The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Rudd, Gillard, and Wong are most definitely right wing as far as economics and political ideology is concerned.

On top of that they are each fundamentalists who's actions and beliefs are dictated by ideology rather than careful consideration of facts.

We can throw Nick Xenophon and the Greens in with that lot as well - in fact all politicians will comfortably fit under that banner.

---

Glad you broke that down. social lefts are the ones that mkfs cant tolerate.

can we just keep solid benefits for health and ejkashion speshially tertiary for all. fk the gap, bulk bills for everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

atheist leftist scientist here. so smarter than your average xtian etc

let them marry. if they want. no ****s given. easy. they're ppl too. no reason not to let them.

religious marriage is only a recent event anyway, compared to christianity. was legal in straya until johnny battler changed the rules w/out the help of strayan public.

---

succinctly put Monsieur Snake
Basically encapsulates my views on the whole affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GazFish35

No. And nothing in that post suggested as such. But keep reverting to your old tricks of putting arguments in other people's mouths that aren't actually there so you can make a point that we all probably already agree on. This change won't stop close minded homophobic bigots from being close minded homophobic bigots and no one is suggesting it will.


SSM will afford every married couple the same rights.

Why does one group in our community need to prove to anyone they would benefit by a law change so they are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. They're not wanting special treatment, they don't want more rights. They want their relationships to have same rights as everyone else's

But just for you, one example...
A same sex partner can present at an emergency department to by his husbands side after a car accident and not be treated any differently to how my wife would be.

I've a mate who's partner wasn't allowed to visit him in a hospital as the "family only" rules were in place. He had to wait outside the ward until his partner's Dad arrived, the staff shift changed and they had to pretend that he was a brother.

At the same time other heterosexual patients had their partners let in without question.



The only arguments against it that I see are right wing bigoted propaganda. What real life examples exist of how this proposed change would make people worse off?

---

For a start i asked a question.

What rights will Adam and Steve get if they are allowed to be married.

You quoted my post and cut and pasted some generalised propaganda from pro SSM

What exactly is it that makes you think I want Adam and Steve to prove how they will benefit

The same sex marriage bandwagon keep offering up the phrase "same rights as heterosexuals" which is once again a generalised remark.
So far you have offered up the scenario of Adam getting into hospital to see Steve instead of being refused.
Ok
That's one you can name.

The SSM bandwagon should be able to name heaps of these not actually struggle to answer a simple question with a general statement to avoid the actual question.

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve will be better off so show me some more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

what about that time god sent those bears to maul those kids who mocked that bald **** for being bald. seems fair.

---

Simple message there.

Dont mock bald blokes unless you want to fight bears

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

What exactly is it that makes you think I want Adam and Steve to prove how they will benefit

---

Prove / give examples of...

Tomato tomatoe.


What "rights" will they get?

Umm, the right to get married.

It's a major social institution in the country, why should one group be excluded from it, based on a factor that the anti-dicsrimantion act says is illegal to use to discriminate against someone?

It's an issue beyond needing to demonstrate real life scenarios of where the practical benefits exist. It's an issue that causes many in our community to feel they are seen as, and are treated as lesser citizens, that their relationships are less legitimate, that they are second class citizens. This has real life impacts on their mental health and physical health.

http://www.australianmarriageequalit...act-health.pdf


Got any examples how the rest of the community would be worse off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GazFish35

Prove / give examples of...

Tomato tomatoe.


What "rights" will they get?

Umm, the right to get married.

It's a major social institution in the country, why should one group be excluded from it, based on a factor that the anti-dicsrimantion act says is illegal to use to discriminate against someone?

It's an issue beyond needing to demonstrate real life scenarios of where the practical benefits exist. It's an issue that causes many in our community to feel they are seen as, and are treated as lesser citizens, that their relationships are less legitimate, that they are second class citizens. This has real life impacts on their mental health and physical health.

http://www.australianmarriageequalit...act-health.pdf


Got any examples how the rest of the community would be worse off?

---

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

What rights will Adam and Steve get if they are allowed to be married.

---

The same rights as everyone else.

Which part are you not understanding in this?

Help me out I feel you need some guidance.

Actually legit question: should we even have marriage for anyone if it doesn't seem so important to people's 'rights'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

Simple message there.

Dont mock bald blokes unless you want to fight bears

---

This is a fantastic post and it made me laugh.

Well in sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

---

You do more to destroy Christianity than any atheist I have ever met or known. Great work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

The same rights as everyone else.

Which part are you not understanding in this?

Help me out I feel you need some guidance.

Actually legit question: should we even have marriage for anyone if it doesn't seem so important to people's 'rights'?

---

So how about I phrase this differently then

What rights do Adam and Steve currently not have that normal heterosexuals have??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

So how about I phrase this differently then

What rights do Adam and Steve currently not have that normal heterosexuals have??

---

The tokenism of saying they are 'married' instead of 'butt buddies' or something.

So if it's just tokenism why be so ****ing protective of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

---

Dodging your question? I provided you a link to a document outlining the direct (not generalised) health benefits of the change. But hey, if providing answers backed up by per reviewed medical research isn't answering your question I'm not sure what you want.

Answered my question? No you didn't.

How is "legitimising their sinning" and making it "acceptable to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour" (you must be kidding) going to negatively impact on the community.

If anything, your answer only serves to demonstrate the discrimination and prejudice they face. A change in the Act will help to continue the work done to remove these prejudices and discrimination from a wider part of society and have positive impact on the health status of the group in our community. See the link in the answer previous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

The tokenism of saying they are 'married' instead of 'butt buddies' or something.

So if it's just tokenism why be so ****ing protective of it?

---

And if all that it is is a tokenism gesture at 160 million $$$ of taxpayer money then our government should be finding better things than spending money on than a tokenism gesture that allows Adam and Steve to "feel better" about their Sins

Will be interesting to see how many of the buff ones let themselves go once they get married, like their female counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

Will be interesting to see how many of the buff ones let themselves go once they get married, like their female counterparts.

---

hashtagsocialimpact

right, I'm cleaning up this crap and issuing bannings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve will be better off so show me some more

---

There should be heaps of examples as to how Adam and Steve won't be better off by allowing them the same rights as every other human in the world but the anti-SSM people can't offer a single one, apart from an outdated tradition which isn't even close to an actual reason. I liken it to innocent until proven guilty - unless there are specific, legitimate reasons why Adam&Steve shouldn't be afforded equal rights to other human beings, they should be free to do what they want.

:rof: at your bald bears comment. The funniest thing is what started the Noah/Bears example was you saying "my book doesn't condone killing blokes" and even after bringing up specific examples from "your book" of "your god" killing blokes and you not even arguing against the fact it happened, you'll probably again in future use the same "we don't condone killing blokes" line again which is just insanely hypocritical.

Far out, imagine MFKFC being brought up in the women-have-no-rights, black-people-at-the-back-of-the-bus, slavery-was-legit eras. The ingrained system/tradition would rule above all I bet :rof: :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

So basically you are either dodging my question like a politician as you don't know the answer or you are unable to provide an answer as all you can trot out are cliches and generalisations like a politician and then try throwing a question back at me to avoid the fact you haven't answered my question

No problem.

It really shouldn't be hard to come up with a long list of examples of how Adam and Steve will be better off under SSM but apparently it is so all supporters can do is offer up cliches and generalisations without offering legitimate examples but apparently it is

Go figure




Watering down of acceptable social values that have been part of human culture for centuries as this behaviour has been unacceptable for centuries now an it is basically just an attempt to legitimise the sinning of these folk and making it more socially acceptable for them to indulge in their frowned upon behaviour without being made to feel bad for their choice of sinning

There you go i answered your question

---

Seriously.. What the fvck..

this ban will be permanent if any multis or pseudonyms appear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bon

Seriously.. What the fvck..

---

Lol what about the sins of all the priests diddling kids? If that's not watering down of social values than I don't know what is.

Far worse than gays getting married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

Watering down of acceptable social values

---

For those reading at home I just want to comment by saying "acceptable social values" is such an interesting comment for an anti-SSM bloke to bring up. Dare I use the word evolution in a religious context but "acceptable social values" has to be one of the most evolving things ever. Go back to the aforementioned womens rights, racism, etc and previously socially accepted values we look back at now and are disgusted that it ever was accepted.

Things change, and it seems to me like the large majority of society is willing or attempting to accept SSM so doesn't that mean that the anti-SSM are fighting against the "acceptable social values" now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

And if all that it is is a tokenism gesture at 160 million $$$ of taxpayer money then our government should be finding better things than spending money on than a tokenism gesture that allows Adam and Steve to "feel better" about their Sins

---

So now we're back to the money?
Religious organisations are taxed differently to companies aren't they?

Doesn't seem to be much care about taxpayers money there old bean.

I don't really ever remember seeing so many people who's lives will be unaffected by a decision so adamant that the decision is wrong.

This is like soccer fans going mental because the obstruction rule in rugby league has changed. Ain't your problem, who cares.

(And don't say God).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boz-monaut

right, I'm cleaning up this crap and issuing bannings

---

What happened to Freedom of Speech?

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

Government spending equals non government income. So to investigate the issue of legalising gay marriage the government is essentially giving us $160m. Anyone that would whinge about being given $160m is beyond help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boz-monaut

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

---

fwiw as much as I strongly disagreed with basically all of MFKFCs views over the past couple of days on this, I don't really get where he stepped over the line tbh. His only real crime was not accepting the countless amount of people proving him wrong or making his argument invalid rather than doing anything abnormally ban-worthy for this foz imo.

I think as well some people think that the Govt is going to get a big $160m pile of cash and set fire to it in the middle of Oxford st.

The money will go to wages for polling booth staff, ad companies and a lot will be 'internal' spending between govt departments which no cash ever physically changes hands.

Essentially just re-routing a stimulus package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boz-monaut

hate speech isn't freedom of speech

---

So hate of the CCM is acceptable?....thank god or if we were all ban for it, PV4 would feel lonely on the foz :grin:
....And I agree with PV4's post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

I think as well some people think that the Govt is going to get a big $160m pile of cash and set fire to it in the middle of Oxford st.

---

Wait this isn't happening?

On a somewhat related note, one of my mates who prefers the company of men was saying he actually doesn't want it to happen because he has had a lot of hetero mates get screwed over by de-facto partners leaving and "taking half", and feels that if SSM comes through then it opens up the possibility of this happening to same sex couples where currently it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Wait this isn't happening?

On a somewhat related note, one of my mates who prefers the company of men was saying he actually doesn't want it to happen because he has had a lot of hetero mates get screwed over by de-facto partners leaving and "taking half", and feels that if SSM comes through then it opens up the possibility of this happening to same sex couples where currently it doesn't.

---

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

---

All those costs potentially involved with SSM though - isn't that doing "good" for the economy in that it keeps the money circulating?

I'm insanely naive when it comes to economics but I was under the impression that people spending on money, on whatever, was better than them sockdraw-ing their money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

This is a little something I alluded to earlier - the cost of hetero marriage to the economy is huge. There will be a flood of weddings no doubt but as time passes there will be the added cost of broken SSMs - divorce costs, welfare, domestic violence, child support, custody battles etc etc. Need to weigh up the rough with the smooth. Legal battles overseas are already underway including those from kids who feel they weren't brought up in a "normal" environment.

I fully support SS relationships but am not keen on the marriage aspect, just so my position is clear.

---

Hold up a minute.
Are you inferring that Hetros are so much better at marriage than gays?

Why would the divorce rate be any different?

As for kids being brought up in a 'normal' environment, so alcoholic parents, parents who abandon kids, parents who beat kids, what the hell is 'normal' anyway?

Besides, contrary to popular belief, teaching kids what is 'normal' is on you, the parent. Your prejudices are the only ones passed down homie.

If we Hetros are all better at parenting then that stigma goes away pretty quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

The money will go to wages for polling booth staff, ad companies and a lot will be 'internal' spending between govt departments which no cash ever physically changes hands.

Essentially just re-routing a stimulus package.

---

Spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

fwiw as much as I strongly disagreed with basically all of MFKFCs views over the past couple of days on this, I don't really get where he stepped over the line tbh. His only real crime was not accepting the countless amount of people proving him wrong or making his argument invalid rather than doing anything abnormally ban-worthy for this foz imo.

---

Unfortunately his post this morning saying if we legalise SSM why don't we legalise pedophilia & bestiality pushed him over the line. I was prepared to let him continue to post his narrow view on this topic because it was clear others were doing a great job of countering the bullshit RW rhetoric, but unfortunately he pushed it too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by furns

Unfortunately his post this morning saying if we legalise SSM why don't we legalise pedophilia & bestiality pushed him over the line. I was prepared to let him continue to post his narrow view on this topic because it was clear others were doing a great job of countering the bullshit RW rhetoric, but unfortunately he pushed it too far.

---

I could see more sarcasm than hate in his post

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

http://www.newcastlefootball.net/for...cement.php?f=2

pretty easy to see he stepped over the mark for points 1 and 2.

I was enjoying his continual self-foot-shooting, and am all for people with different views being able to express them, (id rather them expressed and argued against, than hidden away and left to fester) but instead of trying to make his point with logical reasoned arguments he decided to escalate this discussion to a point where his comments were too far wide of acceptable social standards and we wouldn't want those standards watered down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

---

tried sticking some plastic eyes on your helmet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GazFish35

tried sticking some plastic eyes on your helmet?

---

Cheers. I'll give it a go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

When are politicians going to allow a nation wide culling of all magpies. Every year I get swooped / attacked by these bastards and today was no exception. Today I'm riding through Aberglasslyn and must have been nailed a dozen times by three magpies. Can't believe how fast these pricks are either because I was flat out downhill and had to hit top gear before I could outrun them.

Anyway. Laws need to change so we can get rid of these good for nothing rats of the skies.

---

Get a car Dunster ya hippy.