a fact of life.

In Christianity people and the churches deliberately pick and choose what they want to follow. They aren't really Christian as they claim and they don't really follow Jesus at all.

You are proving it here...

Their doctrines regarding homosexuals prove this implicitly...

Most follow... "Do unto others" unless they are different from you...

If you consider homosexuality sin they fail "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone..."

They rely on the teachings of a maniac like Moses and even lie about Moses being a good person.

Most characters in the Bible are psychopaths and manic depressed.

Moses was simply a mass murderer and war criminal who justified every one of his crimes against others by saying the Lord said... If you studied properly this becomes very obvious.

He used witchcraft, magic and other methods all of which he absolutely oppressed in others.

The Abrahamic religions are destroyed with one verse ordered by Moses but there are many more.

Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, TAKE ALL THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE, and hang them up before the LORD in the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

So do you believe God ordered Moses to decapitate the people and hang the heads of the vanquished in poles in the sun?

It's in the Bible... Do we do these things any more? Why not? The Bible is supposedly God's word! rofl

The same as the Bible was used for millennia to oppress women, it has also been to oppress anyone who was different.

Perhaps after so many years of believing this camel herders made up rubbish, shouldn't we finally wake up and ditch this rubbish!

Op2,
Off subject!
The snake in the garden of God, has a symbolic meaning to poison the mind with false ideas. The snake also represents healing that is why Doctors use it as a symbol. In Ancient Chinese Culture they have the dragon symbolised strength etc.. I would suspect you also mock Doctors and the Chinese Culture?

Every ancient culture including Australian aboriginals, American Indians, Chinese and Indian have a flood story, so you who were not there knows it did not happen. Strange! What happened to the Indus Valley, and to Pakistan. People do not die in floods especially children. It does not happen?

In case you cannot understand. Daniel was a Eunuch which meant he was castrated so he could not have sex, it was denied him.

AJ, in response to your last comments. I am more than satisfied with my last post/response so I am going to repeat that instead of wasting time to write it all again. You obviously did not read my whole response or you would not have short changed your answer. So go back and read it again you will see I have been clear in my points.

It's time to move on to the next idiotic stunt, whatever it is that the lunatics in Canberra, aided by a moronic electorate, dream up. It's hard to think what it might be, but it will have to be really bizarre to beat legalising 'marriage' for for same sex people. This type of perversion helped bring down the Roman and Greek civilisations, along with the other huge follies we share with them, multiculturalism and self-denegration. The Koran is right: the West will bring about its demise "with their own hand".

Almost 5,00,000 persons voted NO, so they need their rights to their opinion protected from a totalitarian law, that denies freedom of expression of ideas. At the moment that right has been put on hold in any discussion, so there are currently no legal protections in place if SSM is legalised before Christmas.

I still believe all social contracts [marriage, pre-nuptial agreements etc.] should be done before a Chamber Magistrate with witnesses. That means any celebrations, Pub, Club, Resort, Church, Temple, Mosque formalities etc. are separate from State registrations.

Yes, ALTRAV, I did read you whole response, it was rather disjointed and some of your sentence structure made for an amusing read with its ambiguity (as my last response highlighted).

Sorry, but I don't really understand what your point was. Apparently I don't accept something, and the fact that I don't accept it doesn't mean that you're wrong. Well, that's obvious, although it is still a mystery as to what it is that I don't accepted (other than, perhaps, your fixation on anal sex).

You then say that you cannot justify equality for gay people on any level, but then cite a bizarre reason for this regarding their conduct and how it is apparently not equal to society:

"... when they conduct themselves in a manner not equal to society". (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8026#248327)

How does something become equal to society, and how do you gauge this?

<<We treat them the same as any other person in many things, but because there is that difference, we must acknowledge the difference and deal with it accordingly.>>

What difference? Anal intercourse? What about lesbians and heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse? And how do you think we need to deal with that? How do you determine what constitutes "accordingly"?

With no lead-in whatsoever, you then start talking about religious freedom, the results of the survey, and your right to speak your mind. There is no indication of how any of this relates to what you started talking about in the first half of your post.

But if you don't want to explain what that jumbled set of thoughts was supposed to be communicating, then I'm fine with that.

AJ thank you. Your welcome.

Dear Josephus,

The Coalition backbencher James Patterson along
with Conservative colleagues will be looking at
amending the Smith Bill over the very concerns
that you've expressed - that the Bill does not
go far enough to protect religious freedoms.

"I will now work constructively with my Parliamentary
colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to
ensure that the strongest possible protections for the
freedoms of ALL Australians are enshrined in the
federal legislation", he said.

Not only than, the Government's leader in the Senate,
Attorney-General George Brandis, said he wanted to see
further protections for people who did not want to be
involved in same-sex marriages.

Brandis flagged plans to amend the Bill when it goes to
Committee to extend the right of conscientious objection
to ministers of religion to include civil marriage
celebrants and "to put the matter beyond doubt".

Brandis also wants to add an amendment "that nothing in the
Bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express
the views of their own religion on the subject of marriage."

Surely this should appease your concerns.

Josephus you really are a lost sole who knows so little about anything...

You like to think you know but you don't...

Even if the snake is a symbol it is a dense story that is absolute rubbish...

I could dissect it for you BUT I doubt you have the capacity to understand...

I wasn't at the flood, were you? Were you around when Jesus supposedly walked the Earth? Were you there for the passover? The "were you" there argument is irrelevant and applies equally to you so add that to your list of failings...lmao

Really every culture has the Noah's flood story where the world was covered by sea and a man in a boat saved all the animals 2 x 2 or 7 x 2 depending on which verse you read?

Remember Noah's flood (lol) covered everything on Earth... and according to the Bible only 6000 odd years ago.

Yes, children die in floods BUT not every innocent child, innocent baby, and innocent babe still in the womb on the Earth like the Noah story says... Are you for real? lmao WAKE UP! EVERY CHILD DIED - only 8 people survived!

Do you really believe GOD would kill all these innocent people? Poor you if you do!

You live in the 21st century... you are allowed to think like you do! Have you thought of herding camels in the middle east as a profession? lmao

In the Bible, because you don't know, a Eunuch, was often a homosexual man... You didn't know that?

Furthermore... Who said anything about David and the Eunuch having sex? Try to keep your mind out of the gutter please!

The verse says...

Daniel 1:9 Now GOD had brought Daniel into favor and TENDER LOVE with the prince of the eunuchs.

Maybe they just kissed an cuddled...

See your problem is that you believe fairy stories and you can't understand that what people do in their bedrooms isn't necessarily what you think.

... Cont

...Cont

Poor Josephus,

Can you/anyone answer the question I posed on a later post...

Did GOD order Moses to cut the heads off the vanquished and put them in poles in the baking sun to turn God's anger away from the Israelites?

Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, TAKE ALL THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE, and hang them up before the LORD in the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

Did your God...tell Moses do this to test a woman's fidelity? What is the test for a man's fidelity?...lol

Numbers 5:16-22 (NIV) “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord."

Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.

After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.

But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—

here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

How many innocent babies and women died through this process?

The reason that this is "on topic" is because religious people are using crazy, evil Moses' teachings to justify their ridiculous position against gay people..

Keep smiling!

Oh for gods sake.

You would think that surely now they have what they want, they could shut the hell up.

But no, of course, like the dam Greens the noisy people are activists first & foremost, & will move on to another protest in similar fashion, no matter how senseless the cause.

Op2 even Catholics have 'grown up' over the years. I don't believe in God so all these scriptures and the like, as far I am concerned, are the doings of the so called disciples or followers. They MAY have been taken seriously way back when, but we will never know. What I do note from your excerpts is that queers were rejected as far back as these words were written. Can it be that there just may be a modicum of continuity in this anti queer stance? Just a thought. Rejected then, rejected now? I'm a little confused. In the comments I read words like 'sexual relations'. Now unless you chose those words or the Clintons fore fathers were a party to these writings, I don't think they used words like 'sexual relations' in those days. Is someone trying to make a point by skewing the information? Hmmmmmm? Is this possibly how the YES camp makes it's points?

The Catholics are still the same as all the others... Blind to the truth.

This is the power of deliberate falsehood indoctrination and baby Jesus stories when we are young...

You may not be religious but you know a fair bit about the simple stuff.

The believers all say their religious book is God's word and off goes the brain at that moment. This is particularly so in the Abrahamic religions.

Most of them have never even read the Bible cover to cover... But it's God's word...lol They love him and worship him so much but they never read his book...

Those who do, study wrongly... Their belief destroys their comprehension... Another unknowing believer!

So much hate towards homosexuals is based precisely on two verses that the Psychopath Moses stated. Moses lied about everything!

With all that entrenched hate in their hearts towards homosexuals and others they break all of Jesus' teachings continually and yet still have the audacity to call themselves Christian.

The churches will never even mention the verses I show people because they know that they simply can't be from God...It's a coverup on a huge scale...

Believers go along with it because belief shuts down an inquiring mind...Religion and Politics turn people's brains to mush!

So many of the no voters would have done it because of all the lies from Moses in their Bibles.

If the Bible is truly God's instruction (rofl) why aren't they putting dust in a woman's water to test her fidelity... Jesus never said to stop that... lmao

So in this debate people want greater protections for religions... Well my religion is exposing the truth about the lies religions tell continually.

I am so glad that we are attempting to achieve marriage equality for these people because these people have been discriminated against by believers and religious institutions for too long!

If their is going to be a judgement day the believers who have oppressed and lied for so long are the ones who will be judged the harshest! They never practice what they preach!

What about the consequences of whom, of a same-sex couple is Mister and who is Mistress?

ttbn, I have thought the very same things. The Roman empire went the way of orgies, pedophilia, homosexuality and the list went on. I fear we are fast approaching that point where the sick will rule the world. Unfortunately the meek shall not inherit the Earth, as the naive have been led to believe. This SSM saga is not in anyone's interest but the queers. The other 97% are supposed to accommodate this without question.I am not a religious man but there is no doubt in my mind that the Koran is right. I don't think the terrorists need bother attacking us. I suggest they wait a while and we will do it for them. To be clear I do not subscribe to any so called religious movements as I fear they are all cults.

Isn't it funny.

The ABCs greatest causes, SSM, & Muslims & feminists couldn't be more diametrically opposed. Come the Muslim take over, the first to be beheaded will be those SSM married couples, follower by the noisy feminists.

Hasbeen, I'd really like to know who is running this country. I have always believed the Rothschilds are behind every major bad event that has befallen the Earth and it's people. So I choose to start there. I believe, scratch the surface and we would be surprised at what we would find. All the institutions you mention all have links to each other, if one looks deep enough.

//I'd really like to know who is running this country.//

Stonecutters, of course:

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

I, for one, welcome our new stonecutter overlords..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

As Voltaire didn't say "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise".

Due to the SSM vote the world ended at 3am this morning I'll keep you informed as to any serious implications for mankind, but I fully expect it will be business as usual. Fr Joe you have demoed everything that is bad about religion on this issue. I thought you were better than that, perhaps not.

Not sure who rules the world and I don't really think giving gay people the right to marry is part of the great conspiracy from our alleged owners, but you conspiracy theorists seem to have that covered in your own minds at least...lol.

I do know however that religions are very high up there in the ownership stakes as they wrongly are in many people's heads as worthwhile. Also they control vast amounts of moneys and properties all throughout the world.

Jesus said Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MONEY.

Think about that next time you are putting money in the collection plate or tithing into the great pot of money. lol

Here is a list of the 14...

Christianity (2.1 billion)
Islam (1.3 billion)
Hinduism (900 million)
Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous (300 million)
African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
Sikhism (23 million)
Juche (19 million)
Spiritism (15 million)
Judaism (14 million)
Bahai (7 million)
Jainism (4.2 million)
Shinto (4 million)
Cao Dai (4 million)
Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
Tenrikyo (2 million)
Neo-Paganism (1 million)
Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)

And here is a guess at the others who aren't religious

Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)

So religions certainly have some sort of mind controlling effect over many on the planet...

As I was raised to be Christian but rebelled when I actually read the Bible, afterall it is obviously wrong! It has caused great hurt to anyone the Psychopaths and manic depressives like Moses criticise.

....cont

...cont

Even the 10 commandments story is a load of rubbish and didn't Moses manipulate a flaw in those.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

God obviously got it wrong as it should have said "ägainst anybody"

So what did evil Moses do with the error? He found a loophole!

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Now you have read it did you notice that at the start of the verse the son is just "stubborn and rebellious"?

BUT Moses ordered the parents to testify that he is also "a glutton and a drunkard", thereby BEARING FALSE WITNESS!

REALLY? Moses must have been a lawyer... He noticed that it only said neighbour... A relative isn't a neighbour!

WHAT? GOD allowed the stoning and hence killing of family member even when false testimony is used against the family member?

... cont

...cont

Moses' false testimonies have been used by believers to discriminate against gays since time in memorium... Believers shoul;d hang their heads in shame for two reasons

1. Because they believe the rubbish in the Bible
2. Because they have been so unGodly as to continue to discriminate against gays due to the lies of Moses!

Finally in Australia at least Gays will now have the right to marry. The discriminators have been silenced!

The only way to show that religious people have been totally hoodwinked is to show the verses they have never read in the first place... You will probably never have heard Preachers preaching these verses.

I hope other non-religious people who read these things realise that they too have been discriminated against by religious people who are plain wrong also!

Believers who find out you are a non-believer automatically assume you are going to hell when it is them that are the sinners on that topic...lmao

There is no Satan, there is no hellfire and sulphur pits... They are just scare weapons of people who are too dumb to know better or people who aim to oppress your rights to know the truth.

Those lies have been the weapons of mass destruction used by believers against innocent people to oppress and control since Moses started his lies..

It's time to break free! If you voted "No""based on your religion - you were wrong! You are living the great lies of Moses!

Jesus said John 6:46 NOT THAT ANY MAN HATH SEEN THE FATHER, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Moses said Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: AND THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

So who do your really believe? Jesus or Moses! lmao

ALTRAV,

When Christianity looks like everything else, there is no point in it at all. Organised religion, which I also eschew, is part of the problem now.

Paul,

Joke about the world not coming to an end via the YES vote if you must, but we are now seeing the beginning of the end. Give it time; it will happen. The West is heading for oblivion.

Paul,

Up to the sixties and perhaps beyond, marriage represented security for women entering into relationships, that their bloke wouldn't piss off just when they were anther most vulnerable. Many did of course, I recall blokes being 'garnisheed' at nearly very place I worked at in those days. In those days, it was vital that the firming up of those relationships, through an institution called marriage, had to be very public, mainly binding the bloke to his responsibilities in the eyes off the world, and of the State, and perhaps in the eyes of the church and its communities as well.

Since then, birth control methods have improved, single mothers' benefits have been strengthened, abortion has been legalised, and women are far more likely to get higher education, currently more so that men, and tosses to be employed for life. De facto relationships have pretty much all the legal power of married ones.

So the very need for marriage has declined. Marx and Engels would be very happy. As a sort of residual Marxist, I am too. So what we might end up with, in this 'stick up the arse of bourgeois society' approach of homosexuals, is that heterosexuals might be less inclined now to marry, while homosexuals may be more inclined if only to vainly attempt to shock bourgeois society, at least until the novelty wears off, and they start going through the processes of divorce.

So my reasons for being cold on homosexual marriage are simply because I see the institution as being less and less necessary for anyone. Sorry for that Marxist approach, if it conflicts with the nihilist-anarchist-Gramscian one: I'm getting old and I just can't keep up with the latest pseudo-revolutionary fads.

And of course, since I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, and in the freedom of belief, I support the right to believe in no matter whatever crack-pot religious theory, provided the rights of women and children are not violated by those beliefs, as in backward religions like 4,000-years-ago Judaism and present-day Islam (so sue me).

Joe

Not so sure about the West heading for oblivion.
The doom-sayers have been around for quite a long time
on our planet.

The vast majority of modern mainstream
Christians, Jews, and Muslims seek a better life on
earth, rather than seeking it in heaven. Even if they
believe in heaven, they seek to have a happy life on
earth. Modern people (with normal family and social
relationships, and an at least partially rational
view of how the world works) are not waiting for Armageddon,
or a future coming of a saviour. Nor are they waiting for
anything else that exercises the theological minds of
fundamentalists.

We must keep in mind that the religiously minded modern
person is not a "card-carrying" fundamentalist.
The latter are a tiny minority. Of whatever faith, a
psychologist would be likely to declare them to be of unsound
mind.

Paul,

"Since then, birth control methods have improved, single mothers' benefits have been strengthened, abortion has been legalised, and women are far more likely to get higher education, currently more so that men, and tosses to be employed for life.... "

What ?! 'tosses' ?! Bloody know-all computer. I think I meant: " .... women are far more likely to get higher education, currently more so that men, and to seek to be employed for life."

Joe

Sorry Foxy but the ravings of fundamentalist loonies are very close to even the modern believer...

I have done surveys on these things by asking simple questions...

Some of the questions are

Does hell exist... Most believe it does!A few say we are living hell on Earth.

What happens to non-believers? Most say they go to hell.

Have you read the Bible in full? No

Is the Bible God's word? 3 replies... Yes God wrote it... Yes it is inspired by God and therefore accurate. Yes!

The indoctrination in what you call a non-fundamentalist goes very deep. Because they usually don't want to think or investigate things they simply believe...

Were the people who voted no based on their religious beliefs using fundamentalist propaganda from Moses and the churches to vote no? The answer is yes!

Of course there are Christians who just want to live normal happy lives but they still claim to be Christian when they usually aren't.

Are they good people? Well no if they believe people go to hell. The whole stories of hell, the devil, the flood, the passover and the mass killings and war crimes they ignore that are documented in the Bible are totally anti-God.

You can't be a bigot and call yourself a Christian yet many are and many still do. Australian believers are a lot more quiet than USA loudmouth believers but they still believe the same lies.

That is fundamentalism!

Fatuous Foxy is now an expert on religion. Is there no end to this woman's nonsense! She needs to get out of her computer room more often. Get hubby to drive her around more in the bogan- bus, the old Statesman.

ttbn,

I rather suspect that you lied when you told us
that your chosen initials for
this forum (TTBN)
stood for - "Try To Be Nice".

Because judging from the nasty consistency displayed in
your posts - TTBN actually stand for -
"Try To Be Nasty".

And that is something that you're good at.

Do yourself a favour and ignore anyone who tells you to
be yourself.
Bad idea in your case.

Op2,

I'll bet you read your own posts.

Dear OP2,

Modern people are focussed on improving the human condition
on earth, even if they hesitate to claim they can produce
"heaven on earth". Their attitude sits in direct contrast
to the vision of the fundamentalists. I cannot state it
strongly enough: religious fundamentalism - where belief
is in the literal word of the Bible, the Koran or the Torah,
as the rule book for how to live and die - is the arch enemy
of achieving the good sustainable life. Why? If the good life
in another (mythical) world, heaven, is what you seek (and
for some fundamentalists you want to get there as soon as
possible) what you do to earth today and what you do to
your fellow human beings does not matter. In fact, if
Armageddon is a necessary precursor to the second coming (and
utopia in heaven) you will destroy and kill to accelerate your
embrace to God in the hereafter. Very, very, sad. And
pathologically sick.

It is this particular view that allowed the murderers of Sept.
11th 2001 to fly those planes into the Twin Towers.
We also have Christian "end-timers" who would bring on Armageddon today if they could.

Today's fundamentalists were taught to be bad people, yet
believe they are good people - God's chosen ones, whether Jew,
Christian or Muslim. And they believe that you can't be
good - and should be put to death - if you are not one of the
chosen few.

That is the sort of mentality that lies behind many of the
problems that we are faced with in this modern world of ours.

foxy, in some commentors defense, and remember I am not religious, I must pick you up on a couple of issues. Firstly I don't think people of today would dare follow the bible or any other doctrine, to letter. Some passages just do not 'fit in' today. Although I would retain the one where a person who either rapes and or attacks an old woman. I believe I am for the stoning to death of the individual and there are a few more things I would retain that punishment for. I don't think there are people actively engaged in trying to get to 'heaven' by killing themselves other than the fools who believe in Allah! These people have been 'sucked in' and succumbed to the predications of their cult leader or handler. They are mentally weak and are wanting. We cannot use these people as examples of anything. Certainly not typical religious followers.

Dear ALTRAV,

I was referring to fundamentalists and extremists and they exist
in all religions.

One thing that no one has mentioned ref, 'what happens now' is that SS married couples will be able to leave property both personal and real to the surviving partner, (after marriage is made legal) as the law stands at the moment (correct me if it's been changed) the surviving partner can legally claim only that part of an estate to which he, or she, has documented proof of contribution.
This is also where who is Mister or Mistress will come into play because, particularly in divorce, the portion due to the wife is different to that due to the husband.
There have been cases where surviving partners of a long time permanent SS relationship have lost all to blood relatives of the deceased, even to the extent of an accepted attendance at the funeral.

SSM will change much of this but new law will have to be enacted and other laws changed.

Is Mise,

Not mentioned because same sex partners have been able to leave property to surviving partners, and all the other things normal de-facto couples do for some time now. Fake marriage will not make any difference to those arrangements.

Foxy,

Nasty, whatever. Anything's better than being an ignorant windbag like you.

ttbn,

But they're still not the same as marriages.

<<Not mentioned because same sex partners have been able to leave property to surviving partners, and all the other things normal de-facto couples do for some time now.>>

De factos can see themselves caught up in expensive court battles and subject to the whim of a judge's discretion much of the time.

So, your argument is invalid.

<<Fake marriage will not make any difference to those arrangements.>>

So, yeah, they will.

I like how you refer to them as "fake", though - as though there were some objective standard as to what constitutes a marriage, beyond what society deems a marriage to be.

Wow ttbn, You just outed yourself as a moron again calling Foxy a an outlandish name like that. You aren't very strong in the brain department are you?

There is more intellect passed on in one of Foxy's full stops than in anything you type. lol

So which part of your belief system empowered you to say that rubbish about Foxy?

I agree with you Foxy but I take the fundamentalist point a little further.

In my mind fundamentalism also means being willing to hurt people with their fundamentalist view of the world and hang the consequences. To hide behind I am a good religious person and then uncaringly injure and hurt others.

So if someone uses their religious book to justify them hurting others that too is fundamentalism.

The people who voted no using their religion as their pathetic excuse don't care about the wellbeing of people who are different to them. They don't care about all the suffering that gays have experienced at the hands of their ignorant religion.

They are fundamentalists as well, who don't give a damn that their book is rubbish and that innocent people, who are different and just trying to cope with all they have suffered, get destroyed or injured by the fundamentalist clap trap they have been brainwashed into believing.

Tough words I know, but if they can dish it out to minority groups then they should be able to take the same back.

On the whole they are pathetic judgemental souls who use their rubbish religions wrongly as a terrible weapon against the psychologies of those they really hate.

They too are fundamentalists and wolves in sheep's clothing

ttbn,

You missed commenting on,

"This is also where who is Mister or Mistress will come into play because, particularly in divorce, the portion due to the wife is different to that due to the husband."

What Now?
The idea of moving west of Toowoomba to QLD's 'gay-free zone' has been seriously considered.

AC,

Is there such a place?

I find living inside my head helps. That way I'm not really affected. I find that I can make queer people go away; they are there but they don't touch me. It gets easier as you get older. You don't really 'need' people. I think some people refer to it as 'hardening your heart'. To survive and to be immune to all this rubbish, you really need to change your attitude towards people. 40% of people are still OK. You don't really need the 60%. You don't have to mates with everybody.

ttbn, don't allow the 'wrongens' to push you around. Stand your ground. You are one of the righteous ones. If you allow them to spread their sickness, we all suffer. Stand your ground, hold true to your views as they are pure and natural and free of anything un-natural. That makes you right not them. They will never admit to their short comings and illness as they are born with a skewed view on life. They will never see that they are wrong, in so many ways, because to agree with us would mean they would have to admit they are wrong. We must give them some pity as they were born the way they are and to them their way is normal. And it may be, to them. Look beyond their arguments and point scoring as they are forced to work much harder to push their point because otherwise they would lose their hold on what little ground they have acquired. Their suffering and pain has already begun. The media has already started reporting a sudden up-surge in poofter bashing, so I think we have reached the end of the debating stage, and now begins the 'reality' stage. They have always suffered at the hand of certain people, and that was when they were relatively inconspicuous. Now they have dared to force themselves into our world, and we don't like it. So they will come to realise that just maybe they reached a little too far this time. As I advised them, for their own good. Keep looking over your shoulder.

Ok Paul and other SSM supporters, what should I do if faced with this situation, which may well be the case.

You see I, like others no doubt who oppose SSM have gay friends, that's right, i'm not a homophobic, and I am dreading the day where I get invited to their wedding, because I will have to decide between my beliefs about marriage, and my friends, which to me is unfair.

Of cause I am not opposed to them getting hitched, just married in the same sense as hetro couples.

Why are you asking us rehctub? They are your friends, it is your decision to be against them being allowed to marry so either put your friendship first OR put your wrong principles first.

See you don't really have a dilemma... You just have a simple decision to make.

Is friendship and the love and happiness of your friends more important?

It's a no brainer for me... I'd go to the wedding!

ttbn isn't righteous... what a ridiculous statement Altrav....You are mentally unstable Altrav...Please seek help!

It's not our world it is also their world...

They haven't forced anything... A postal vote was held to see if Australians would accept same sex marriage ... You lost the intelligent amongst us won.

It was a vote for freedom verses ongoing oppression... You seem happy about the oppression.

If people are born the way they are IT IS NATURAL!

You seem quite at ease that some of the No vote morons are now poofter bashing.... And then you make a threat to the gays by saying "Keep looking over your shoulder"- You are mentally ill!

The beauty of this debate is that it gets the horrid, bigoted, evil minds like yours to out themselves...

I'm hetrosexual, under your weird logic - it is my world too, and I am thrilled that people like you were thrashed in the SSM marriage vote.

You guys are simply bad losers of the worst type!

You now equate righteousness with bigotry and discrimination and are too dumb to see your own stupidity!

Remember YOU LOST!

rehctub,

Are you sure you want to ask fellow travellers of homosexuals for advice on how you should act around these deviants? I know nothing about you, of course, but I have to say that every time I hear someone say they have homosexual friends, I am reminded of anti-Semites claiming that some of "their best friends are Jews", while all the time bad-mouthing Jews at every opportunity. And, claiming you are not a homophobe will not protect you from people who are convinced that you are one. Just be yourself, mate; live your life and let others manage theirs. You do not have to concern yourself with homos. They are too wrapped up in themselves. Not 'minding' if they get married is the same as approving it, by the way. You make out that real marriage is not worth defending.

ALTRAV,

Very true. However, we are at a stage in history when tuning out is a good idea. Speak up by all means, but avoid arguments with the idiots. They love you to react to them so that they can keep up the silly harassment and abuse, based mainly on second-hand drivel they get from the internet. Their one aim is to bully you into silence.

Hey rehctub,
You can support them as friends but stand your ground on your beliefs, which is fine.
But if you don't go to the wedding you might not be thought of as one of their 'close friends' anymore.

It seems you kind of have to go to weddings to be included in couples 'close friends'.

What if you don't receive an invitation? You don't really know what is going to happen. You have allowed your life to get complicated uneccessarily. The are some areas in life where you have to stick to black and white. I don't see how you could have got yourself into this position. You seem to be luke warm. Be honest with yourself and these friends of yours. Whatever comes of that honesty will be what is best for everybody. You don't have to chew yourself up over something you know is totally unnatural and, totally unnecessary. You represent the norm; they do not. Sorry. You didn't ask for my advice but I sense that you are a nice person who doesn't need this homosexual crap, you really should do what you want, not what some very strange people might want you to do. Of course, like most people with their predilection, they might not want to 'marry anyway. The only two I currently know think it's a bad joke, and voted NO.

OP2 you present as a confused and conflicted person. How can you and any heterosexual person argue for SSM when you have not the knowledge nor the credentials of at least being queer to comment and debate the case for the queers. You arrogant imposter. You have NO idea what it is to be queer. You have been mis-leading us this whole time. Are you one of those lonely people who latch onto anyone who will listen to you because you are so desperate for social intercourse. Now the truth is out. You irresponsible person, all that you have said on this topic is now moot. I suggest you become a queer first then your comments might be relevant. We in the NO camp are not bigoted or homophobic or any of the titles you attempt to categorise us in, we are trying to explain why this SSM thing is a 'NO GO'. Don't bother barking back, your comments will ring hollow now we know the truth.

[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended.]

Dear rehctub,

You have asked us what should you do if
you get invited to the same-sex marriage of your
friends?

You've made it clear that you would not feel
comfortable going so don't go.
I'm sure that you can find an appropriate excuse.
(a pre-booked holiday - that can't be concelled
is just one suggestion that would let you off the
hook). I'm sure that you can think of others that
would be acceptable. Of course, you'd still be
obliged to send a gift along with Best Wishes.

I hope this helps.

Dear Foxy,

I like your good sense!

OP2 It is gratifying to see that you are starting to 'get it'. The intensity and emotional level you have displayed in response to my words is enough to satisfy me and others of your mis-guided yet well intended utterings. I decided to respond to your last post, even though I regard your comments as moot, because I have to clarify another of your non-comments. My words regarding the 'look over your shoulder' comments are meant as concern, NOT as you suggest some kind of threat. By suggesting it is intended as a threat goes to the very base of your true colours. I don't know in which State you reside but if you wish to confirm my comments or warnings about an increase in poofter bashing, just look up 'The West Australian' page 5 dated Friday the 17th Nov, 2017. If you care to go back and read my posts you will see that I predicted and forewarned this outcome. So instead of thanking me, you, driven by hate and who knows what else, decide I am making threatening comments. Again, pack it in, you are so full of hate and emotion, you are only doing your cause harm. Thank you, you're welcome.

Opinion2, how are my principles wrong and yours right? I’m very happy with the laws that stand. Furthermore, it was forced upon us by the tiny minority that kept lobbying our weak as water pollies to the point where we were requested to vote on the matter. So yes, it was forced upon us.

then this …. Do I have to become a discriminating bigot like you
Well, you are one because you are calling all people like myself wrong, where as I have never called you wrong as unlike you, im of the opion that you, like all others are entitled to voice your without condemnation. Perhaps you could try doing the same hey!

… If people are born the way they are IT IS NATURAL!
Nobody is disputing that, as far as im concerned they are equal, its just that they are also different and if they are different how can they achieve marriage equality. Equality is also about acceptance and they will not be accepted by all. I fear this alone will do the heads in of many.

Ttbn, sorry, wrong word choice, I should have said hitched… my bad. BTW, I have not allowed my life to become complicated, it was forced upon me, and by a very small miniority at that… the squeaky wheel scenario.

Armchair Critic, either that, or lie saying you have something else on. I don’t see why I may have to choose all of a sudden.

Foxy, yes I guess so, just stay off facebook hey, just in case. Unfortunately I'm not a good liar and don't have a poker face lol.

Dear rehctub,

If you get a printed invitation to the wedding you can
always reply in writing then you won't need a
"poker-face".

Just a suggestion.

Rehctub,

I'm not emotional at all... I am calling a sp[ade a spade...

I didn't call you a discriminating bigot... I said that to Altrav... He was approving of bashing gays and warned them to keep looking over their shoulders... I notice his comments don't seem to worry you.

So why would you automatically decide are a discriminating bigot?

I destroyed ttbn's position on another thread as he too is a no nothing loser.

I have never said that all NO voters were discriminating bigots...

I said you were wrong...

I think No voters don't get the fact that their position is unjust, unintelligent and discriminatory... but I didn't call them discriminating bigots.

I've shown people how the Bible is no excuse to vote No because Moses made crap up and was simply an evil war criminal who put the Lord said in front of everything to justify his evils.

Funny how this horrid evil man Moses who died in about 1407 BC is still having a say in modern times, because most believers have the comprehension skills of a 2 year old.

Does that indicate the IQ levels of the believers?

It seems their is a direct correlation between IQ, comprehension skills and the way people voted, but the sample here isn't big enough to say that is totally accurate.

If I were you I'd go to the gay wedding if only for the free food and drink... Who knows you might change your mind and get your principles in order through the process.

If you don't want to go it is your choice... I don't give a damn either way!

OP2 you've said a lot of things since this all began. So much so you are becoming confused and reaching. To ensure the readers get the truth I must correct you yet again. What I said, more than once, is that the queers will be targets now because they have 'dared to enter our space, and we don't like it'. Remember? Next. My comments about 'look over your shoulder', were first mentioned some time ago, and subsequently since. This was mentioned in capping off my forecast/prediction of the increase in poofter bashing cases/attacks. I said these things to show that I am aware of what is going on around and what IS not what could or should be. I have since been vindicated. The 'West Australian' page 5 Friday the 17 inst. has stories about a sudden increase in poofter bashings. So I'll say it again. 'Look over your shoulder'. As you are straight this is not for you to debate anyway. Again, your welcome.

Dear ALTRAV,

You've aroused my curiousity.

When, according to the West Australian newspaper
did the "poofter bashings" take place exactly?
Were they recent?
It seems difficult to believe seeing as WA voted
so strongly with the YES campaign.

Perhaps you could supply us with a link to the
article in the newspaper.

Thanks.

Belinda an outspoken No voter in WA has received a request for a SSM couple to have treatment for their upcoming marriage. Being a devout Catholic she cannot accept this couple on conscience grounds, though she has many lesbian clients. At the present there is no protection in place to protect her acting on her conscientious objections.

Foxy, thank you for being so kind as to ask me for this info. I hold the page in question in my hand at this moment. It is page#5, dated Friday Nov 17th. The heading is, 'Gay men lured on app for sex then bashed'. When I said this was going to happen and the 'look over your shoulder' comment that followed, it was not, as some have suggested, that I was hoping for this to happen. I was actually warning the queers of this happening, more so than usual. And here we are now. I don't know if this is of any use as I am not computer savy, but at the top, in the middle of the page it has 'thewest.com.au' it might be another link to the newspaper and then you probably have to do an internal search. Please do look it up. I am not linguistically endowed otherwise I would have tried to explain why the YES camp had the result it did over the NO's. All I can say is the result is not what it seems. The best analogy I can give is the US election. If we are to believe the stories, even though Trump won, he did not win in the true and traditional definition of winning. If that makes sense to anyone. I know what I'm trying to say but I just can't set it out right. Anyway foxy, do follow it up and at least, as I said before, if nothing else it will vindicate me and I might not be judged so harshly.

SSM will not effect heterosexuals in any way.

This year adoption by same sex couples was made legal in every state except NT.

Under this circumstance SSM should have been legalised prior to the new adoption laws.

Children have the right to married parents ... the entire situation beggars belief.

Josephus,

"treatment"?
Are they a professional? I have no sympathy for their conscience if their registration implies full competence, including awareness and compliance with the applicable legislation. If their religion prevents them from providing the full range of services, they ought not to have registered.
Given their lesbian clients, the objection seems a bit too specific to be genuinely conscientious.

Rusty.

Dear ALTRAV,

Thanks for that.

I'll try to give it a go.

Thanks also for your patience with me.

Hi Altrav,

I enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with you on every issue: who does amongst us, i.e. agree with anybody else on every issue ? That's called democracy and freedom of thought.

But can you please break up your posts into paragraphs ? When I see one of your posts, I want to read it but feel like I'm about to get hit in the face by a brick. I used to have the same problem, giving myself a sort of verbal constipation (so pain at both ends), but realised that even I have to take ideas in small doses, a couple of sentences here or there before I have to have a lie-down. i.e. put forward an overall idea, broken up into sub-ideas.

But keep it up !

Joe

Loudmouth, I am well ahead of you. I know I am not as good at this writing thingy, unlike everyone else. I did not take to English at school and have struggled with it all my life. I have picked up a few words, here and there in spite of myself, but I am by any means happy with my writings. I think I try to get my thoughts down too quickly, possibly before I forget them. I do struggle with the written word, as I do with anything literate. Sorry to be wanting. I would like to say I would like to do better, but at 67 and not really in the best of health I fear that learning anything' more for me is moot. I'll try to accommodate. Let's see how I do in future.

Hi Altrav,

BAM ! Jeez, that hurt. All my teeth are getting loosened up. No worries, just break it up - too or three sentences and then start another paragraph, to sound real academic. As a Bankstown boy, these little hints helped me :)

And don't worry, you never stop learning. And one of the most important things is, like you say, we all keep learning. It shouldn't stop, even if it drives you bloody crazy, you start to get the idea that nothing is going to ever get resolved, problems will keep going, and maybe getting worse, for as long as there are humans. We're a crazy lot of bastards. The only consolation is that our grandkids and great-grandkids will be facing the same frustrations. It'll serve the little buggers right. Keep at it, Altrav !

Cheers,

Joe

Butch you have "queer" friends do you, "have gay friends, that's right, I'm not a homophobic, and I am dreading the day where I get invited to their wedding, because I will have to decide between my beliefs about marriage, and my (queer) friends,"

No problem Butch, you call them what you call them on the forum.

You shirt front them with "Ah! queer fagot friend I'm not sure if I can attend your so called sodomising phoney marriage, which you should be calling some other dribbly name, not marriage! Frankly I was a big No voter, think you've got no right to conduct this pretence nonsense, which should be the exclusive domain of us straight guys! Now I will think about your invite and see if I'm going to do you the honour of have me at your perverted ceremony!"

That should be enough to ensure they withdraw your invitation, and never speak to you again, Problem solved.

Foxy, just because the majority in WA voted yes will not stop poofter bashing from occurring. From memory there were around 8 million Muslims in the Us at the time of the 911 attack, yet just 19, that's (one nine) or .00024% of the Muslim population brought the country to its knees. Sorry, but majorities don't mean much at times.

Opinion2 I am not wrong, and neither are you in fact as we are both entitled to our opinions. You support gay marriage, I don't and that's life.

Now while I can accept your position, you cant accept mine and that's something you and many gays will simply have to deal with while fighting for marriage equality.

The conceited view of some homophobes, religious and others, that gay people crave their approval, they don't. Butch writes "you cant accept mine (opposition) and that's something you and many gays will simply have to deal with while fighting for marriage equality." Deal with what? Your lack of approval, its totally irrelevant.

What was pleasing to see from the survey was the overwhelming acceptance of a minority lifestyle, by the majority. while it was not approval, that question was not asked, nor do I believe was it implied. A result that would have been unthinkable not that long ago.

What the survey did for politicians was make it easy for them, without fear, to implement marriage equality laws in Australia.
Butch also said "while fighting for marriage equality" What planet have you been on, that fight is clearly over in Australia, and acceptance of marriage equality won the day. The ones that have to get over it, are the die hard's and hold outs, who wont accept the overwhelming will of the people.

I note the YES voters will not accept conscientious objectors rights and believe they have the right to enforce their will on them. They are the new white feather brigade from the 1920s. They believe in enforcing people to submit to their will. They remove the rights of personal freedom another Manus to a free society. They revel in laws that deny freedoms of belief and conscience, and police and Courts that enforce them, that run rough shod over personal opinion.

Sounds like a Socialist totalitarian State of brain washed believers!

What white feather brigade of the 1920s?

Well said, Paul, NO lost by a wide margin and the voting is over.

There is a Court of Disputed Returns for anyone that thinks that the result is wrong, go for it!

Paul1405, I have to pick you up on one of your points. You say 'what was pleasing to see from the survey was the overwhelming acceptance of a minority lifestyle, by the majority'. The result, albeit in favour of the YES camp, was by no means an 'overwhelming acceptance.....by the majority' as you try to assert. The only explanation is that the YES camp went hard in pushing their point as opposed to the NO camp who really don't care or want to have anything to do with SSM. As the saying goes, to make it case relevant. The YES camp did not win. The NO camp lost! Yes won by default. The closest analogy I have given previously is the Trump election. The 'majority' of people did not want him but due to the voting system, he got in. Therefore as I say, he didn't win, she lost. Confused? Give it a minute.

Josephus, as a conciliatory gesture it may be possible that those licenced by the state to conduct marriage ceremonies, should be able to apply for a perminat exemption on moral grounds. This exemption would need to be on public record. I say this as I am a pacifists, and was a conscientious objector (military conscription) Vietnam War. Something the Tory government at the time would not accept, and locked up many such objectors.

Paul,

"Something the Tory government at the time would not accept, and locked up many such objectors."

We should never forget that some of those objectors were tortured.

What Now?
The idea of moving west of Toowoomba to QLD's 'gay-free zone' has been seriously considered. [Posted by Armchair Critic]

You don't have to go that far mate. Brisbane is developing some ethnically cleansed Muslim only suburbs these days. Nothing like Sydney, but quite a few.

Grow a big beard, die it black, add a bit of synthetic tan & you should fit in, if you keep your mouth shut. Of course you could wear a berka, but the cure may be worse than the disease going that far.

One thing you can be sure of, you wont find any blokes cuddling each other in those suburbs.

Mise,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

Dear Hassie,

Here's a link giving us another perspective:

http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/arabic/en/audiotrack/what-its-being-gay-and-muslim-amid-same-sex-marriage-debate

Josephus,

Thanks for the link but it appears that the white feather stupidity was over by the 1920s, still I get your meaning.

White feathers were still being handed out in WWII.

Josephus, get over yourself. Not one single "no" voter will be subjected to the hardships routinely experienced by those who (correctly) refused the impositions of conscription. If their beliefs are so strict as to make dealing fairly with the public too hard, they can simply do something else, a choice that was not available in the conscript situations you see fit to compare.

Gays were once extended the supposedly generous option of "keeping it behind closed doors". Do you not find that sufficiently generous?

Glad you mentioned that Issy, yes first hand accounts at the time of fire hoses been used in prison on conscientious objectors . Also I have no reason to doubt the claim that faeces and urine was spread in cells by the military types guarding my peace loving friends. If you were an objector to the war, you were branded a communists. Those times were a blight on Australia's history.

I don't expect anyone will turn fire hoses or throw crap (literally) at people today who might be conscientious objectors to SSM.

Just personally, I was a little surprised by our niece on the weekend who is staunch Mormon, she even did a mission for 18 months on a Pacific Island, "E" knew uncle the Greenie voted yes, she could not vote herself, NZ citizen. I was surprised that she also supports gay marriage, with her religious convictions as they are. "E" gave me her reasons and they were logical, but surprising. She knows she is in the minority within her church, but accepts that.

Rusty Catheter,
A young friend of mine lost her job during the Plebiscite because she posted on her facebook page she supported a "NO" vote. One can expect this sort of treatment from YES voters.

Josephus,

Many people have been routinely ineligible or dismissed from jobs over a lack of piety not actually required for the job.

I hope you can see how that has been a long standing imposition on non-believers, how it is *also* unreasonable, and always was.

If the religious can, who can't?

Josephus, I posted to you what I consider reasonable; "as a conciliatory gesture it may be possible that those licenced by the state to conduct marriage ceremonies, should be able to apply for a permanent exemption on moral grounds." You ignored that, so I assume you are an all or nothing hard liner, who will not accept the wish of the vast majority. It dose not matter, as your objection is irrelevant anyway.

Is the threat by the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart to sack any church employee who does not agree with Catholic dogma opposing same sex marriage still valid? This is the same crackerjack bishop who said he would rather go to jail than report child sex abusers. The jerk off must have a really big moral conscience.
Josephus, maybe there is an opening for your young friend with the Catholic mob, given the size of the yes vote Hart should be creating plenty of employment opportunities for his fellow bigots and homophobes within the church.

Paul,

"This is the same crackerjack bishop who said he would rather go to jail than report child sex abusers."

If he received the information in Confession, and as with any other information so received it is strictly confidential and, to his credit, he said that he'd go to jail rather than break that very necessary confidentiality.

Dear Paul,

I am not a Christian/Catholic and do not share their dogma, but thank you for informing me about this brave bishop/archbishop who would rather go to jail than cooperate with the evil secular authorities. He follows the example of earlier Christians who were fed to the lions over their faith.

Don't you believe in the separation of church and state?

Yuyutsu,

Of course not. Paul believes in the State. Isn't that so, Paul ? None of this 'independent of the State' rubbish. All under One State, One Party, One Ruler, for One People, yada yada.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Paul has a good heart.

He just fails to realise that in the pursuit of his worthwhile goals, he currently supports violent means.

Joe, it sounds like the Catholic Church. Do you want us all to join.
Yuyutsu, he currently supports violent means. I do? Don't think so.

I give the same rights to the CC as I give to the RSL etc etc.

"Christians who were fed to the lions over their faith." No they were not, Romans actually accommodated other religions. They used the Christians as scapegoats, nothing to do with faith, that was added later.

Hi Paul,

Yes, doesn't it ? It seems that all organised religions and Utopian political systems degenerate sooner or later into forms of thought-control, of hegemonic domination, even if they prattle about the people's will or wishes etc. Some pull back from that sort of dictatorship, some increase their means of repression and terror, and the influence of some just withers away by sheer social change.

But your easy attack on particular churches has a 'tu quoque' smell about it. As an atheist for nearly seventy years now, I don't mind someone critiquing other people's belief systems, as long as they have the courage to apply that rule to their own.

Joe

Paul for your sake read my position.
From the posters here Homosexual relationships are called a "Civil Contract" or "Social Contract". The term must now be the legal term and replace the term marriage, because it is a legal term should be handled by solicitors before a Magistrate, where the contracts are signed by the parties and witnessed by persons known to the parties. That all contracts of relationships, currently called marriage, to live together be removed from Celebrants and religious Celebrants and placed in the appropriate hands, i.e. the Courts of petty sessions. Pre nuptial agreements be also registered, and in the dissolution of the contract the courts would hear the reasons and dissolve the contracts.

This would allow Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques to bless and celebrate the union of two members in a religious ceremony after the contracts of intention to live together have been registered with the State.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 16 November 2017 6:40:28 AM

Dear Paul,

«Yuyutsu, he currently supports violent means. I do? Don't think so.»

So you are not supporting the state? And its making of laws which, when not obeyed, it violently locks people up?

A body of people which counts others as its "members" and subjects them to its constitution without their consent - I've never heard of the RSL doing this. In fact, even the Catholic church has stopped that practice long ago.

Now perhaps this archbishop supports violent means - all I know about him is what I just heard from you. If he does, then he too ought to be condemned.

«I give the same rights to the CC as I give to the RSL»

Well and good, but then if you want to abstain from violence, you need to allow the RSL its freedom from the state, which it currently lacks.

Yuyutsu, "So you are not supporting the state? And its making of laws which, when not obeyed, it violently locks people up?" Today we treat even the most incorrigible's with a degree of humanity. The extent of violence should be no more than necessary to enforce the verdict of our judicial system. I do not support violence for violence sake.
Do you want no laws enforced for the protection of society? Should murders and rapists go free? On moral grounds. Do you oppose incarceration as a general principle?

I can understand why this Catholic Arch Bishop would want to keep quite about pedophiles, save airing some more dirty linen.

"Paul believes in the State. Isn't that so, Paul? None of this 'independent of the State' rubbish. All under One State, One Party, One Ruler, for One People, yada yada.

Only if you say so Joe. Similar to your belief that Aboriginal people are only in it for the free ride, isn't that so Joe? None of that 'white man's burden' rubbish. All under One White State, One White Party, One White Ruler, for One White People, yada yada.

Its so easy to imagine what others believe, isn't it Joe.

Dear Paul,

Excellent questions!

«Do you want no laws enforced for the protection of society?»

Not unless membership in that society was voluntary and those who joined knew in advance that its constitution allowed for this possibility.

Otherwise, a society may still protect itself, but not by way of making and enforcing laws.

«Should murders and rapists go free?»

Probably not, unless you are quite certain that they will not repeat what they did, or unless you are a saint who is happy to turn their other cheek. Both cases are rare.

However, this does not mean that one may accuse them, condemn them or take them to court (unless they agreed to it as above, by voluntarily and knowingly joining your society).

The difference is subtle, but so important: you do whatever you need to do in order to protect yourself and your loved ones rather than to punish others. The focus is on your legitimate need for safety, rather than on playing God and trying to impose your moral standards on others.

«On moral grounds. Do you oppose incarceration as a general principle?»

Incarceration is an horrendous thing. It should only be used as a very last resort when there is no other way to protect yourself and your loved ones. It is preferable and less cruel to shoot those who pose a serious danger, but first check every possibility if they can be exiled instead, house-arrested or otherwise removed to where they can no longer harm you and your loved ones. If you do have to incarcerate, at least give them an option to die instead, or perhaps be maimed in a way that will prevent them from re-offending.

«I can understand why this Catholic Arch Bishop would want to keep quite about pedophiles»

You know better about this case, but whatever their reason, mine would be different: to avoid collaboration with an illegitimate state; and to avoid the horrific karma for bringing about the incarceration of another.

Paul,

You know better than that. indigenous people here and in NZ are free to set up their own political parties, with their own leaders, etc. And you know, if you know anything about the elites in other situations, that yes, there is a hell of a lot of free-riding, rent-seeking, money for nothing, humbugging on a grand scale, being sought. $ 30 billion a year, maybe more. Yes, free money. So much so, through mining royalties, national park royalties, etc., funds transfers for bogus economic development that never seems to happen, at least here in Australia, and the limitless demands for compensation for asserted past evils.

Whatever is left of the Indigenous Cause which is free of such corruption, I will gladly support, here and in NZ, and until I die. Just point me in its direction.

Joe

I think we may have gone off topic somewhat, but it's OK, I like and agree with Yuyutsu and Loudmouth and their comments.

In reverse,

That's good to hear ALTRAV, I might send you around a box of cookies and then I too might win your nodding approval, like luck Joe and lucky Yuyutsu have. "I think we may have gone off topic somewhat, but it's OK" thank you for that dispensation laddy I though for a moment we might have been in trouble.

Joe, I was a bit taken by your jab about what I might, or might not believe. I certainly do not favour some one, one, etc system of totalitarian government, although it does have its adherents. I don't know what gave you that idea, maybe you have been telepathically in contact with Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler a couple of devotees. Just a off topic question, and I hope my little friend approves. Who do you think was the better looking Joe or Adolf? Joe had that manly look of the rugged Siberian, although he was Georgian, and Adolf had his cute little moustache, both cut a rather handsome swathe in their flashy military style uniforms, and both were a hit with the girls. Who would you vote for?

cont.

cont

Yuyutsu, I am confused, which is not unusual for me, my partner tells me that all the time. The notion that the rights of the individual mostly surpass the rights of the collective is a little difficult to comprehend. Where is the divide, and how, and by whom is it established. Should we establish a idyllic Shangri La, say on Heard Island, where the newly declared "individuals" could bask in the winter sunshine, under the palm trees, but only for those who totally opt out of course, the rest can commute back and forth to Australia when it suits them.
Many individuals have denounced the judicial system in open court, declaring they do not recognise the validity of these proceedings, and the right of the court to try them. This generally takes place shorty before the court finds them guilty, and orders their execution.
Should we conduct a plebiscite, sorry survey, among those incarcerated to see who wishes to be released? It would be interesting to find out what Ivan Milat would like to do for the rest of his life.

Hi Paul,

That infantile notion, so common on the 'Left' these days, of either/or - if you don't support Position A, then you must support Position B - Black OR White, what they used to call Manichaeanism, has surely had its day ? There is an infinite variety of Evils: we have seen it in Zimbabwe, and we're about to see more of it with the Crocodile taking over from the Octopus. If I was a believer, I would be praying for the people of Zimbabwe: how long before Mnangagwe cracks down ? A month ? Two ?

The problem with corrupt political systems, whether here in Indigenous Australia or in Zimbabwe, is that the way 'out' from them is incredibly difficult to find: corruption corrupts everybody, more so towards the top of course, but all the way down in diminishing returns: payback for loyalties. The political expression of the Indigenous push for ever-more rent-seeking was the 'Recognition' ploy: nobody was ever going to enact it, i.e. set up a separate State and go 'out there' to be with their people, urban elites were going to stay firmly in their urban enclaves in the inner-city, apart from their State-funded trips. 'Recognition' was always a scam, to garner more and more public funding, to be distributed through Indigenous patron-client networks, right down to the smallest 'community'.

But there seems to be no Plan B with such scams. I fear that, even in Zimbabwe, there is only Plan A (ii). Remembering back to the days of Marcos' Philippines, it's obviously very difficult - eventually impossible, it seems - to move away from a corrupt patron-client hierarchical system to anything like democracy and reward-for-effort. Overthrow, then what ?

In Indigenous affairs here, instead of rent-seeking, I've almost craved for economic initiatives, any initiative, to work, but instead - at least in the 'communities I'm most aware of - activities have been wound down to nothing: literally, in one case, where a 300-acre almond orchard is now dead and the 'community' abandoned, having fulfilled its purpose of attracting funds on a massive scale.

[TBC]

[continued}

How to encourage a population away from personal rent-seeking, and to appreciate the effort-outcome link, given the economic potential of the resources that Indigenous 'communities' now control ? Noel Pearson touched on the problem, his observations about how difficult it is to get people to step down from the 'welfare pedestal' and get into work - and to thereby get their kids to see the point of education - now, that's a Plan B. How to operationalise it, when the elites - and their non-Indigenous brokers - are doing so well out of Plan A ? What, thirty billion isn't enough ? Thirty billion and barely a single vegetable garden in the whole country to show for it.

Sorry for getting off-topic :)

Joe

A homosexual in a 'long term relationship with a man' has been sacked from South Baptist College, WA, because the principal will not employ a person who is openly 'gay' (homosexual).

It seems that the character above was keeping his private life quiet, but was emboldened by the 'victory' of the YES crowed to cock a snoot at his employer. Tough luck for him that the principal has a backbone, and is prepared to test the water.

ttbn, he would have been easy to sack if he was black, his colour would have given him away. If he had been physically disabled then no problem flicking him, a missing right arm is a dead set gimmy. Now being homosexual is a bit more tricky, many of those devo's try very successfully to pretend that they are "normal", like Baptists. But we know better, a good Baptists can always spot an odd ball. Nothing like a bit of backbone is there.

Ttbn,

It's neither right to sack a bloke for being homosexual, nor to sack one for not being homosexual. The legal position would be that both have equal rights not to be sacked. We can disagree with that, but it's the law.

Cheers,

Joe

Of course, I am delighted that it has happened and I think that the principal knows what he is doing. I am looking forward to the outcome and all of the strife that this country is throwing itself at. Around 8 million Australians didn't bother to vote. A lot of potential for a bit of simmering there. Not surprisingly, there has been no comment about the 'tyranny of the majority' from the loony Left, which always comes up with that when their precious minorities are threatened by democracy. There will be a lot of entertainment to be had from this latest moral bankruptcy.

//Around 8 million Australians didn't bother to vote.//

Bollocks. The ABS sent out 16,006,180 forms, and received 12,727,920 responses.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e202e7

16,006,180 - 12,727,920 = 3,278,260

3,278,260 =/= 8,000,000

QED

So Toni, what happened to the other 3plus million that didn't make it back for the count? Could it be they were part of a disgusting and focused plan of attack, disruption and destruction the YES mob put out to destroy and de-validate the NO votes by ensuring they either did not make it back for the final count or by any other means possible.

What next?
Gary Dowsett
The longtime Deputy Director of ARCSHS is Prof. Gary Dowsett, and he has been Acting Director on two occasions, for a significant period of time. The first was in 2000, from January to August; and the second was in 2010, from July to December. Hence, the “Safe Schools” program (launched in October 2010) was launched during a period when Dowsett was Acting Director. [Source: ARCSHS Annual Report 2010]

In 1982, he authored an article for the journal ‘Gay Information‘ [issue no. 11, pp. 34-38], which was published by a Sydney-based organisation called ‘Gay Information Service’. The article was titled ‘Boiled Lollies and Bandaids: Gay Men and Kids‘ (click here to view the original). Here are some excerpts:

“First, we have three legal/social questions to win: custody rights for gay men and lesbians; the legal right of paedophiles and their young loves; and finally, the sexual rights of children as a whole.”
“And I also have a friend, a paedophile, who is working very hard on making sense out of his relations with boys. Those relations consist of, among other things, a large amount of nurture and support for these boys, a real caring for their welfare and growth.”

“How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover? From all their accounts and from many academic studies (some worse than others), that kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship.”

https://unsafeschools.org/the-australian-safe-schools-program-la-trobe-university/

//So Toni, what happened to the other 3plus million that didn't make it back for the count?//

They abstained. You can't expect perfect participation when voting is voluntary. 80% was a pretty good turnout.

Josephus, I don't believe what I read in your post. Really? Am I getting it right or am I too old to understand what is going on. What I read if I get it, is disgusting and the people involved should be rounded up and taken past the prison gates to place where they would be stoned to death as was the punishment of the day. Don't bother with incarceration it just fine tunes their disgusting twisted and demented life style. Oh I hope I mis-understood your post.

Toni, on this topic I certainly would have expected a better turn-out. It leaves me wondering.

It takes real arrogance to think that the state has the right to tell people who they must employ, whose marriage they must preside over, whose cakes they must bake; and that's just what the Turnbull government intends to do.

If fake marriage for homosexuals is as popular as we are led to believe, there should be lots of employers, marriage celebrants and bakers willing to tolerate and cater for the perverts without bothering those who want no part in it.

Toni,

"//So Toni, what happened to the other 3plus million that didn't make it back for the count?//

They abstained. You can't expect perfect participation when voting is voluntary. 80% was a pretty good turnout."

Now just you stop giving reasoned answers, you know that it puts some people off.
Just accept that the felonious 'YES' camp subverted numerous posties from their duty and got them to nick the forms intended for 'NO' voters. Some may say that such a thing is impossible but it shews the depth of cunning of the YESers, that and other nefarious ploys an' plots account for the missing 3 million (+).

ttbn, I cannot agree more. I think the system has gone too far when these arseholes start legislating, (for God sake), what we can and can't say or do. Is it just me or can anyone else see that this is wrong. I thought this was a democracy. If I want the crap these idiot pollies are forcing upon us I would imagine we live in a dictatorship or worse. I for one don't give a crap what pathetic laws they are dreaming up. I will always call a spade a spade and a queer a queer. And if you don't like it I don't care for as long as I am alive I have and will always be honest to myself first and the rest after. I have done research into the phrase politically correct, and what I found is that it ultimately translates to, whatever you are trying to say is in fact; A LIE! So all you politically correct numb nuts keep on telling lies. It suits you.

The LUNATIC LOSERS are no longer clutching at straws as they spiral earth would at a million miles an hour in their now lifeless NO CAMPAIGN COPTER, they are clutching at thin air!
Now for the latest conspiracy theory, all the Posties were rabid fags, who stole, and then burned the ballot papers of only the potential no voters.

Toni, what about the little children, they didn't get to vote, the poor poo bumbs in their prams were just itching to cast a no vote, and they were denied their inalienable right to do so! Just the other day Baby Josh, aged six months, a leading activists and long time campaigner for the nappy brigade appeared on telly threatening a High Court challenge to the result, on behalf of all the under fives who were denied their inalienable right to vote! The consequences could be very serious indeed. If successful this challenge could see the no vote rise from a pathetic 37% to well over 150%.

On a religious note the Biblical Book Of Revelations, makes reference to the "end of gays" and the second coming. The religious fundos would be better off to hold out for that event, rather than what they are trying now.

//I think the system has gone too far when these arseholes start legislating, (for God sake), what we can and can't say or do. Is it just me or can anyone else see that this is wrong.//

Yeah, right on brother! Down with Fascism! Smash the State!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJv0pIy2UQ

Some who freely speak their minds have nothing to say.

A few months ago, an orthodox Jewish school in the UK failed two consecutive education authority inspections for failing to teach girls between the ages of 3 and 11 years about sexual orientation and gender re-assignment. In fact, the school faced closure for what the report called their failure to teach these “fundamental British values”.
Vishnitz, an all-girls primary school, receives no government funding, and as a result was able to educate the girls in accordance with orthodox Jewish beliefs. A faith-based institution, the school made the decision to leave all sex education to the parents. 
Up until the introduction of same-sex marriage, there had been no problem with this. However, once the Equalities Act was implemented in 2014, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) began to fail the school when it came to compliance with the Equalities Act and the education of students in so-called “British values.”

Dear Josephus,

We are so different from Britain in so many ways.
What happens there does not automatically
translate to it happening in Australia. We have
legislations in place and the rule of law which
provides protections for religious freedoms.
Again, I am beginning to sound like a broken record.
Your fears are unwarranted.

QLD Labor policy.
  
SAFE SCHOOLS IN QUEENSLAND SCHOOLS CONTENT
 “Gender isn’t quite as simple as whether you’re ‘male’ or ‘female’. Everyone has their own gender identity in relation to masculinity and femininity. Some identify with both, and some don’t identify with either, it’s up to the individual to describe what gender identity fits them best. There are a whole range of different words people use to describe their gender identity."

Our teaching and learning resource, titled All Of Us, is designed for use by school teachers with Years 7 and 8 students. All Of Us is a collection of short videos and teaching activities designed by Safe Schools Coalition Australia in order to assist students in understanding gender diversity, sexual diversity and intersex topics. The videos capture the real lives of young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians in order to bring their stories into your classroom. Learning activities are built around the personal stories and experiences of these young people in order to facilitate genuine discussion and generate understanding.
 https://www.studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/docs/default-source/all-of-us-online-version-may-2016-v3-pdf2af89fb756c645d9b8492a68a39765f6.pdf?sfvrsn=0

"We are so different from Britain in so many ways.
What happens there does not automatically
translate to it happening in Australia."

Not automatically, just a repeat after "due" consideration.

Dear Is Mise,

That's not true. We are a Federation.

The only thing we have in common with the UK
is the mace that is sometimes used.

//"We are so different from Britain in so many ways.
What happens there does not automatically
translate to it happening in Australia."

Not automatically, just a repeat after "due" consideration.//

Nevertheless, our school systems are different. An English Public School is an entirely different beast to an Australian Public School.

Their public education is somewhat different as well. For example, they have a category of school known as 'Academies'. Academies are state-funded, but do not have to follow the national curriculum... I can't think of an Australian equivalent.

Josephus, what any safe schools program should do is not let those ratbag Christian fundos within a bulls roar of the place. Preventing them from poisoning any more hearts and minds of our impressionable children. You must agree with that, it is religious policy to get them while they are young, Brainwash a child, and you could have him for life, think of the potential long term tax free income for those in control. Are you one of those in control Fr.Joe?
.

Come on Paul. This is just you saying that you want your side doing the brainwashing instead of the other side. Or, don't you see telling kids they can be what ever gender they want, or that they should respect homosexuality etc etc as brain washing?

ttbn, I'll will burn in Hell for saying this, Sister Mary told me so at school when I was 8 years old, but did you know the Popes a Protestants! Did you also know Purgatory is made from fire and ice. and there is a place called Limbo for good souls who are not Catholics, Sister Mary was a Catholic BTW. Heaven is the exclusive domain of Catholics, Hell is for the Protestants! Particularly those Irish hating English Protestants who persecuted the Irish, and don't recognize the Holy Father in Rome, BTW Sister Mary was Irish. ttbn you wouldn't be a Pommy Protestant by any chance?
See I attended Catholic School and their safe schools program was all inclusive and run by Sister Mary types, I was never brain washed

Toni,

"Nevertheless, our school systems are different. An English Public School is an entirely different beast to an Australian Public School."

Here's some English Public Schools:
Charterhouse School.
Eton College.
Harrow School.
Rugby School.
Shrewsbury School.
Westminster School.
Winchester College.

and here are some Great Public Schools in NSW:
Newington College.
Shore School.
St Ignatius' College.
St Joseph's College.
Sydney Boys High School.
Sydney Grammar School.
The Armidale School.
The King's School.

There is a difference of course, the use of the word 'Great'.

It helps to compare like with like.

Paul,

How're you going to eliminate domestic violence without eliminating Islam?

Catholic school, eh. We are getting to the source of your problem with religion. You say you weren't brainwashed, but an Irish-Catholic nun certainly seems to have had a serious effect on you.

ttbn,

Take no notice of Paul's fictitious Irish nun, she is merely an invention to convey Paul's lack of knowledge of Catholic theology.

Dear Paul,

In the Herald-Sun newspaper, Friday November 24th 2017,
there was the news that Catholic Xavier College has
been dragged into a fresh child sex scandal after a
"monstrous" former teacher who sexually abused a number
of students was allowed to continue his career at
Marcellin College.

I won't go into the details but it just goes to show that
the school did not alter authorities of this teacher's
actions but allowed this teacher to transfer to
Marcellin. The teacher was a diagnosed paedophile.

sorry for the typo.

I misspelt the word "alert".

Hi Paul,

I think you're having a lend of us, with your stereotype of Catholic schools and sadistic Irish Catholic nuns. Which public schools did you go to, really ?

Fascinating how threads get so easily off-topic: perhaps it's a sign that the 'dialogue', such as it might be, has become exhausted.

So what's the issue ? Homosexual marriage will soon be legislated and become legal. While marriage as an institution is far less salient that it may have been fifty years ago, it may now become the monopoly of homosexuals, as heterosexuals take the de facto route. So to speak.

Freedom of thought means that nobody is forced to be a Catholic; nobody is forced to like homosexuality; nobody is forced to get married either. Perhaps the homosexual movement has jumped onto a decrepit horse, and will whip it to death.

Next problem: homosexual divorce - I suppose there would have to be clauses in any new legislation which provide for that, with all the crucial property rights, inheritance, super, etc., taken care of.

Joe

Joe,

"Next problem: homosexual divorce - I suppose there would have to be clauses in any new legislation which provide for that, with all the crucial property rights, inheritance, super, etc., taken care of."

That's where who is Mister and who is Mistress comes in.

Apparently, according to international records the Aussie queers are heading into a shitstorm of discontent and anguish. Records show that since SSM was legalised in a country there was an immediate and sharp rise, (still today), of violence, attacks, and VRO's all between the queers themselves. At this rate the NO camp won't have to do a thing, well maybe set up the deck chairs, get out the pop corn and the beer and sit back and watch the queers implode. Happy times ahead.

Is Mise,

Maybe. That's the trouble with social media: people can make all sorts of claims about themselves, but we will never know whether they are true or not. It's all good fun, though.

 ALTRAV,

I think you are right. Just because something is legalised doesn't mean that everything will be moonlight and roses. And, I don't think that we will see that many 'marriages'. The easily-bored malcontents who made the fuss are not really homosexuals, and they will be moving onto their next attack on the family and Western society before the legislation gets through Parliament.

ttbn,

"Maybe. That's the trouble with social media: people can make all sorts of claims about themselves, but we will never know whether they are true or not. It's all good fun, though."

True enough, but it's hard to fake genuine ignorance.

Issy, Joe and ttbn, as apologists for the Catholic Church, you are entitled to believe what you like. The Catholic Church in Australia has much to be ashamed of, and I am not talking about what took place in the year dot, but what was common practice in our lifetimes. Any org where many of its operatives stand accused of disgusting child sex charges can have nothing but systemic internal problems, and needs to do much soul searing.

ALTRAV, you are not alone in the homophobic stakes apparent another rabid forum homophobe ttbn is always at the ready to agree with any unsubstantiated adverse BS you post.

Paul, I don't post unsubstantiated, adverse BS. They are your words as you don't like the truth. All my comments come from publications or articles by others. They quote numbers dates and everything. I don't put that stuff in because 'I' know 'I' read it, and that's all that matters. Remember I regularly state that my comments are taken from others. Now if you have 'absolute' proof challenging and conflicting with my comments, please tell us. No I'm serious, because being a proud man I abhor liars who are also those promoting political correctness. You would not only be informing the masses but you will be informing me so as I don't twist or torture the facts to simply make a point to win the discussion, like so many do.

Paul

What? The Catholic church and 97% of Catholic priests who are not kiddy fiddlers should be more ashamed, more hounded by the media and Christianophobes than secular paedos, protestant peodos, Green paedos and others? How about the Salvation Army? They've had their pervs, too. You must be due to suddenly 'remember' something nasty about Sister Mary.

(continue).....

Paul, if you recall, I did go to the trouble of confirming info on the 'queer bashing' upsurge recently. I warned of this happening and more frequently and aggressively than in the past. How was my warning received? With abuse and put downs. If you recall, I said keep looking over your shoulder'. The stupid YES idiots, instead of thanking me for warning them they again attack me. Well guess what? You and your mates can chew on this. The West Australian, newspaper, Page 5, Friday the 17 of November, 2017, Under the heading 'Gay men lured on app for sex then bashed'. So remember if I say something and it's not quite right, tell me straight away, and I will be greatful. But if I say something don't just come back with denials and false challenges simply because you don't like what I said. You're welcome!

Hi Pal,

My mum would have laughed at that: me, an apologist for the Catholics. Mind you, she went to a St Joey's in Glebe. I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, but I suppose it shows merely that you've run out of ideas.

Understandable enough: I was pondering how the Gramscians were ever going to square their short-term with their long-term strategies: to disrupt social institutions and eventually all of society, but to do it stealthily, bit by bit, piece by piece, institution by institution. So it's the boiling frog approach in relation to this issue, rather than the full-on assault as in relation to other issues ?

Or maybe both simultaneously: white-ant social institutions, sure, but also launch violent attacks on dissidents at the same time. I wonder what Marx would have thought, of smashing society willy-nilly the Gramscian way, AND use (so far, mild) forms of terrorism like some more right-wing Anarchists do, shouting down speakers with different opinions, attacking individuals, etc.

Maybe Hayek was onto something: that there isn't a continuum in political thought and action from Right to Left, but a polygon, a many-sided and many-nodal scheme: so alliances between unlikely adversaries occur - such as the co-operation in the early thirties between the extreme Right and the Communist Party her to 'smash' Labor Party rallies - perhaps Anarchists are moving in that way towards Fascism, perhaps there isn't much difference between them already.

All I can advise, Paul, is: don't over-play your hand.

Joe

Poor 'Sister Mary', Catholic and dumb about Catholic theology and Irish and dumb about Irish history.

The freedom the religions should insist on from themselves should be...learn the truth and tell the truth for a change!

The question of what happens now, seeing there has been a massive reversal in society due to common sense and common decency and a fair go – The no voters are the minority and have lost totally. God apparently answered the prayers of believers by saying – You are wrong!...lol

However, there are some great lessons in this especially for the blindly religious.

Those who voted no because of the two verses that Moses lied about and wrote are simply unknowing and failed Jesus completely. Do you want proof?

Moses simply can't be believed on anything! He put the words “The Lord said”, in front of the most obscene instructions to justify his psychopathic ways and you guys are still falling for it...lol Pathetically sad really, and anti God! Your whole religion is actually anti-God because of the verses you ignore! rofl

Moses was the one who made up the flood story where EVERY INNOCENT BABY, and, EVERY INNOCENT CHILD on the planet was supposedly drowned by God... MOSES LIED! The flood never happened and your belief is an absolute insult to God! You may be in for a very bad judgement day! rofl

The Passover never happened either! MOSES LIED! Yet many believers and churches celebrate this lie every year! How obscene? You insult God by believing and celebrating God got into a pecker fight with the Pharaoh resulting in God murdering ALL THE FIRSTBORN of Egypt. I wonder how God feels about you believing this lie against him and celebrating such a horrid story? rofl

MOSES LIED by saying God told him to put dust from the tabernacle floor into the water of women to test their fidelity. He uses witchcraft here and doesn't care if the woman is with child and the baby aborts. No biggy to a psychopath like Moses, and apparently no biggy to you believers either! Why do you so easily believe such horrid lies from Moses against God?...Numbers 5:11-22 https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/num/5/11/s_122011

...Cont

MOSES LIED when he claimed God ordered him to cut the heads off the vanquished! You guys must believe it...So much for you loving God! And you claim the Bible is God's word?...lmao

Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, TAKE ALL THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE, and hang them up before the LORD in the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

So you really believe God ordered these crimes?

You don't really believe Jesus you just say you do... So you are lying to us...aren't you?

LOOK! Moses is caught out again!

Jesus said...John 6:46 NOT THAT ANY MAN HATH SEEN THE FATHER, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

and

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. YE HAVE NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME, NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE.

And the Bible says....John 1:18 NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

But Moses contradicts Jesus here - So who do you really believe? Jesus or Moses! Feel free to choose...lmao

Moses said...Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: AND THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

Oh if you believe Jesus, Moses also lied about seeing and/or hearing God in these verses...Exodus 6:2-3 and Numbers 12:6-8 and Moses lied about Abraham hearing God in Genesis 17:1 and Genesis 18:1 … so you guys have some real problems!

SO the verses where Moses commences the oppression of homosexuals claiming to speak for God just can't be trusted at all! So ask yourselves - what is the real motivating factor for your ongoing oppression of homosexuals and their freedoms? Look into your hearts now....come on, you still have a heart don't you?...lmao

...cont

Because you guys didn't know these things or turned a blind eye to them, Moses caused you to defy Jesus in so many ways.

You judge gays and others, you fail to do to others as you would have them do to you, you continually cast stones at them and others... But worse than all those defiances of Jesus... You oppress people who are different still! Jesus was silent on homosexuality but you guys aren't!

By blindly believing Moses and the Bible you therefore WRONGLY believe God approved of this psychopath Moses and you are breaking several of the 10 commandments...

You break.

Commandment 2 ... You shall not make idols. - You have made the Bible your idol!

Commandment 3... You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. - As shown above you believe the most horrid lies against God.

Can you really claim to love God when you believe and promote horrid lies against God?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

If a person gets all these things wrong and does all these things against Jesus' teachings, should they really call themselves, good, Godly or a Christian?

As a result of the SSM debate and proper analysis of your religious books, maybe, just maybe, some people might wake up, or, perhaps I am just being too optimistic...lol

Aint proper Bible study fun? You should all try it one day...lmao

Please note it is not me who proves your wrong... It is the religious books you made your idols... :)

Yep people who still follow the Abrahamic goat herder religions sure have a lot to answer for

So how will you all go come judgement day when you have defied Jesus continually.

But Jesus... I defied your teachimgs and oppressed people in your name...lmao That'll go down well! :)

Hi Op2,

Yes, I think it's important that the Left preoccupy themselves for the next fifty years with examining all the evils of the past four thousand years and condemn them. Detailed analyses should be worked on in academia. If possible, skeletons should be dug up and kicked around the cemetery. Rameses, Nebuchednezzar, Xerxes, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Attila, Tamburlaine, William the Conqueror, all those Vikings and Huns and Moslems, Richard III, George III, god there are so many. Drag their bits and pieces around the streets. That'll show 'em. Bastards.

Wouldn't that be fun ?

Joe