Do they remember the last election and the promise of a plebiscite.
With a bit of luck it will go to a postal vote.

this will be the end of Trundull if they do cross the floor

Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues.

Just a distraction from what's important.

Gnads wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important.

That's right.

We need to become a republic first.

Then we can make SSM legal, and then elect a married lesbian as President.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:42pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. That's right. We need to become a republic first. Then we can make SSM legal, and then elect a married lesbian as President.

We need jobs for our people. Republics and gay marriage are nowhere near as important.

Gnads wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important.

it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:46pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago.

Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact.

I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote.

So it takes 4 poofs to take the most important society institution and turn it upside down.
The politicians so called free vote does not represent the wider community, why hell, these mob go and watch men dancing around in panty hose in the name of ballet.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote.

I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

So it takes 4 poofs to take the most important society institution and turn it upside down. The politicians so called free vote does not represent the wider community, why hell, these mob go and watch men dancing around in panty hose in the name of ballet.

you have no idea how our system of government works, do you?

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people.

you're not married?

Backs to the wall.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:57pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married?

Nope. It's rubbish. You need a ceremony to hook up with somebody.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote.

Could have been sorted when labor was in. If you recall it didn't happen, the famous and progressive box biter Penny Wong amongst others voted it down.

Maybe next time eh?   ;)

Dustwun wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:58pm:

Backs to the wall.

Yep

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:57pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married?

There is absolutely no reason for people to get married  these days.  Unless they are "religious" ... the LAW in Australia treats couples and their children the same way as 'married' people.

Homosexuals don't need to get "married" as they, too, are treated like other couples ... when they split up, married or otherwise.

I know several couples who have "lived together" for many years, there is absolutely no reason for them to "marry". The children of the relationship are not considered "bastards" either. 

Get with it.

Either way.
It's taken the focus off Abbott's comeback,
which is what Turnbull wanted.
He was starting to sweat a bit there.
As you can see - 'where's Abbott?'  :-?

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:57pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: So it takes 4 poofs to take the most important society institution and turn it upside down. The politicians so called free vote does not represent the wider community, why hell, these mob go and watch men dancing around in panty hose in the name of ballet. you have no idea how our system of government works, do you?

I know I was promised a vote and 4 poofs are now standing in the way.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Do they remember the last election and the promise of a plebiscite. With a bit of luck it will go to a postal vote.

That's terrible.
I would prefer it if they brought back anti-sodomite laws.
Those animals should be in a zoo.

I hope the whip gets his whip out and takes some skin off their private parts.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean I should get in their way, though.

If it makes people happy, and doesn't harm others, good luck to them.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married? Nope. It's rubbish. You need a ceremony to hook up with somebody.

it's a bit more than 'hooking up with somebody' .... but each to their own

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Could have been sorted when labor was in. If you recall it didn't happen, the famous and progressive box biter Penny Wong amongst others voted it down. Maybe next time eh?   ;)

it could have, but labor was on the back foot from the start with a minority government. They had other priorities.

Jasin wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Either way. It's taken the focus off Abbott's comeback, which is what Turnbull wanted. He was starting to sweat a bit there. As you can see - 'where's Abbott?'  :-?

Abbotts cumback?
Does Abbott have cum on his back?
Did the poofs cross the floor and splooge on him?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:57pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: So it takes 4 poofs to take the most important society institution and turn it upside down. The politicians so called free vote does not represent the wider community, why hell, these mob go and watch men dancing around in panty hose in the name of ballet. you have no idea how our system of government works, do you? I know I was promised a vote and 4 poofs are now standing in the way.

that'll teach you to ever believe anything the libs tell you  ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:00pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married? Nope. It's rubbish. You need a ceremony to hook up with somebody. it's a bit more than 'hooking up with somebody' .... but each to their own

It's your tiny bit of existence. Soon you'll be dust. You don't have to do anything they tell you. Especially silly ceremonies.

Neferti wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:09pm:

There is absolutely no reason for people to get married  these days.  Unless they are "religious" ... the LAW in Australia treats couples and their children the same way as 'married' people.

disagree .... I'm not religious and I value my marriage. It has nothing to do with how the law treats it either.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:25pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:06pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Could have been sorted when labor was in. If you recall it didn't happen, the famous and progressive box biter Penny Wong amongst others voted it down. Maybe next time eh?   ;) it could have, but labor was on the back foot from the start with a minority government. They had other priorities.

But, but, but, it is such a popular measure. 

Well maybe not so much in the religiously conservative western suburbs eh? 

So not just the conservanuts then?

That's why when you engage in partisan unthinking finger pointing you end up looking like a dope.  :) 

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:24pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:00pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married? Nope. It's rubbish. You need a ceremony to hook up with somebody. it's a bit more than 'hooking up with somebody' .... but each to their own It's your tiny bit of existence. Soon you be dust. You don't have to do anything they tell you. Especially silly ceremonies.

I've never done anything anyone has told me unless I wanted to do it. ;)

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:28pm:

But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.

popular or not, they had other things to worry about

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:27pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:24pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:00pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. I don't understand why anybody gets married let alone gay people. you're not married? Nope. It's rubbish. You need a ceremony to hook up with somebody. it's a bit more than 'hooking up with somebody' .... but each to their own It's your tiny bit of existence. Soon you be dust. You don't have to do anything they tell you. Especially silly ceremonies. I've never done anything anyone has told me unless I wanted to do it. ;)

sure you have,

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:29pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about

Give it a rest, you are looking worse than dopey now, more actively and aggressively stupid. 

Face it they squibbed and despite your excuses they are likely to do so again.  The western suburbs ain't going away.  Try thinking for once. 

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:30pm:

sure you have,

you idiot

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about Give it a rest, you are looking worse than dopey now, more actively and aggressively stupid.  Face it they squibbed and despite your excuses they are likely to do so again.  The western suburbs ain't going away.  Try thinking for once.

give what a rest?  you keep going back to labor as if it's relevant to the debate today. Labor didn't do it, for a variety of reasons, that doesn't change anything for the libs today.

Would you be a cross the floor type John.

Would you go against the will of the people.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Would you be a cross the floor type John.

would I vote against my own party? fkkn oaf

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:57pm:

Would you go against the will of the people.

I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:48pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:35pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about Give it a rest, you are looking worse than dopey now, more actively and aggressively stupid.  Face it they squibbed and despite your excuses they are likely to do so again.  The western suburbs ain't going away.  Try thinking for once.  give what a rest?  you keep going back to labor as if it's relevant to the debate today. Labor didn't do it, for a variety of reasons, that doesn't change anything for the libs today.

Hehehe, Libs ain't doing it for a variety of reasons. 

See how stupid your excuse sounds? 

If you had any awareness at all and not merely a one eyed tub thumping cretin you would understand a bigger picture, both parties have issues with it due to a voter base they both need to appease. 

It's not one party good and pure but ...oh dear, a variety of reasons... and the other party evil. You would do well to try and think a bit more, simplistic thinking has put you in this position of sounding like a dope.

Still Labor will be in shortly, start preparing your excuses.  Here's a good one... they have other things to worry about.   ;)

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Would you be a cross the floor type John.

He also like to crosd swords.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:00pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:56pm: Would you be a cross the floor type John. He also like to crosd swords.

:-* :-* :-*

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it.

That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite .

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

Hehehe, Libs ain't doing it for a variety of reasons.

no one said they weren't


Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

See how stupid your excuse sounds?

I'm dealing with here and now. What happened 4 yrs ago is irrelevant to what is happening now. Otherwise why stop at 4? why not go back further to when being gay was illegal?

see how stupid your excuse sounds?



Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

It's not one party good and pure but ...oh dear, a variety of reasons... and the other party evil.

no one said it was. Nevertheless, the libs are in charge now, it's up to them.


Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

You would do well to try and think a bit more, simplistic thinking has put you in this position of sounding like a dope.

you shouldn't call anyone simplistic while being such a simpleton.


Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:

Still Labor will be in shortly, start preparing your excuses.

when labor is in, you can tell me about how turnbull didn't do it. :D :D :D :D

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:58pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it. That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite .

pull that 'fact' from your arse? Everything I've seen shows that most people just want the politicians to vote on it so we can move past it.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:05pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:58pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it. That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite . pull that 'fact' from your arse? Everything I've seen shows that most people just want the politicians to vote on it so we can move past it.

But the pollies are so poofy that they'll vote yes.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:05pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:58pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it. That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite . pull that 'fact' from your arse? Everything I've seen shows that most people just want the politicians to vote on it so we can move past it. But the pollies are so poofy that they'll vote yes.

any pollie that hopes to get re- elected will vote the way his constituents want him to vote.

the poofter and republic debate only ever come up when that party has got nothing...

smoke screens and mirrors..

waste of time...

and the only reason the fags dont want it to go to a vote is because they know they'll lose and that Australians dont want queers or our children socially engineered to think Queerism is normal...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:13pm:

the poofter and republic debate only ever come up when that party has got nothing... smoke screens and mirrors..

labor has released far more policies than the libs . :D :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:42pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. That's right. We need to become a republic first. Then we can make SSM legal, and then elect a married lesbian as President.

You have to draw the line somewhere - apparently it is single Lesbians. Fair enough too.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:13pm:

the poofter and republic debate only ever come up when that party has got nothing... smoke screens and mirrors.. waste of time... and the only reason the fags dont want it to go to a vote is because they know they'll lose and that Australians dont want queers or our children socially engineered to think Queerism is normal...

X2

Its not NORMAL but these people want us to believe it is.

95% of Australians should not have to change because a very vocal 5% are screaming faggots who want want want.

They should just climb back into their closets and quietly close the door.

The only GAYS I know are the C.I.A (Cockkks In Anus's).
They always keep things hidden in the closet.

I didn't know Bobby worked for the CIA

I'll vote to support SSM if the lefties vote to ban Muslim immigration.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:14pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:13pm: the poofter and republic debate only ever come up when that party has got nothing... smoke screens and mirrors.. labor has released far more policies than the libs . :D :D :D :D

No the Libs have all areas of policy covered.

Cut education

Cut Health

Cut back on pensions

Cut and limit superannuation.

etc

Dnarever wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:14pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:13pm: the poofter and republic debate only ever come up when that party has got nothing... smoke screens and mirrors.. labor has released far more policies than the libs . :D :D :D :D No the Libs have all areas of policy covered. Cut education Cut Health Cut back on pensions Cut and limit superannuation. etc

you do realise we are 100s of billions of dollars in debt because of labor (throw money at it) polices don't you??  ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:05pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:58pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it. That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite . pull that 'fact' from your arse? Everything I've seen shows that most people just want the politicians to vote on it so we can move past it. But the pollies are so poofy that they'll vote yes.

Lets face it the politicians are an elite insulated species, they are surrounded by the arts the media and the celebrity type, they are in no way representative of the main stream Australian.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:24pm:

you do realise we are 100s of billions of dollars in debt because of labor (throw money at it) polices don't you??

;D ;D ;D ;D

---

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:27pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:05pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:58pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:57pm: Would you go against the will of the people. I would vote the way my constituents wanted me to vote. Irrespective of how I felt about it. That is fair, you know most people are in favor of a plebiscite . pull that 'fact' from your arse? Everything I've seen shows that most people just want the politicians to vote on it so we can move past it. But the pollies are so poofy that they'll vote yes. Lets face it the politicians are an elite insulated species, they are surrounded by the arts the media and the celebrity type, they are in no way representative of the main stream Australian.

The pollies are bunch of bed wetting, limp wristed, progressives.

( at least half of them )

They are sending us bankrupt while diverting attention
with all the help they can give to poofters.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:19pm:

I'll vote to support SSM if the lefties vote to ban Muslim immigration.

You are easily conduced, please consider your verdict carefully.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:17pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:19pm: I'll vote to support SSM if the lefties vote to ban Muslim immigration. You are easily conduced, please consider your verdict carefully.

Their are other options, we don't need either.

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote.

Labor could have done it in 2007-2010 when they had 83/150 members in the Lower House.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:26am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Labor could have done it in 2007-2010 when they had 83/150 members in the Lower House.

If the poofs cross the floor now the most important society institution is and will be forever more fkked.

What has worked for so long should not be changed in a whim of a sub generation.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:31am:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:26am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Labor could have done it in 2007-2010 when they had 83/150 members in the Lower House. If the poofs cross the floor now the most important society institution is and will be forever more fkked.

Absolutely, and I would never ever again vote Liberal and I am only 27 so that's a lifelong commitment. Marriage for me has always and will always be a union between a man and woman. And at a religious level between man, woman and God.

If these four traitors do cross the floor, I would be interested to see if that is enough. 69 Labor members, the vast majority support it, but IIRC correctly there are still a tiny sliver of about 3 who are against it. Of the cross bench, leftists Wilkie, Bandt and Sharkie will support it, Cathy McGowan is a leftie from the bush so she will support it, conservative Katter would never support it.

So let's say 4 cross bench, 4 Libs and 66 Labor. That's still only 74 and not enough. But that's if there are three Labor members who don't support it. The three I am thinking are Chris Hayes, Maria Vamvakinou and Tony Zappia.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:39am:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31am: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:26am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Labor could have done it in 2007-2010 when they had 83/150 members in the Lower House. If the poofs cross the floor now the most important society institution is and will be forever more fkked. Absolutely, and I would never ever again vote Liberal and I am only 27 so that's a lifelong commitment. Marriage for me has always and will always be a union between a man and woman. And at a religious level between man, woman and God. If these four traitors do cross the floor, I would be interested to see if that is enough. 69 Labor members, the vast majority support it, but IIRC correctly there are still a tiny sliver of about 3 who are against it. Of the cross bench, leftists Wilkie, Bandt and Sharkie will support it, Cathy McGowan is a leftie from the bush so she will support it, conservative Katter would never support it. So let's say 4 cross bench, 4 Libs and 66 Labor. That's still only 74 and not enough. But that's if there are three Labor members who don't support it. The three I am thinking are Chris Hayes, Maria Vamvakinou and Tony Zappia.

I voted liberal for the first time in my life because of this issue, I feel ripped off Shorten can play god.

-

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:52am:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:39am: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31am: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:26am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:46pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:40pm: Who cares .... this nation has much more pressing issues. Just a distraction from what's important. it's only a distraction because it has been allowed to be drawn out the way it has. This should have been settled years ago. Most people just don't care about republics and gay marriage. It just doesn't apply to them so they don't care. It's just a fact. I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. Labor could have done it in 2007-2010 when they had 83/150 members in the Lower House. If the poofs cross the floor now the most important society institution is and will be forever more fkked. Absolutely, and I would never ever again vote Liberal and I am only 27 so that's a lifelong commitment. Marriage for me has always and will always be a union between a man and woman. And at a religious level between man, woman and God. If these four traitors do cross the floor, I would be interested to see if that is enough. 69 Labor members, the vast majority support it, but IIRC correctly there are still a tiny sliver of about 3 who are against it. Of the cross bench, leftists Wilkie, Bandt and Sharkie will support it, Cathy McGowan is a leftie from the bush so she will support it, conservative Katter would never support it. So let's say 4 cross bench, 4 Libs and 66 Labor. That's still only 74 and not enough. But that's if there are three Labor members who don't support it. The three I am thinking are Chris Hayes, Maria Vamvakinou and Tony Zappia. I voted liberal for the first time in my life because of this issue, I feel ripped off Shorten can play god.

Shorten is just an all-round arrogant douche.

How did you vote previously?

I used to vote Liberal (that said I have only actually voted in three federal elections) but last election voted One Nation and will continue to do so (and will also support Cory's party).

I know several people who used to vote Liberal but are now turning to those two and you'd be surprised at quite a few Labor supporters I spoke to a month ago who are also. Those classic socially conservative blue collar Labor voters.

I have always voted the most likely to keep the bastards honest till Pauline emerged.
She could do more, she seems stifled of late, but who else is their.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:35pm:

Do they remember the last election and the promise of a plebiscite. With a bit of luck it will go to a postal vote.

That's terrible.
I would prefer it if they brought back anti-sodomite laws.
Those animals should be in a zoo.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 6:07am:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:35pm: Do they remember the last election and the promise of a plebiscite. With a bit of luck it will go to a postal vote. That's terrible. I would prefer it if they brought back anti-sodomite laws. Those animals should be in a zoo.

but how would groggy connect to the internet from the zoo?  :-/

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 7:29pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about

And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:34am:

What has worked for so long should not be changed in a whim of a sub generation.

worked well? how so?
almost 50% divorce rate, millions of kids in single parent families

worked a treat hasn't it :D :D

Gnads wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:25am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important.

and will continue to be a distraction until it's resolved. Just get it over and done with and be done with it.

Australia's longest-running annual lifestyle survey has revealed women are having second thoughts about whether a husband is for life, while support is growing for same-sex marriage.

The University of Melbourne surveys the same 17,000 people each year for the annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia report (HILDA).

It found Australian attitudes were becoming more progressive, with 67 per cent of women and 59 per cent of men stating that homosexual couples should have the same marriage, parenting and employment rights as heterosexual couples.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/hilda-survey-marriage-equality-same-sex/8763124

opps :D :D

Gnads wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:25am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important.

Yes: removing the criminal coalition government.

Then we'll become a republic, and then a lesbian (and her wife) can become our first President.

Priorities, gonads.  Priorities.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:15am:

Australia's longest-running annual lifestyle survey has revealed women are having second thoughts about whether a husband is for life, while support is growing for same-sex marriage. The University of Melbourne surveys the same 17,000 people each year for the annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia report (HILDA). It found Australian attitudes were becoming more progressive, with 67 per cent of women and 59 per cent of men stating that homosexual couples should have the same marriage, parenting and employment rights as heterosexual couples. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/hilda-survey-marriage-equality-same-sex/8763124 opps :D :D

Did they ask the queer community?

The 'two women and the kids' has been going on for ages.  No surprise that many women don't  want to view a husband as for life - the grass is always greener somewhere else to women, and they care not a jot for the devastation they leave behind in their endless pursuit of their concept of personal happiness.

Maybe the Muss-lims have a point in keeping them at the bottom of the ladder - they don't get to play up or they are stoned.  After all, Islam is THE feminist religion, permitting women to be all they can be as mothers and wives and offering them a clear path to virtue and maintaining peace in the household - obey the strictures or die or cop a beating ... simple really.... and what more could any woman want?

We should be rounding up the mentally ill homos and liquidating them instead of giving them any rights.

Dr Mengele wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 11:12am:

We should be rounding up the mentally ill homos and liquidating them instead of giving them any rights.

Oddly enough - that could be the only way of resolving things in the West at this time, with all these outspoken groups getting far too much control and access to media and everything else.

Unless government actually takes a leadership role and starts telling these strident groups NO once in a while, we most certainly will become a classed society, with certain small  and vocal groups holding more rights and privileges than anyone else.

We already have a serious looming problem in that the most populous areas are rapidly becoming the province of multiple foreign groups, and thus the majority of voters in high density seats in many cities are becoming immigrants and refugees - who in many cases bring with them Third World business sense,  politics of self-advancement nepotism and croneyism, the clear 'entitlement' that the 'boss' is an absolute despot and the peasants take it or leave it, and the social sense of a rattle snake.  To that kind political position is just another means to procure riches for self and family - a practice and ideology not restricted to them, but certainly more prevalent and the 'natural' way of doing things.

Many such groups actively despise True Australians*, as clearly evidenced by recent comments from a few rather laughable sand monkeys, and spit all over the culture and nation that took them in and gave them shelter from the guns and knives of their 'old country'.

*How many such define themselves as their 'nationality', rather than as Australians?

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:10am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:25am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important. and will continue to be a distraction until it's resolved. Just get it over and done with and be done with it.

You yourself said that it should have been resolved years ago. Remember when Labor had that big majority from 2007-2010? And they still held office from 2010-2013.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics

This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle.

So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:31pm:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian.

Actually its a bit more complex than that.Over 50% wanted a plebiscite, but the key point is that 50% of those in the survey, wanted a binding plebiscite.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:39pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31pm: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian. Actually its a bit more complex than that.Over 50% wanted a plebiscite, but the key point is that 50% of those in the survey, wanted a binding plebiscite.

As far as I am aware though (and my legal knowledge has never been a strong point) a plebiscite cannot ever be fully binding. Nonetheless, I am almost certain that Coalition politicians would act in accordance with the way that the public voted.

Pauline Hanson is against homosexual marriage and she said that she would vote for it in the parliament if that is the way that the electorate voted.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:39pm: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31pm: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian. Actually its a bit more complex than that.Over 50% wanted a plebiscite, but the key point is that 50% of those in the survey, wanted a binding plebiscite. As far as I am aware though (and my legal knowledge has never been a strong point) a plebiscite cannot ever be fully binding. Nonetheless, I am almost certain that Coalition politicians would act in accordance with the way that the public voted.

"A plebiscite is not binding of parliamentarians, and there have been a number of Coalition MPs who have said they would either abstain from the vote or vote against any legislation".

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Pauline Hanson is against homosexual marriage and she said that she would vote for it in the parliament if that is the way that the electorate voted.

Then thats idiotic. Shes elected to represent the electorate. If she ignores the electorates wishes she should resign.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:31pm:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian.

And in other Polls, when it is known that this plebiscite will cost about $180M, support for it collapses to around 40%.

The Liberal heavies come out with threats and well done Warren Entsch for giving them the forks.

Link.

The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 2:36pm:

The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy.

Really....yet that is what they do....day in, day out......vote in Parliament on Bills.  Not democracy?

Aussie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 2:45pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Really....yet that is what they do....day in, day out......vote in Parliament on Bills.  Not democracy?

This issue went to the people in the last election, their was a clear mandate for a plebiscite, Shorten the poof pops his head up and tells Australians to ffkk of. not much democracy their.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 3:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Really....yet that is what they do....day in, day out......vote in Parliament on Bills.  Not democracy? This issue went to the people in the last election, their was a clear mandate for a plebiscite, Shorten the poof pops his head up and tells Australians to ffkk of. not much democracy their.

The good old 'mandate' argument.  As for 'clear' ~ I'd hardly call a one seat majority anything like 'clear.'

But to go back to your mandate position.  Just because a Party goes to an election with a grab bag of many policies/promises.......if they are elected, it does not follow that the majority supported every item in that grab bag.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 3:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:45pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Really....yet that is what they do....day in, day out......vote in Parliament on Bills.  Not democracy? This issue went to the people in the last election, their there was a clear mandate for a plebiscite ...

"Though federal election outcomes are traditionally called by political commentators on election night, even during the following day the outcome could not be predicted, with many close seats in doubt.

"After a week of vote counting, still no party had won enough seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives to form a majority government.

"Neither the incumbent Turnbull Government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of the Liberal/National Coalition nor the Shorten Opposition led by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten of the Australian Labor Party were in a position to concede defeat or claim victory.

"Many political commentators predicted a hung parliament such as occurred at the 2010 election."

"clear mandate"      ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:55pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:39pm: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31pm: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian. Actually its a bit more complex than that.Over 50% wanted a plebiscite, but the key point is that 50% of those in the survey, wanted a binding plebiscite. As far as I am aware though (and my legal knowledge has never been a strong point) a plebiscite cannot ever be fully binding. Nonetheless, I am almost certain that Coalition politicians would act in accordance with the way that the public voted. "A plebiscite is not binding of parliamentarians, and there have been a number of Coalition MPs who have said they would either abstain from the vote or vote against any legislation".

I think that's wrong. I am 100% opposed to homosexual marriage but if the people were to vote for it then I would accept it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 2:02pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:51pm: Pauline Hanson is against homosexual marriage and she said that she would vote for it in the parliament if that is the way that the electorate voted. Then thats idiotic. Shes elected to represent the electorate. If she ignores the electorates wishes she should resign.

:-? I think that you'd misunderstood something.

Aussie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:31pm: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/guardian-essential-poll-finds-most-voters-sick-of-australias-polarised-politics This is a pretty recent poll. It found that 50% support the plebiscite, 23% want a parliamentary vote. I am assuming 27% in th middle. So there we go, the plebiscite has more support than a parliamentary vote, and this poll is from the far-left Guardian. And in other Polls, when it is known that this plebiscite will cost about $180M, support for it collapses to around 40%.

Link?

And like any Labor polly has any talking room on wasted money.

Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything.

It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing. 

I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:10am: Gnads wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:25am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important. and will continue to be a distraction until it's resolved. Just get it over and done with and be done with it. You yourself said that it should have been resolved years ago. Remember when Labor had that big majority from 2007-2010? And they still held office from 2010-2013.

Who gives a fkk about coulda woulda shoulda ... the libs are in govt. now. Just get it sorted and move on

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D

No it doesnt quite cover them.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 3:34pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:02pm: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:51pm: Pauline Hanson is against homosexual marriage and she said that she would vote for it in the parliament if that is the way that the electorate voted. Then thats idiotic. Shes elected to represent the electorate. If she ignores the electorates wishes she should resign. :-? I think that you'd misunderstood something.

Yes my error. Still one good thing out of all the other BS shes come up with isn't much. Plus she only said she would, I'd wait to see if she actually did.

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D

The only valid argument I've heard is in hospital in an emergency or end of life situation the SS partner of a patient can be excluded from decisions etc.

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Nonetheless, I am almost certain that Coalition politicians would act in accordance with the way that the public voted.

At least 4 have already come out and said they'll vote no regardless of the outcome.

Gordon wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:13pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D The only valid argument I've heard is in hospital in an emergency or end of life situation the SS partner of a patient can be excluded from decisions etc.

All the arguments needed.

Gordon wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:13pm:

The only valid argument I've heard is in hospital in an emergency or end of life situation the SS partner of a patient can be excluded from decisions etc.

wasn't there also something about being excluded from access to a partners super after they pass away?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:04pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them.

How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered.

Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"...


http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 2:36pm:

The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy.

Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different?

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:16pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/

ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted.

Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.

The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner.

Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:17pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different?

It is the MARRIAGE word ....  ;)

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:16pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:13pm: The only valid argument I've heard is in hospital in an emergency or end of life situation the SS partner of a patient can be excluded from decisions etc. wasn't there also something about being excluded from access to a partners super after they pass away?

Yeah but only without a will in place. You could leave your super to a cane toad with a well written will.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:17pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different?

Refer to my original answer to aussie.

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:17pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different? It is the MARRIAGE word ....  ;)

So smacking what? It's a bill.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:20pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:17pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different? Refer to my original answer to aussie.

That answer you gave Aussie only works the basis that SSM plebiscite was the only issue the Australian public voted on.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities.

ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP!

In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:17pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different? Refer to my original answer to aussie. That answer you gave Aussie only works the basis that SSM plebiscite was the only issue the Australian public voted on.

Which was what 'Aussie' also pointed out.  This one is a farqwit, is all.

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:23pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities. ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D

I'm sorry I posted that from the human rights commission.And in any event why does SSM bother you? Frankly it doesn't bother me, but I think I'm more libertarian than many of the claimed liberarians on here. What consenting couples do is none of my concern, and if we're supposedly a free country, everyone should be free to do what they essentially want without hurting anyone else.

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:23pm:

ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP!

you've no friggen idea.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:26pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! you've no friggen idea.

I'm sure everyone at OzPol is totally shocked to read that!

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:17pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different? Refer to my original answer to aussie. That answer you gave Aussie only works the basis that SSM plebiscite was the only issue the Australian public voted on.

How do you know, I voted liberal for the first time in my life because of this issue , and possibly millions of others did to, it probably got them over the line. Poofs dust off your closets.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities. ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D I'm sorry I posted that from the human rights commission.And in any event why does SSM bother you? Frankly it doesn't bother me, but I think I'm more libertarian than many of the claimed liberarians on here. What consenting couples do is none of my concern, and if we're supposedly a free country, everyone should be free to do what they essentially want without hurting anyone else.

I am a Libertarian as well and agree with you in the main. However, there are far more pressing concerns than whether homosexuals can/should get married.

Ask anybody and they will tell you that keeping cats indoors is a MAJOR concern and that there should be some legislation about it.

Tons of stuff that needs legislation to stop. Geeze. Nobody can smoke any more ... anywhere.  I gave up years ago but ..... what next?

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:26pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! you've no friggen idea.

I love you too, Johnnie.  ;)

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:26pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! you've no friggen idea. I love you too, Johnnie.  ;)

:-* :-* :-*

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities. ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D I'm sorry I posted that from the human rights commission.And in any event why does SSM bother you? Frankly it doesn't bother me, but I think I'm more libertarian than many of the claimed liberarians on here. What consenting couples do is none of my concern, and if we're supposedly a free country, everyone should be free to do what they essentially want without hurting anyone else.

Economy can't afford any more tax concessions and freebies... it might seem to the politicians in their ivory tower that there are countless billions to be thrown around.. but the economy says otherwise...

Let the people decide - buggar the parliament.....(wait a minute...)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 6:11pm:

Economy can't afford any more tax concessions and freebies...

what tax concessions and freebies?


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 6:11pm:

Let the people decide - buggar the parliament...

didn't you just say we can't afford freebies ... why waste $160m on an opinion poll when many have already said they'l ignore it? let parliament decide, costs us no more than what we already pay them

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:04pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:21pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:10am: Gnads wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:25am: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:29pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 7:28pm: But, but, but, it is such a popular measure.  popular or not, they had other things to worry about And that's what I said before ..... there are other things to worry about ... it's a distraction from what's really important. and will continue to be a distraction until it's resolved. Just get it over and done with and be done with it. You yourself said that it should have been resolved years ago. Remember when Labor had that big majority from 2007-2010? And they still held office from 2010-2013. Who gives a fkk about coulda woulda shoulda ... the libs are in govt. now. Just get it sorted and move on

I do because of it reeks of rank hypocrisy to criticise one side for not doing something that the previous side could have easily done.

Why are you so partisan and unable to ever criticise Labor over which you do criticise the Libs?

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 6:57pm:

I do because of it reeks of rank hypocrisy to criticise one side for not doing something that the previous side could have easily done.

you're assuming labor weren't criticised for not acting at the time? ::) ::)

What is certain however is that what does qualify as rank hypocrisy is to criticise labor for not having done it 5 or 10 yrs ago, whilst at the same time defending the libs for not doing it now.  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:10am:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:34am: What has worked for so long should not be changed in a whim of a sub generation. worked well? how so? almost 50% divorce rate, millions of kids in single parent families worked a treat hasn't it :D :D

And of course same sex relationships will be set in concrete, there won' t be any divorces there will there?

For ferks sake ..... all this will do will line the pockets of divorce lawyers with another demographic.

It's already a thing with the change partners at a drop of the hat celebrity circuit ... no difference to the hetrosexual exchange rate.

It's just like the wank that females had to be allowed access to any previously male only associations or clubs .....

then for a plethora of female only clubs to open across the country.

We want it because we want it... just for the hell of it ....

not that there is anything stopping them from being in a relationship now ... which can be bought to court for distribution of assets come the cessation of the relationship.

Amusing how so many of the gay couples that go through some sort of ceremony ... especially gay females .... one looks like & wears blokes clothes & the other is the feminine lady type.  ::)

It's an unimportant distraction from the important issues confronting this country ....

and No Smithy "most" people didn't want or cared about it being sorted out ages ago .............

most people think it a nonsense ...... and that's what it is.

Gnads wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:18pm:

And of course same sex relationships will be set in concrete, there won' t be any divorces there will there?

i'm not the one who made any claims about how well it will or won't work, that was you.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:00pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 6:57pm: I do because of it reeks of rank hypocrisy to criticise one side for not doing something that the previous side could have easily done. you're assuming labor weren't criticised for not acting at the time? ::) ::) What is certain however is that what does qualify as rank hypocrisy is to criticise labor for not having done it 5 or 10 yrs ago, whilst at the same time defending the libs for not doing it now.  :D :D :D

1. It is more than a little odd that you said that it could have been resolved years ago but you don't actually blame Labor for that when they were in office for six years.

2. Your second 'point' has no point. It is completely in accurate. The government HAS moved. They took their election policy of having a plebiscite to the Senate and Labor, the Greens, Xenophon and Hinch decided to block it. How on earth does that constitute as not having moved?

And I am no supporter or defender of this government. Read any of my posts in the last year and you would know that.

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:25pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities. ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D I'm sorry I posted that from the human rights commission.And in any event why does SSM bother you? Frankly it doesn't bother me, but I think I'm more libertarian than many of the claimed liberarians on here. What consenting couples do is none of my concern, and if we're supposedly a free country, everyone should be free to do what they essentially want without hurting anyone else. I am a Libertarian as well and agree with you in the main. However, there are far more pressing concerns than whether homosexuals can/should get married. Ask anybody and they will tell you that keeping cats indoors is a MAJOR concern and that there should be some legislation about it. Tons of stuff that needs legislation to stop. Geeze. Nobody can smoke any more ... anywhere.  I gave up years ago but ..... what next?

Yes the legislation should be that all cat owners have to keep their moggies indoors .......

instead of roaming the neighborhood shitting in everyones gardens/yards & pissing over everything marking territory, killing native birds, lizards & marsupials etc etc etc.  ::)

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:27pm:

1. It is more than a little odd that you said that it could have been resolved years ago but you don't actually blame Labor for that when they were in office for six years.

are you on drugs? I said it should have been resolved years ago ... I didn't blame one party or the other. I do however blame the current government for their current inaction. YOU seem to be stuck on blaming the other party rather than accepting that it is only the current government who can act NOW.


matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:27pm:

2. Your second 'point' has no point. It is completely in accurate. The government HAS moved. They took their election policy of having a plebiscite to the Senate and Labor, the Greens, Xenophon and Hinch decided to block it. How on earth does that constitute as not having moved?

the plebiscite wasn't action, it was a stalling tactic. Designed to fool the gullible. There is no point to a pleb when many have said they'll ignore it


matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:27pm:

And I am no supporter or defender of this government. Read any of my posts in the last year and you would know that.

you might not like turdball, but that's doesn't stop you being biased against labor

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:18pm: And of course same sex relationships will be set in concrete, there won' t be any divorces there will there? i'm not the one who made any claims about how well it will or won't work, that was you.

Crap .... so why is it an important issue?

Gnads wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:19pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:18pm: And of course same sex relationships will be set in concrete, there won' t be any divorces there will there? i'm not the one who made any claims about how well it will or won't work, that was you. Crap .... so why is it an important issue?

WHo said it was important?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 6:56am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 6:07am: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:35pm: Do they remember the last election and the promise of a plebiscite. With a bit of luck it will go to a postal vote. That's terrible. I would prefer it if they brought back anti-sodomite laws. Those animals should be in a zoo. but how would groggy connect to the internet from the zoo?  :-/

No phone for Greggy.

John Smith wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 7:34pm:

matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: 1. It is more than a little odd that you said that it could have been resolved years ago but you don't actually blame Labor for that when they were in office for six years. are you on drugs? I said it should have been resolved years ago ... I didn't blame one party or the other. I do however blame the current government for their current inaction. YOU seem to be stuck on blaming the other party rather than accepting that it is only the current government who can act NOW. matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: 2. Your second 'point' has no point. It is completely in accurate. The government HAS moved. They took their election policy of having a plebiscite to the Senate and Labor, the Greens, Xenophon and Hinch decided to block it. How on earth does that constitute as not having moved? the plebiscite wasn't action, it was a stalling tactic. Designed to fool the gullible. There is no point to a pleb when many have said they'll ignore it matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: And I am no supporter or defender of this government. Read any of my posts in the last year and you would know that. you might not like turdball, but that's doesn't stop you being biased against labor

This was your post earlier John:

I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote.

That is only blaming the Coalition. You said I blame Labor. That's not tru at all. I don't blame either side, I don't support the issue so why on Earth would I blame them for not bringing it in??

If Labor (or the cross bench) just supported the Plebiscite then it would be dealt with but they won't so that's their fault. I may have been a bit biased against Labor in the past that honestly at the moment I couldn't care less who wins the next election, I hate both sides equally.

Let the people decide... buggar the politicians......

If the people vote YES - I'm quite happy to continue my current position - it's a joke but who really cares?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:31pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:21pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:20pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:17pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 2:36pm: The politicians in no way represent the general public, they are poofs living in an alternate universe. a free vote in parliament would be a farce and a kick in the guts for democracy. Seriously? As Aussie said, they do that every single day voting on every single bill. Why is this bill so different? Refer to my original answer to aussie. That answer you gave Aussie only works the basis that SSM plebiscite was the only issue the Australian public voted on. How do you know, I voted liberal for the first time in my life because of this issue , and possibly millions of others did to, it probably got them over the line. Poofs dust off your closets.

i cal;l bollocks

Neferti wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 5:35pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:25pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:23pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:16pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:04pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:46pm: Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway? They can already live together in a relationship, like "normal" couples who don't want to get married.  The same Law covers them. Split and share everything. It isn't "illegal" to live with somebody of the same sex, IF that is your thing.  I can live here with my dog or cat or pet fish and nobody gives a crap. However I don't want to stick a ring through the nose of my "pets". Cats, especially, often last longer than a marriage does.  ;D No it doesnt quite cover them. How? Anyone who shacks up with their "partner". "lover" or whatever IS covered. Please note the bit that states "who may be of the same or opposite sex"... http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/ ame-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted. Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets. Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner. The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities. ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP! In any event, why does it bother you? Doesn't you cat like your boyfriend?  ;D I'm sorry I posted that from the human rights commission.And in any event why does SSM bother you? Frankly it doesn't bother me, but I think I'm more libertarian than many of the claimed liberarians on here. What consenting couples do is none of my concern, and if we're supposedly a free country, everyone should be free to do what they essentially want without hurting anyone else. I am a Libertarian as well and agree with you in the main. However, there are far more pressing concerns than whether homosexuals can/should get married. Ask anybody and they will tell you that keeping cats indoors is a MAJOR concern and that there should be some legislation about it. Tons of stuff that needs legislation to stop. Geeze. Nobody can smoke any more ... anywhere.  I gave up years ago but ..... what next?

There is legislation i hae to keep my cat indoors

matty wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 9:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:34pm: matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: 1. It is more than a little odd that you said that it could have been resolved years ago but you don't actually blame Labor for that when they were in office for six years. are you on drugs? I said it should have been resolved years ago ... I didn't blame one party or the other. I do however blame the current government for their current inaction. YOU seem to be stuck on blaming the other party rather than accepting that it is only the current government who can act NOW. matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: 2. Your second 'point' has no point. It is completely in accurate. The government HAS moved. They took their election policy of having a plebiscite to the Senate and Labor, the Greens, Xenophon and Hinch decided to block it. How on earth does that constitute as not having moved? the plebiscite wasn't action, it was a stalling tactic. Designed to fool the gullible. There is no point to a pleb when many have said they'll ignore it matty wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 7:27pm: And I am no supporter or defender of this government. Read any of my posts in the last year and you would know that. you might not like turdball, but that's doesn't stop you being biased against labor This was your post earlier John: I agree .... most people wanted this sorted years ago. It's only the conservanuts that have stopped it going to a vote. That is only blaming the Coalition. You said I blame Labor. That's not tru at all. I don't blame either side, I don't support the issue so why on Earth would I blame them for not bringing it in?? If Labor (or the cross bench) just supported the Plebiscite then it would be dealt with but they won't so that's their fault. I may have been a bit biased against Labor in the past that honestly at the moment I couldn't care less who wins the next election, I hate both sides equally.

I'm blaming the coalition because they're in government now. It's up to them to deal with the issue now. No good worrying about what shoulda woulda coulda happened years ago.

Even If labor had supported the pleb. it would not have been dealt with. At best you may have had a pleb by now, although I think it would be unlikely. You'd then still have to take it to a vote in parliament. The pleb is nothing but a stalling tactic bought on by Abbott to try and placate the pro gay marriage crowd, and it's now being used by turnbull to placate the conservanuts in his party.

5 Tips For People Worried About Same-Sex Marriage

One of the most hotly contested ideas of the last few years is being debated again. Should we allow two people of the same sex to get married now, or should we wait a bit, spend $160 million, wait a bit more, and then allow them to do it?

Who knows what will happen. Either way, it looks like same sex marriage will become a thing in Australia at some point this century. So if that makes you feel a little bit weird – here are some tips to deal with it.



Tip 1: Don’t marry a gay person

Easier said than done, we know. But trust us, if you commit to this one rule, you won’t be affected by same sex marriage at all. Literally not at all. Guaranteed. It seemed too good to be true to us too. But we tried it, and it actually really works – just use your very best self discipline to stop yourself from marrying someone of the same sex, and you won’t have a thing to worry about.



Tip 2: Don’t go to same sex weddings

You’ll no doubt be invited to loads, so this could be a tough one to stick to. But you’ll need to resist the urge to go along, otherwise you could catch gay. Just tell the bride and bride you’ve got something else on that night. Like a heterosexual rights rally or something.



Tip 3: Don’t think about gay sex

Just don’t think about it. If you’re against gay marriage, the worst thing you can do is imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind.



Tip 4: Move somewhere else

Make sure you choose somewhere where they’re unlikely to legalise marriage equality anytime soon. Saudi Arabia is our pick. You’ll fit right in. And if you don’t, they’ll just force you to, so it’s easy.



Tip 5: Take comfort in the bible

You know that marriage was meant for people called Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So you’ll also agree with Psalm 137 that says you should throw your baby against a stone wall. It’s a great way to blow off some steam when you get angry about the fact that same-sex marriage is legal.

And remember, God says that your marriage is better than a gay person’s. (He also said you shouldn’t wear clothing made of two different types of material. But just ignore that bit).


http://www.theshovel.com.au/2017/08/01/5-tips-for-people-worried-about-same-sex-marriage/

Tip 1: Don’t marry a gay person

"Easier said than done, we know. But trust us, if you commit to this one rule, you won’t be affected by same sex marriage at all. Literally not at all. Guaranteed. It seemed too good to be true to us too. But we tried it, and it actually really works – just use your very best self discipline to stop yourself from marrying someone of the same sex, and you won’t have a thing to worry about."

Good advice, but will our resident righties have the willpower?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 10:23am:

Tip 1: Don’t marry a gay person "Easier said than done, we know. But trust us, if you commit to this one rule, you won’t be affected by same sex marriage at all. Literally not at all. Guaranteed. It seemed too good to be true to us too. But we tried it, and it actually really works – just use your very best self discipline to stop yourself from marrying someone of the same sex, and you won’t have a thing to worry about." Good advice, but will our resident righties have the willpower?

Yes. As soon as they realise this, we can work on their obsession with tip no. 3.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 10:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 10:23am: Tip 1: Don’t marry a gay person "Easier said than done, we know. But trust us, if you commit to this one rule, you won’t be affected by same sex marriage at all. Literally not at all. Guaranteed. It seemed too good to be true to us too. But we tried it, and it actually really works – just use your very best self discipline to stop yourself from marrying someone of the same sex, and you won’t have a thing to worry about." Good advice, but will our resident righties have the willpower? Yes. As soon as they realise this, we can work on their obsession with tip no. 3.

Yeah, that one's gonna take a lot more work.

Looking forward to next week of parliament  :)

Its time wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:03am:

Looking forward to next week of parliament  :)

I don't want one second of parliament time wasted over sodomites.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:53am:

Its time wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:03am: Looking forward to next week of parliament  :) I don't want one second of parliament time wasted over sodomites.

Tip 3: Don’t think about gay sex

Just don’t think about it. If you’re against gay marriage, the worst thing you can do is imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:54am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:53am: Its time wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:03am: Looking forward to next week of parliament  :) I don't want one second of parliament time wasted over sodomites. Tip 3: Don’t think about gay sex Just don’t think about it. If you’re against gay marriage, the worst thing you can do is imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind.

It's an abomination.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:56am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:54am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:53am: Its time wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:03am: Looking forward to next week of parliament  :) I don't want one second of parliament time wasted over sodomites. Tip 3: Don’t think about gay sex Just don’t think about it. If you’re against gay marriage, the worst thing you can do is imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind. It's an abomination.

Just don’t think about it. If you’re against gay marriage, the worst thing you can do is imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind.

who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby.

rhino wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 12:00pm:

who would of thought

Not you, that's for sure.

"Who would have thought".

;D ... Poor Rhino. He struggles.

Its time wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:03am:

Looking forward to next week of parliament  :)

So am I.

It means those sticking Liberals will get out of my city.

bobbys worried his boyfriends parents will make them marry.


;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 12:48pm:

Its time wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:03am: Looking forward to next week of parliament  :) So am I. It means those sticking Liberals will get out of my city.

didn't that great premier you have tell turnbull not to bother coming unless he was prepared to cough up some more GST?  ;D ;D ;D

rhino wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 12:00pm:

who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby.

He's turning Ozpolitic into a homo forum.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:07pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 12:00pm: who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby. He's turning Ozpolitic into a homo forum.

You've got to admit, Bobby. It's a bit of a sausage fest on here.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 1:07pm: rhino wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 12:00pm: who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby. He's turning Ozpolitic into a homo forum. You've got to admit, Bobby. It's a bit of a sausage fest on here.

It's a shocker -
especially considering there are only 3 poofs who post here:

Greggy
Smithy
Karnal.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:12pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 1:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 1:07pm: rhino wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 12:00pm: who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby. He's turning Ozpolitic into a homo forum. You've got to admit, Bobby. It's a bit of a sausage fest on here. It's a shocker - especially considering there are only 3 poofs who post here: Greggy Smithy Karnal.

Oh think there's a few on here who could be so persuaded ... if rubbed up the right way.

And a great many react strongly to it because they've thought about it and it scares the crap out them.

It doesn't scare Greg, John or Karnal. They're just engaging in a more sophisticated sexual banter than the rest of you sausage wielders.

From my perspective, it's very, very amusing.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:07pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 12:00pm: who would of thought Pecca would be all over detailing homosexual sex in a thread mentioning gays. Looks like you set him off Bobby. He's turning Ozpolitic into a homo forum.

We're all homos, Booby.

mothra wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:18pm:

It doesn't scare Greg, John or Karnal. They're just engaging in a more sophisticated sexual banter than the rest of you sausage wielders. From my perspective, it's very, very amusing.

Yes, sophisticated, thats it. Heres an example.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:57am:

imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind.

Sophisticated banter, must remember that one.

rhino wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 1:32pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 1:18pm: It doesn't scare Greg, John or Karnal. They're just engaging in a more sophisticated sexual banter than the rest of you sausage wielders. From my perspective, it's very, very amusing. Yes, sophisticated, thats it. Heres an example. greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:57am: imagine two men, totally naked, having sex. That’s just not going to be appealing to you, so don’t think about it. Just clear the thought of two erect penises right from your mind. Sophisticated banter, must remember that one.

Poor Rhino. It was just a copy and paste of tip 3.

Was it hard for you to reconcile?