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.