You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right?

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right?

Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab.

Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression.

But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy.

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy.

So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does.

where is the discrimination bojack?

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack?

Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness.

I really dont believe you asked that question.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does.

Like I said, no they are not. But the difference is very minimal and the similarity very maximal.

That's not my point, by the way. I disagree with you on that and am happy to have that debate but my point is why legislate one thing just because the public agrees with it and not another when the public also agrees with that?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question.

No, they shouldn't be banned, nor should the hijab.

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:56pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. Like I said, no they are not. But the difference is very minimal and the similarity very maximal. That's not my point, by the way. I disagree with you on that and am happy to have that debate but my point is why legislate one thing just because the public agrees with it and not another when the public also agrees with that?

Well because I dispute your statement of the difference being very minimal. Again, you havent explained why  its not discriminatory to ban the burqa. You are impacting on religious practice. Same sex marriage is not, since its not banning church heterosexual marraige.

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:53pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question. No, they shouldn't be banned, nor should the hijab.

So why should the burqa be banned?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question.

really   we are talking about FACE COVERING are we not..

when was the last time you saw a nun with her face covered..or a witness with his face covered ?????


or dont you see the difference in them either pet? >:( >:(


I can believe you gave that reply to be honest...

but it is what this has come down too...the Burqa does not belong in this country..... anymore than walking around with a ski mask on does ......it has neither religious nor cultural affiliations

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:53pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question. No, they shouldn't be banned, nor should the hijab. So why should the burqa be banned?

BECAUSE IT COVERS THE WHOLE FACE.......BECAUSE SOME HAVE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN THE POLICE HAVE REQUESTED THEM TOO...ALL SORTS OF REASONS ACTUALLY....

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:56pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. Like I said, no they are not. But the difference is very minimal and the similarity very maximal. That's not my point, by the way. I disagree with you on that and am happy to have that debate but my point is why legislate one thing just because the public agrees with it and not another when the public also agrees with that? Well because I dispute your statement of the difference being very minimal. Again, you havent explained why  its not discriminatory to ban the burqa. You are impacting on religious practice. Same sex marriage is not, since its not banning church heterosexual marraige.

Once again, I am going to attempt to explain the point to you. That is not the issue here. As a democracy, you lot say that the parliament should pass legislation on something (with which you agree) because polls show that most people support it. However when it is the identical case but for something with which you don't agree, you don't support it. Why the double standard?

Happy to address the other points but not until you address that, as that is the point of this topic.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:53pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question. No, they shouldn't be banned, nor should the hijab. So why should the burqa be banned?

cods just explained it well.

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:02pm:

BECAUSE IT COVERS THE WHOLE FACE...........

So does this:

http://www.gottfriedmedical.com/custom_compression-garments/face-masks_chin-straps/images/430.png

And this:

http://www.sportsmascots.ca/sports-mascots-canada/7.jpg

And this:

http://hative.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/diy-halloween-mask-crafts/19-soap-bubble-monster-mask.jpg

Quote:

BECAUSE SOME HAVE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN THE POLICE HAVE REQUESTED THEM TOO...ALL SORTS OF REASONS ACTUALLY....

Cods, if a Copper approached you and instructed you to remove your top and bra in public, would you?

(Readers, please do not attempt to visualise that scene in the extraordinary event cods actually complies with the instruction.)

Aussie wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

Quote: BECAUSE SOME HAVE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN THE POLICE HAVE REQUESTED THEM TOO...ALL SORTS OF REASONS ACTUALLY.... Cods, if a Copper approached you and instructed you to remove your top and bra in public, would you? (Readers, please do not attempt to visualise that scene in the extraordinary event cods actually complies with the instruction.)

so amusing what has that got to do with showing your face for identification..?????

you have already told us you wouldnt allow anyone wearing one in your cab...

so why should a cop take that risk?...why should a Bank why should a late night shop or petrol station..


if you allow one you allow them all... you cannot put a curfew on wearing it...

as for sledging me...go ahead if it makes  you feel important...at least you are leaving other females alone..for a change.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 4:02pm: BECAUSE IT COVERS THE WHOLE FACE........... So does this: http://www.gottfriedmedical.com/custom_compression-garments/face-masks_chin-straps/images/430.png And this: http://www.sportsmascots.ca/sports-mascots-canada/7.jpg

you have used that to prove a point in the past  it does nothing for your image in fact it makes you look like a dickhead...

that person who wears those masks does not do so because they see it as a work of art... or something to be proud of....or ashamed of.. which ever way those people think that do wear the burqa.....

you being an authority   you would know more than I   

all I know is what I like to see in this country...and if they want my vote its a big fat YES BAN IT><

its a shame you lefties   dont grow up... we have been waiting for years for you to get some commonsense   it just doesn happen....

Aussie wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

Quote: BECAUSE SOME HAVE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN THE POLICE HAVE REQUESTED THEM TOO...ALL SORTS OF REASONS ACTUALLY.... Cods, if a Copper approached you and instructed you to remove your top and bra in public, would you? (Readers, please do not attempt to visualise that scene in the extraordinary event cods actually complies with the instruction.)

Your time for theatrics is long gone. Cease and Desist haranguing Cods.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/jobs/policeman-smiley-emoticon-1.gif

Neferti wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 4:16pm: Quote: BECAUSE SOME HAVE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN THE POLICE HAVE REQUESTED THEM TOO...ALL SORTS OF REASONS ACTUALLY.... Cods, if a Copper approached you and instructed you to remove your top and bra in public, would you? (Readers, please do not attempt to visualise that scene in the extraordinary event cods actually complies with the instruction.) Your time for theatrics is long gone. Cease and Desist haranguing Cods. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/jobs/policeman-smiley-emoticon-1.gif

he cant help himself nef.. agnes isnt here for him to stir constantly....and monk isnt here to give him an excuse to antagonise members......the fact that relationships is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion  doesnt bother him as much as taking a swipe at cods...

whats that saying..

simple things for .........

...minds like yours cods and Nappy's, who hang off every word I post.

Another attempt to get attention by trying to sensationalize fake news.

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:58pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:56pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. Like I said, no they are not. But the difference is very minimal and the similarity very maximal. That's not my point, by the way. I disagree with you on that and am happy to have that debate but my point is why legislate one thing just because the public agrees with it and not another when the public also agrees with that? Well because I dispute your statement of the difference being very minimal. Again, you havent explained why  its not discriminatory to ban the burqa. You are impacting on religious practice. Same sex marriage is not, since its not banning church heterosexual marraige. Once again, I am going to attempt to explain the point to you. That is not the issue here. As a democracy, you lot say that the parliament should pass legislation on something (with which you agree) because polls show that most people support it. However when it is the identical case but for something with which you don't agree, you don't support it. Why the double standard? Happy to address the other points but not until you address that, as that is the point of this topic.

Actuallly it is the issue, my suggestion is that you can't see the difference, I keep trying to explain the difference in the circumstances. Until you address that, what is the point of this and every other thread you start on this entirely non-important topic.

The real intriguing question: Why are the Lefties supporting this sick SSM rubbish ?

juliar wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

The real intriguing question: Why are the Lefties supporting this sick SSM rubbish ?

Followed by the more relevant question? Why are you so subjectively biased. Aboott could come out in support of SSM tomorrow, and all of a sudden juliar supports SSM

Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek gave a heartfelt speech on who she would be voting for.

“I’m voting yes for someone I have never met, for some 17-year-old somewhere in a country town who hasn’t told anyone that they are same-sex attracted,” she told reporters in Canberra.

“I’m voting yes for that person because no-one should feel alone, no-one should feel that they are being judged by the broad mass of the Australian community for who they are.

“Same-sex couples don’t deserve to have their relationships put to a vote of people who have never met them.

“So I will be voting yes because it’s the only fair thing to do.”


so Tanya will vote YES because she has met them....


hilarious......


so she thinks this will bring those 17 yr olds out of the closet... what a joke you are Tanya...

to think you are shadow Dep Leader...

matty wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right?

Yes....The Parliament was elected to make these decisions....I believe any proposal should be taken to an election so the public can show the politicians what they think at the ballot box!!!

:) :) :)

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 4:09pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 4:02pm: BECAUSE IT COVERS THE WHOLE FACE........... So does this: http://www.gottfriedmedical.com/custom_compression-garments/face-masks_chin-straps/images/430.png And this: http://www.sportsmascots.ca/sports-mascots-canada/7.jpg you have used that to prove a point in the past

And you still don't get it.

Until you do, I'll keep posting images like that.

I'm confident that one day the penny will drop.

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:53pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question. really   we are talking about FACE COVERING are we not.. when was the last time you saw a nun with her face covered..or a witness with his face covered ????? or dont you see the difference in them either pet? >:( >:( I can believe you gave that reply to be honest... but it is what this has come down too...the Burqa does not belong in this country..... anymore than walking around with a ski mask on does ......it has neither religious nor cultural affiliations

Quote:

when was the last time you saw a nun with her face covered

Probably around the late 1990's though when I was young it was common. I knew a number of Nuns for years who's face I have never seen.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1059/1231393188_82fe185961.jpg

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:02pm:

BECAUSE IT COVERS THE WHOLE FACE..........

You want the burka banned, because it covers the whole face - is that correct?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab.

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D



Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D



Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D



Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D



Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pastafarian has no god,... ooopps i mean clue  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:53pm: cods wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. where is the discrimination bojack? Umm, ok, so can we ban the nuns habit? Since thats apparently not discriminatory either. How about crappy suits worn by Jehovahs witness. I really dont believe you asked that question. really   we are talking about FACE COVERING are we not.. when was the last time you saw a nun with her face covered..or a witness with his face covered ????? or dont you see the difference in them either pet? >:( >:( I can believe you gave that reply to be honest... but it is what this has come down too...the Burqa does not belong in this country..... anymore than walking around with a ski mask on does ......it has neither religious nor cultural affiliations

Witnesses love to show their wives tits don't they??

:o :o

cods wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

its a shame you lefties   dont grow up... we have been waiting for years for you to get some commonsense   it just doesn happen....

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)


cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)



cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)


cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

cods : you talk absolute crap- most Labor voters hate the burqua ...and you know it but you are getting paid to take up internet address space for the fossil fuel profiteers  ;)

Go fake news: go russian trolls  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

juliar wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 5:42pm: The real intriguing question: Why are the Lefties supporting this sick SSM rubbish ? Followed by the more relevant question? Why are you so subjectively biased. Aboott could come out in support of SSM tomorrow, and all of a sudden juliar supports SSM

Is this some sort of good cop bad cop routine?

The pastafarian cares for nothing  ;D ;D ;D

juliar wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

The real intriguing question: Why are the Lefties supporting this sick SSM rubbish ?

The really REALLy intriguing question is why the capital L"iberal party is pretending to support this sick SSM... we all know only baby boomers want it to take everything away from their progeny  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Where is the future in that? (Atleast Malcom knows that much: that's why he gave the country a very fishy non compulsory survey  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o)

to be honest, i thought people would vote for it based on commercial decisions.  More weddings = more spending?

stunspore wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 11:40pm:

to be honest, i thought people would vote for it based on commercial decisions.  More weddings = more spending?

Yeh, possibly baby boomers would think like that ... and you may prove right  ::)

SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/.

It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from).

It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm.

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm.

Anarchy in other words  ;D

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm.

Only if you are a right winger who is always trying to attack others freedoms.

For the rest of us, we really have no concern what consenting adults do.

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:17am: SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm. Only if you are a right winger who is always trying to attack others freedoms. For the rest of us, we really have no concern what consenting adults do.

This is true as long as they don't impose themselves on the rest of us.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:56pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:46pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:44pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:42pm: matty wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 3:28pm: You say that because the polls show that most people support ssm, then the parliament should just vote on it. Well, by the same logic, most people support a ban on the burqa so the parliament should just vote for that too, right? Not really, cause by saying burqa ban, they havent even defined the problem. Its actually a niqab. Niqab and burqa are the same except the latter also covers the eyes. They're both symbols of female oppression. But thanks for confirming my point. It's not the principle that matters but whether or not you agree with the policy. So they aren't the same. But my actual response is that allowing SSM (whilst legislating for religious protections) doesnt discriminate against anyone, but banning the burqa/niqab does. Like I said, no they are not. But the difference is very minimal and the similarity very maximal. That's not my point, by the way. I disagree with you on that and am happy to have that debate but my point is why legislate one thing just because the public agrees with it and not another when the public also agrees with that? Well because I dispute your statement of the difference being very minimal. Again, you havent explained why  its not discriminatory to ban the burqa. You are impacting on religious practice. Same sex marriage is not, since its not banning church heterosexual marraige.

oh dear...  where do they all come from.
The burka and niqab are not religious garments nor does Islam require the wearing of them.
So YOU are wrong.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman...  religious ceremony or not.

It will impact on our society and laws.  Stupid people say... oh dearie me those poor LGTBIQ people how unfair they cant marry who they love.  It's not about love... lots of people cannot marry who they love.  If you want equality marry someone of the opposite sex.  Why should eons of tradition and acceptance be changed for a handful of people?  BTW... not even all gays want it.  So that makes it about .2% of the population.

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm.

Homophobic people have a higher chance of being gay, according to science

"It's no surprise that a number of studies have explored the reasons behind homophobia, and what makes homophobes tick.

"One plastically interesting study, conducted in 2012, presented evidence of a possible link between implicit homosexuality and homophobia.

"Put simply; it looks likely that a closeted gay man is more likely to be anti-gay. Surprising very few people."

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:17am: SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm. Homophobic people have a higher chance of being gay, according to science "It's no surprise that a number of studies have explored the reasons behind homophobia, and what makes homophobes tick. "One plastically interesting study, conducted in 2012, presented evidence of a possible link between implicit homosexuality and homophobia. "Put simply; it looks likely that a closeted gay man is more likely to be anti-gay. Surprising very few people."

Didn't you just say that?????!!!!

The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side:

Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it.

Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it.

matty wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side: Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it. Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it.

You mean the niqab

matty wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side: Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it. Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it.

Sides as aI explained to you before and you ignored whilst starting your 52nd thread on a non-important topic. Supporting SSM is not a discrimination issue, banning the burqa is.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 8:39am:

matty wrote on Sep 17th, 2017 at 11:27pm: The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side: Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it. Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it. You mean the niqab

No, the burqa. Although the niqab should be too.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 8:40am:

matty wrote on Sep 17th, 2017 at 11:27pm: The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side: Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it. Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it. Sides as aI explained to you before and you ignored whilst starting your 52nd thread on a non-important topic. Supporting SSM is not a discrimination issue, banning the burqa is.

The point still stands though, you cannot deny what I said.

On the issue itself I disagree anyway but that is a separate issue.

matty wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18th, 2017 at 8:40am: matty wrote on Sep 17th, 2017 at 11:27pm: The lefties on this thread just proved my point - it's not the principle that matters to you guys, it's the side: Most Australians support ssm - the Parliament should just pass it. Most Australians support banning the burqa - the Parliament should not pass it. Sides as aI explained to you before and you ignored whilst starting your 52nd thread on a non-important topic. Supporting SSM is not a discrimination issue, banning the burqa is. The point still stands though, you cannot deny what I said. On the issue itself I disagree anyway but that is a separate issue.

I just explained why you're wrong. Its not an equivalent argument because theres no equivalency between allowing something which has no discriminatory element to it and banning something (which will have a discriminatory element to it). Seriously, its times like these, I find it almost impossible to believe you're at uni

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:17am: SSM is an absurdity. Even if it becomes legal, nobody will take it seriously/. It's a joke like multiculturalism, the equality of all cultures, trannies in the military, 'male' mothers and thee rest of thee nonsense from the Rutting Crowd (the one you want to be far from). It's perverts seeking acceptance of their perversity. Legalisation doesn't make perverts normal. Pervert is not a legal concept. We do tolerate them but we do not want them to set themselves up as the norm. Homophobic people have a higher chance of being gay, according to science "It's no surprise that a number of studies have explored the reasons behind homophobia, and what makes homophobes tick. "One plastically interesting study, conducted in 2012, presented evidence of a possible link between implicit homosexuality and homophobia. "Put simply; it looks likely that a closeted gay man is more likely to be anti-gay. Surprising very few people."

1.  Define 'anti-gay' in the context of these studies.  Bald statements don't carry....

2. Clarify this 'possible link'.....

3.  Return to basics and provide a workable definition of 'homophobia'.

4.  It is clear from your post that it is gay men in the closet under scrutiny here, not normal men, so what is the relevance of this statement to the current issue?