The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

[hawk]

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

[furns]

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.

[MFKS]

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

[MFKS]

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

[GazFish35]

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?

[MFKS]

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

[plague]

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'?

[plague]

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.

[The Dunster]

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.

[MFKS]

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??

[plague]

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?

[GazFish35]

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.

[MFKS]

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

[Jetmaster]

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

[plague]

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

hashtagsocialimpact

[boz-monaut]

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

[pv4]

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.

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 ops:

[Bon]

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..

[boz-monaut]

this ban will be permanent if any multis or pseudonyms appear

[skippy]

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.