View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 24 Jan 2018 01:53 am



Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 The gay marriage topic 
Author Message
10000 words or your money back!
10000 words or your money back!
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jul 2006 01:14 pm
Posts: 12695
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AU
Being a small government guy, I have always thought this was a contract between the two parties and that a third party (government) should not have anything to do with it because all they want to do is change all the definitions of words to suit a left wing agenda. (ie bigger government, more government intrusion into private affairs, and giving welfare to one group over another for the purpose of buying votes from the group it wants to appeal to in order to stay in power)

I know the gays generally want it for obvious reasons, but from a libertarian perspective, if you like smaller government and less religious persecution (ie christian pastors forced to marry the two parties even if it goes against their bveliefs/tradition) it will only empower statists to bully the group it wants to target in order to cause division. In the legal profession, people fighting amongst each other, means $$$$$$ for the people who make a living off other people fighting and breaking up of relationships. So generally the only reason the government is so supportive of gay marriage is less about helping the gay community but to make money from the fighting when the people fight in legal battles (more jobs for lawyer) and to expand government. (using gays as weapon to attack family which is the miniture government iwthin a household which competes with the left's idea that the government should be the sugar daddy or head of the household and not the man (in the context of the nuclear family. ie feminists hate men being the boss so that is why they ally with gays to manipulate society)

Anyway that is my thoughts on it. Australia is generally an authoritarian system of rule. (nanny communist state) We have feminists destroying our games by saying GTA5 sholdn't be sold in department stores just because you can run over women in it (ignoring that you can run over anyone else too) , we have 'safe schools' which is trying to bully parents into giving up their rights over their children's learning, and all this interferng within our private lives is only going to cause division within communities which is what lawyers love because that is how they survive in this world and not doing honest work lol .



As governments and corporations become oppressive in the future (big government and big business working in cahoots to control the masses) people will eventually leave in order to sap the matrix of battery. (already happening with bitcoin as we exit centralised control over our money.

The left generally love collectivism and believe the rights of the group outweigh the rights of individuals. So as we remove liberty (taking away religious freedoms from christians) you will startt to see more fighting in future within the nation rather than more happy people. Any time there is peace, there is less profit for those who desire ever more power. It is a seductive force that cannot be resisted. Lord of the Rings is such a popular book because it applies to the real world but using fantasy to tell its message. And governments are the races that took the bait and accepted the rings, while the elite have the One ring to rule them all. Getting one group to war against the other in the hopes of breaking up the fellowship between races/groups/culture so it becomes weaker and easier to conquer by using divide and conquer tactics. Orcs in the story would be the useful idiots represented today as government workers worried about pensions (ie military vets who don't protect constitution out of fear of not having money in old age) or corporate slaves (materialistic people who see people they work with as human resources) who will eventually suffer too when the world dictatorship is finally in power.

The right generally don't give a shit about individuals either because they are brainwashed in the military to not think for themselves. So they always want to bomb and kill things to say they are needed even in peace time to keep the other country scared of them. That is fine if voluntary but the government always has its hand in people's pocket so even peaceful gy who doesn't want to support wars (unless they are justified in self defence) is still going to get dragged into conflict if only to keep the military industrial complex going. (nobody can make money selling weapons in time of peace) I often wonder what if the Transformers were real and came to earth as immigrants to continue fighting for peace in the galaxy? Would we be forced to fight the aliens not knowing that some of them are the good guys fighting the decepticon faction? Or just exploit the aliens to get their tech (like how the humans wanted to capture the innocent alien in the movie 'ET' before he could get home safely?) and treat them like utter shit until they gave us valuable things? Also organised religions (I know there is overlap between right wing and religious people) are all about man-made traditions more than what the bible teaches and often christians break thier own rules: eg christmas is a pagan tradition merged with christianty by roman catholicism and God is against tree worship. Why do christians continue to put pinetrees in the homes and flashy star on the point when the bible is against this? Answer: because people don't read the bible or follow it. They follow man-made traditions not God. Whether out of ignorance or open rebelion it doesn't matter because you are still not obeying the thing you say you are a follower of.

_________________
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." -Shigeru Miyamoto


06 Dec 2017 08:24 am
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15211
Thanks...you just reminded me to send my yes vote in


06 Dec 2017 10:22 am
Profile WWW
que
que
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jul 2006 07:05 pm
Posts: 5519
Misleading thread title, has nothing on reptilians or how girls prefer sex with dogs.


06 Dec 2017 12:53 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
GameHED just had another stroke?


06 Dec 2017 02:49 pm
Profile
Very Regular Member
Very Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jul 2006 09:12 pm
Posts: 3523
Gamertag: Recipe For Hate
PSN ID: Recipe4Hate
Mii: xxGuttermouthxx
Are there gay reptilians??


06 Dec 2017 06:18 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
If there is.. they don't show up to the "Destroy Society As We Know It" meetings..


06 Dec 2017 09:27 pm
Profile
All accusations are unsubstantiated
All accusations are unsubstantiated
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:15 pm
Posts: 7028
Location: Perth, WA
Gamertag: AmbroseBurnside
Steam ID: Ambrose Burnside
4 MPs voted no. Where are they from? Queensland?

Glad this is all over.

_________________
Image


07 Dec 2017 05:46 pm
Profile
googlebomber
googlebomber
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 8662
Location: Just behind GameHED
Gamertag: unfunk
Mii: 3DS: 3797-6243-7145
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
Abbott didn't even have the guts to vote. :lol:

_________________
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars


07 Dec 2017 09:50 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
He abstained, as all No campaigners should have rightfully done.


08 Dec 2017 01:05 am
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
I'm conflicted about that.

Abbott pushed this bullshit. He even conceded he would vote YES given the 75% YES vote in his electorate. That is overwhelming. He said would vote YES. He abstained which is not what his electorate wanted which is.. well.. is better than him being predictable and actually then voting NO.. but it's pretty shit that he didn't follow through with his statement to vote in accordance to his electorate.

This man pushed a nation to vote on my right to marry and then he didn't do his job to represent his own electorate and vote himself.

As much as I despise those who voted NO.. Katter is crazy so not surprising.. but some of those more cunty types like Kevin Andrews.. he abstained too and honestly I feel that if you fought so long and so dirtily on this topic.. to just bow out and abstain so to not be on record for being a cunt.. it's a bit piss weak.

On the otherhand.. 4 NOs looks pretty fucking good in terms of a result. I don't think was worth 122 million though. The NZ parliament moment was better though.. and their singing was on another level compared to our effort :D


09 Dec 2017 01:19 am
Profile
All accusations are unsubstantiated
All accusations are unsubstantiated
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:15 pm
Posts: 7028
Location: Perth, WA
Gamertag: AmbroseBurnside
Steam ID: Ambrose Burnside
Quote:
You might argue, as some have, that abstaining was the only way Abbott could facilitate the passage of the bill while staying true to his Christian values.

Sorry, that doesn’t really hold muster. Tony. You kicked the tin along on this issue purely because you didn’t want same-sex marriage to happen on your watch – sure. But you spent years boosting secular democracy as the only means to resolve the situation and shouted down any attempt at a free vote, in which you’d be perfectly entitled to vote in line with your values. Then when the moment came, you decided democracy wasn’t something you were keen on enabling at all.

Tony, you fucken ratbag coward. Put up or shut up.


Also, I love this:

Iconic

_________________
Image


09 Dec 2017 09:12 am
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Did Abbott say he would vote yes? I was under the impression he just wouldn't get in the way.

I don't know why people keep referring to electorates, it's a plebiscite which is a popular vote - what their electorates do is irrelevant. My guess would be that the overwhelming majority of liberal voters in his electorate would have no problem with him abstaining.

I just don't think it's worth getting worked up about politicians abstaining. It's a concession of defeat and allowing the legislation to get through unopposed. Had they pushed for a plebiscite then voted it down in parliament... well, that's scandalous and they would have deserved everything that would be coming to them.

The above quote, and people in general who are furious with his non-vote, just wanted to rub his nose in it which I can understand but don't agree with.


09 Dec 2017 05:00 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Madmya wrote:
Did Abbott say he would vote yes? I was under the impression he just wouldn't get in the way.

I don't know why people keep referring to electorates, it's a plebiscite which is a popular vote - what their electorates do is irrelevant. My guess would be that the overwhelming majority of liberal voters in his electorate would have no problem with him abstaining.

I just don't think it's worth getting worked up about politicians abstaining. It's a concession of defeat and allowing the legislation to get through unopposed. Had they pushed for a plebiscite then voted it down in parliament... well, that's scandalous and they would have deserved everything that would be coming to them.

The above quote, and people in general who are furious with his non-vote, just wanted to rub his nose in it which I can understand but don't agree with.


There is actually a video clip where he said he would vote in accordance to his electorate. I will see if I can find it. He dragged us through the mud and made us all have to make a choice.. only for him to not represent the choice of his electorate. No doubt SOMEONE will do a poll of his electorate to gauge their thoughts on his actions... If they are okay with it? I'm actually okay with it too then. 75% is pretty absolute in terms of what they wanted though so it will be very interesting to see.

Don't get me wrong - abstaining is the lesser of two evils.. and ultimately if you were undecided.. it's obviously the best choice. The problem I have with abstaining is that some of the most vocal and stupid opponents to the concept of SSM were abstainers. They fought to the end and then opted to abstain and I truly do believe they wanted to ensure they weren't on the wrong side of this historic moment. Better to be MIA than seen as wrong.

As for the electorate - again - I distinctly recall a few pollies making comments that made it about their electorates. So that is why it is of relevance and when you remember that they are a figurehead of a community - it makes sense that there would be weight behind this line of thinking.


09 Dec 2017 06:25 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Well, it's irrelevant and if you want to spend your energy caring about it then so be it.


09 Dec 2017 10:19 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Errrrr it's relevant because we were all talking about it? It's relevant because the end does not justify the means in this case. Also - I think you mistake my carefactor level for me just answering your question. I always knew the likes of Abbott, Christiensen and Andrews were fuck wits.. You can't help but laugh at them these days.

I've had enough time over the last few months having a low level of seething fury at these people.. I think you're naive to expect us all to just simply forget it in a matter of days. Especially since it has been the focus of discussion post decision. Like I mentioned in another thread.. I'm pretty resilient on this topic and I'm glad it is done but watching Turnbull gloat like this is a feather in his cap.. it isn't true and when you were ones affected by his bullshit.. it's hard not to just say you don't care that someone is taking credit when all he did was be a fuckwit who was hamstrung by the ultra conservatives of his party. He dragged us through the mud and prioritized his own political safety instead of doing what was right. I get that politics is a dance... but his attitude and "look at me WE did it" celebratory dance he has done during interviews should have been a different and less attention whorish.


09 Dec 2017 11:45 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
I'm talking about the electorates being irrelevant.

Edit: Now that I'm sober the above comment of mine doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyway, people talking about something doesn't make it relevant. But I'm not going to waste any more energy on this, continue rambling amongst each other about the 75% electorate, etc. If he gets voted out next election I'll believe you.


10 Dec 2017 12:39 am
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
1. People talking about it DOES make it relevant. MPs, the media, the general public all had discussions and stances on whether the MP should vote in line with the views of their electorate. It's relevant because THEY made it a point of discussion and that many MPs said that they would in fact consider their electorates decision on it. There were LNP MPs who said that regardless of the YES result - they would still vote NO.. Due this provision of info - electorate stance was a factor in many MP votes - based on what they said and also based on the result too. With some exceptions of course.

2. We aren't rambling - we're discussing how a member or parliament went on record saying he would respect his electorate's stance on the matter and vote accordingly. It just so happens this is backflip Tony Abbott who is infamous for saying one thing and doing another. We shouldn't be surprised.. but there was a glimmer of hope from me that Abbott would actually do the right thing and give me one good reason to think that he could be a politician for his people and not be this weirdo who simply doesn't listen and does everything for himself. After reading The Road To Ruin, I knew he was nut case who seemed to live on his own planet.. but I kinda was hoping to see him be present in this case.

3. Tony Abbott is toxic and has been so for years.. BUT his electorate seems to like him. I can only assume he's well entrenched and active in his electorate and I think for all his shit media based fuck ups.. he is quite possibly very good when working on the front line.

It's likely wasted energy.. but some of us do like examining how events unfold but furthermore - being observant to these things makes the public more able to understand who they are in fact voting for. We are still a whiles away from the next federal election but it's interesting to speculate how the LNP will approach this situation and that they will likely act like they did it. Which to me.. it's like crowing that you wrote the car off in an accident but thanks to insurance you got a new one.. oh and 2 of your family got injured but LOOK! NEW CAR!!!


10 Dec 2017 04:08 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15211
I think I see it differently. Labor wouldn't do it because votes. Liberal did it even though it might cost them votes. I think it's odd to claim that the Libs gave everyone marriage equality by accident. It really rubs people the wrong way knowing the conservatives had to change marriage laws when the Labor just wouldn't consider it until after they were turfed out in favour of Tony Abbott. Shorten did his damnedest to stop people voting Yes. What a horrible cunt.


10 Dec 2017 06:20 pm
Profile WWW
googlebomber
googlebomber
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 8662
Location: Just behind GameHED
Gamertag: unfunk
Mii: 3DS: 3797-6243-7145
Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
Madmya wrote:
I'm talking about the electorates being irrelevant.

Edit: Now that I'm sober the above comment of mine doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyway, people talking about something doesn't make it relevant. But I'm not going to waste any more energy on this, because in the meantime every three months a person is torn to pieces by a crocodile in north Queensland!


FTFY :D

_________________
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars


10 Dec 2017 06:58 pm
Profile
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Cletus wrote:
I think I see it differently. Labor wouldn't do it because votes. Liberal did it even though it might cost them votes. I think it's odd to claim that the Libs gave everyone marriage equality by accident. It really rubs people the wrong way knowing the conservatives had to change marriage laws when the Labor just wouldn't consider it until after they were turfed out in favour of Tony Abbott. Shorten did his damnedest to stop people voting Yes. What a horrible cunt.


Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying Labor behaved impeccably when it comes to SSM. I believe there was indeed a worry about votes.. but I also feel as though the push for SSM had traction.. but it wasn't enough for it to be a force to be reckoned with. I've only really been feeling the community vibes since the mid 90's and it's definitely the best it's ever been but 5 odd years ago.. it felt different compared to now.

In terms of giving SSM by accident? I don't think it was their sole objective.. and if it was their motive there were MUCH better ways in which they could have gone about it. What is your thoughts on the fact that they had this huge influx of younger voters who signed up for the purpose of voting.. and likely voting YES? It would be my understanding that the majority of those younger voters won't be voting for the LNP... and when you consider how the polls are now and the current standing of our House of Reps - I'd consider the LNP's chances for retaining government next time are reduced by the newly recruited younger generation.

I get that politics is a dance.. more like a lap dance though really. Things change.. and MP positions on topics change... be it that they have their own change of heart or they bend/snap to the will of their constituents. I truly believe though - if Turnbull just said FUCK YOU to Abbott's plebiscite/postal survey and just got it done.. he'd have fared much better and THEN he would have the right to gloat and crow like he has been.


10 Dec 2017 07:17 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
Also - I think you mistake my carefactor level for me just answering your question.


875 words later, including an argument formatted in dot points

You're right, I did mistake your carefactor level. Have you found any evidence of Abbott saying he would vote yes yet?


10 Dec 2017 08:33 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18186
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
unfnknblvbl wrote:
Madmya wrote:
I'm talking about the electorates being irrelevant.

Edit: Now that I'm sober the above comment of mine doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyway, people talking about something doesn't make it relevant. But I'm not going to waste any more energy on this, because in the meantime every three months a person is torn to pieces by a crocodile in north Queensland!


FTFY :D




10 Dec 2017 08:55 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15211
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
What is your thoughts on the fact that they had this huge influx of younger voters who signed up for the purpose of voting.. and likely voting YES? It would be my understanding that the majority of those younger voters won't be voting for the LNP...


Not bothered. What I would rather see happen is someone GOOD boot Bill Shorten from Leadership before those people vote against Turnbull. I'm not sure I want Turnbull winning an election. I'm positive I don't want Shorten winning one.


10 Dec 2017 09:04 pm
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2747
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Madmya wrote:
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
Also - I think you mistake my carefactor level for me just answering your question.


875 words later, including an argument formatted in dot points

You're right, I did mistake your carefactor level. Have you found any evidence of Abbott saying he would vote yes yet?


Oh for FFS.. I average 60wpm had nothing to do while I downloaded a 10 gig patch for some editing software. I had time to kill on a topic that I had stakes in.

As for finding it.. Contrary to your understanding of my carefactor - I've been busy this weekend playing Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and cleaning up the yard. Tony Abbott hasn't been a priority. I've found one article that states he stops short of saying he would vote. I was sure I saw something else.. I just can't for the life of me remember which paper it was..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/samesex-marriage-abbott-pledges-to-respect-warringahs-vote/news-story/9c7ccd377a8912ae3cccc656a28e3a2e

Quote:
Most constituents spoken to yesterday in the beachside suburb of Manly made it clear they ­expected Mr Abbott to cast his parliamentary vote in support of a same-sex marriage bill.


Though here we have news.com.au saying he was going to abstain.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-prime-minister-told-his-sister-hed-abstain-on-ssm-vote/news-story/1eab9a1a85aa680fcb132825aa74f296

I'll ask one of my politically savvy friends if they can remember where it was.. I am happy to concede that it could have been just some creative journalism and that I misheard it. I was at work at the time.


Cletus wrote:
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
What is your thoughts on the fact that they had this huge influx of younger voters who signed up for the purpose of voting.. and likely voting YES? It would be my understanding that the majority of those younger voters won't be voting for the LNP...


Not bothered. What I would rather see happen is someone GOOD boot Bill Shorten from Leadership before those people vote against Turnbull. I'm not sure I want Turnbull winning an election. I'm positive I don't want Shorten winning one.


I'll take Shorten over Turnbull in terms of current performance from Turnbull. But I agree.. I would prefer someone better than Shorten. Both sides are slim pickins' at present.


10 Dec 2017 09:08 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15211
we have no visionaries


10 Dec 2017 09:09 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.