Australian Politics Forum - Gillard comes out of the closet!

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #30 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:16pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

It is not normal and it will never be accepted as normal.

Why not just move on and accept what some of us, me included, are happy to offer - similar rights to a de-facto couple legally but no marriage.

That is hardly a difficult pill to swallow.

BUzz, the great al'mighty Andrei is offering similar rights!! Oooh, isn't he grand?

Grin

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #31 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

It's obvious.

Tell me how they are.

Is a car with no engine 'equal' to one with? It might look like a car, but it's not capable of doing the job it was meant to.

So, should a man with no testicles not be able to wed?

Perhaps they should change the marriage law to state that marriage is between a fully functioning male and a fully functional female.

What say you?

One could ask whether a man with no testicles is a man at all.

The problem with basing marriage on the condition of reproduction, is that it is beyond medical sciences capabilities to declare with 100% certainty that a particular man and a particular woman can conceive a child together, so the logistics of approving marriages would be a complete nightmare. Then there is the chance of accidnets and illness - if a couple got married and then the bloke got his nuts caught in an industrial mincer, would it be fair to dissolve the marriage?

But I can categorically state with 100% certainty, and a 0.000000% margin of error, that 2 men or 2 women cannot conceive a child together.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Gillard comes out of the closet! Reply #32 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm Not just me. So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman? Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #33 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:20pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Not just me.

So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman?

Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.

Because both the major parties are concerned at losing the bigoted bible bashing morons.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #34 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:21pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Not just me.

So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman?

Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.

Because both the major parties are concerned at losing the bigoted bible bashing morons.

But aren't you and your fellow progressives always bleating about how small a minority are opposed to homomarriage? if the picture you paint were accurate, there would be far more to gain than to lose.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #35 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:23pm

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Not just me.

So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman?

Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.

Because both the major parties are concerned at losing the bigoted bible bashing morons.

But aren't you and your fellow progressives always bleating about how small a minority are opposed to homomarriage? if the picture you paint were accurate, there would be far more to gain than to lose.

Yep.
This all seems to be the typical 'vocal minority' whining again about not getting their way when as usual they are trying to turn our society's norms on its head.

Look at the position here in California, you have a minority trying to overturn the vote of the PEOPLE on the gay marriage issue by way of the courts!!

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #36 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:24pm

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

One could ask whether a man with no testicles is a man at all.

The problem with basing marriage on the condition of reproduction, is that it is beyond medical sciences capabilities to declare with 100% certainty that a particular man and a particular woman can conceive a child together, so the logistics of approving marriages would be a complete nightmare. Then there is the chance of accidnets and illness - if a couple got married and then the bloke got his nuts caught in an industrial mincer, would it be fair to dissolve the marriage?

But I can categorically state with 100% certainty, and a 0.000000% margin of error, that 2 men or 2 women cannot conceive a child together.

But wes, if marriage is all about reproduction then its integrity needs to be upheld! What's wrong with running biannual tests on couples, and if it happens they are not able to reproduce those tax payers the government is giving them better treatment for, then yes, let's dissolve! After all, what's the point of the marriage then??

I can say with 0.0000% margin of error and 100% certainty that once a person loses their ability to reproduce they can't get it back. Might as well get the big brother out there, for the sake of integrity of the marriage act.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #37 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:25pm

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Not just me.

So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman?

Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.

Because both the major parties are concerned at losing the bigoted bible bashing morons.

But aren't you and your fellow progressives always bleating about how small a minority are opposed to homomarriage? if the picture you paint were accurate, there would be far more to gain than to lose.

True, that is why it is so pathetic watching them all scamper for the bigots vote.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #38 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:27pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:24pm:

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

One could ask whether a man with no testicles is a man at all.

The problem with basing marriage on the condition of reproduction, is that it is beyond medical sciences capabilities to declare with 100% certainty that a particular man and a particular woman can conceive a child together, so the logistics of approving marriages would be a complete nightmare. Then there is the chance of accidnets and illness - if a couple got married and then the bloke got his nuts caught in an industrial mincer, would it be fair to dissolve the marriage?

But I can categorically state with 100% certainty, and a 0.000000% margin of error, that 2 men or 2 women cannot conceive a child together.

But wes, if marriage is all about reproduction then its integrity needs to be upheld! What's wrong with running biannual tests on couples, and if it happens they are not able to reproduce those tax payers the government is giving them better treatment for, then yes, let's dissolve! After all, what's the point of the marriage then??

I can say with 0.0000% margin of error and 100% certainty that once a person loses their ability to reproduce they can't get it back. Might as well get the big brother out there, for the sake of integrity of the marriage act.

Doesn't stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.

Most couples who wed, have kids. That a small percentage do not, does not warrant a ludicrously expensive and invasive testing regime on everyone.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #39 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:29pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

Not just me.

So tell me, why is it that there is CONSENSUS amongst the two major parties that marriage is a man and a woman?

Hardly out on a limb here am I? It's the agreed point politically by all of note.

Some in politics claim to be religious and oppose it based on religious ground - fair enough, at least it's something I can understand.

Others believe in running nanny states where every aspect of life is controlled.

And others, such as yourself, have no real reason to oppose it other than their own bias and phobia of the thought.

And like I've always said, I can understand a reason, but at least admit your true reason, regardless of how society may view it.

See -
"I don't believe based on my religious belief" - OK, I get it.
"I'm a bigot" - OK, I get it.
"It's not equal because they can't reproduce" - sorry, don't get it. We've moved on from this being the purpose of a marriage, as correctly detailled in the marriage act itself. Show me the line where it says the act is for reproduction, OR for allowance of reproduction to commence.

And PS: Australian Society does support gay marriage. It just isn't being properly represented by the government. Which is a shame.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #40 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:32pm

... wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Doesn't stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.

Most couples who wed, have kids. That a small percentage do not, does not warrant a ludicrously expensive and invasive testing regime on everyone.

Disagree. Upholding the integrity of the system doesn't have a "warrant or not warrant" factor.

Not to mention that there are heaps of people who surpass their use by date - surely they don't need to be married anymore. And that's easy to work out, and again gives you 100% certainty.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Gillard comes out of the closet! Reply #41 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 3:04pm Equal rights for equals - a noble sentiment, eh? So the flip side of this is non-equal rights for non-equals. I'm afraid that rules out gay marriage.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Verge Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6329 Gender:	Re: Gillard comes out of the closet! Reply #42 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 3:08pm Gillards mind is set on the issue. If Bob and Penny cant pursuade her, these guys dont stand a chance. Waste of $31k.
Back to top	And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13 IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #43 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 3:10pm

My position on gay rights is actually very far to the Left of anyone else I know!!!

Hence my surprise at me being grouped as a bigot here.

My view is centre of the road.

I have no problem with gay folk, no problem with gay couples.
I think they should enjoy the same legal rights as does a de-facto couple, the provisions of inheritance as the partner etc etc

I also believe they should be entitled to register their relationship as a couple if they so choose.

The only provision I want is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Gillard comes out of the closet!
Reply #44 - Jun 16^th, 2011 at 3:11pm

Verge wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:

Gillards mind is set on the issue.

If Bob and Penny cant pursuade her, these guys dont stand a chance.

Waste of $31k.

Exactly, & why GetUp has received my last donation.
They actually lost my support by refusing to call Labor out for the Malaysian Solution.
Fvckin hypocrites if Howard or Abbott had proposed such the cries of RACIST would be heard in bloody Malaysia.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged