Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:48 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1091 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 28  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
Quote:

The fact is that 'left' and 'right' was a shit way of defining politics even at the moment the silly frogs were debating on the tennis court.


Rubbish. It is perfectly useful. It's a little 2D. But most intelligent and educated people can make the requisite leaps from there.

Besides, by referring to 'lefty intolerance' Santa is not making an all inclusive statement. That does not mean all lefties are intolerant all the time. It merely means that there is a brand of intolerance this is of the left. Just as there is a brand of intolerance of the right, and increasingly one of the centre too (an interesting recent emergence - the 'humble' and understated intolerance of the Economist / Davos class).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4238
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I wonder if this is such a terrific wedge issue for the "LEFT" because it scrambles with the usual concepts of negative and positive liberty.

The right to marriage for same sex couples is seen as a positive liberty by progressives, but they have also been able to argue successfully that a government intrusion to deny them that is a block on their negative liberty rights too. Which is typically where the right align their troops. In this case the negative liberty argument about freedom of religion is not sufficient in itself to counter the individual case for negative liberty.


Probably because it is a low impact negative liberty on religious objectors. The "LEFT" overstep the mark when they ignore the positive and negative liberty cases for people refusing to interacting with gay people in certain ways (e.g. cake makers).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33215
Location: Tropical North QLD
pieman99 wrote:
A century ago I imagine we'd be having a similar conversation about giving women the vote.


Yup, and there were lots of sincere arguments made against that at the time as well.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4238
guy smiley wrote:
Nah, you don't. You weave elaborate word bubbles that my more forthright friends refer to as headf**ks.


For most people there's nothing elaborate about what I said. Others struggle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
La soule wrote:
So Seneca, glad to see you are are still putting so much effort and dedication in hating the left, whatever that is.

A modern crusader our Seneca.


Go fck yourself you arsehole.

This is the guy who has been posting here for over a decade, everyone hates, spews bile all over the place, and has NEVER MET ANOTHER SOUL OFFLINE.

What a fcking tosser.

I've thrown you a few bones over the years thinking you might lighten up a little. Might warm to the debate. But no, you're just a humourless piece of shit.

Have some pride. Stick me on ignore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4238
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

The fact is that 'left' and 'right' was a shit way of defining politics even at the moment the silly frogs were debating on the tennis court.


Rubbish. It is perfectly useful. It's a little 2D. But most intelligent and educated people can make the requisite leaps from there.

Besides, by referring to 'lefty intolerance' Santa is not making an all inclusive statement. That does not mean all lefties are intolerant all the time. It merely means that there is a brand of intolerance this is of the left. Just as there is a brand of intolerance of the right, and increasingly one of the centre too (an interesting recent emergence - the 'humble' and understated intolerance of the Economist / Davos class).


Correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32884
Location: in transit
Santa wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Nah, you don't. You weave elaborate word bubbles that my more forthright friends refer to as headf**ks.


For most people there's nothing elaborate about what I said. Others struggle.


Probably more with the urge to give you a casual snotklap, I reckon.

You and Seneca, swanning around here int he shallow end of the intellect pool. Why do you both waste your time, do you think?

is it perhaps, that wading any further out than knee deep is actually just a little scary when you haven't really learnt to swim?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9750
Seneca of the Night wrote:
La soule wrote:
So Seneca, glad to see you are are still putting so much effort and dedication in hating the left, whatever that is.

A modern crusader our Seneca.


Go fck yourself you arsehole.

This is the guy who has been posting here for over a decade, everyone hates, spews bile all over the place, and has NEVER MET ANOTHER SOUL OFFLINE.

What a fcking tosser.

I've thrown you a few bones over the years thinking you might lighten up a little. Might warm to the debate. But no, you're just a humourless piece of shit.

Have some pride. Stick me on ignore.


Would never stick you on ignore Seneca.

Your are so obsessed with hatred that I have a kind of morbid fascination for your posts. It is also great to see you resorting to insulting people left, right and center when they dont agree with the shit you are posting here. There is no debate possible with you. Even a shrink would struggle.

So, what it is this left you are raving about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I wonder if this is such a terrific wedge issue for the "LEFT" because it scrambles with the usual concepts of negative and positive liberty.

The right to marriage for same sex couples is seen as a positive liberty by progressives, but they have also been able to argue successfully that a government intrusion to deny them that is a block on their negative liberty rights too. Which is typically where the right align their troops. In this case the negative liberty argument about freedom of religion is not sufficient in itself to counter the individual case for negative liberty.


Probably because it is a low impact negative liberty on religious objectors. The "LEFT" overstep the mark when they ignore the positive and negative liberty cases for people refusing to interacting with gay people in certain ways (e.g. cake makers).


Yeah, I think that's why it's a battle that has been conceded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
guy smiley wrote:
Santa wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Nah, you don't. You weave elaborate word bubbles that my more forthright friends refer to as headf**ks.


For most people there's nothing elaborate about what I said. Others struggle.


Probably more with the urge to give you a casual snotklap, I reckon.

You and Seneca, swanning around here int he shallow end of the intellect pool. Why do you both waste your time, do you think?

is it perhaps, that wading any further out than knee deep is actually just a little scary when you haven't really learnt to swim?


Yes, well little did we know that we would have to contend with the likes of The Famous Fakir of Freo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1589
Tehui wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Is Folau really being homophobic? Or is he just opposed to the idea of gay marriage?


Not sure how you can support denying gay people the same rights as straight people, and not be homophobic?


I'm not sure about that one. Are there any other legal rights that straight people have that gay people don't? I am aware that in NZ, a gay female couple can adopt children, but a gay male couple can't.


That would be very poor if it were true, luckily it isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26195
guy smiley wrote:
Santa wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Nah, you don't. You weave elaborate word bubbles that my more forthright friends refer to as headf**ks.


For most people there's nothing elaborate about what I said. Others struggle.


Probably more with the urge to give you a casual snotklap, I reckon.

You and Seneca, swanning around here int he shallow end of the intellect pool. Why do you both waste your time, do you think?

is it perhaps, that wading any further out than knee deep is actually just a little scary when you haven't really learnt to swim?



They might be much much more intelligent than that ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wln6lNTxVpY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11985
Location: XPAT CUNT
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

The fact is that 'left' and 'right' was a shit way of defining politics even at the moment the silly frogs were debating on the tennis court.


Rubbish. It is perfectly useful. It's a little 2D. But most intelligent and educated people can make the requisite leaps from there.
.).


It's completly simplistic and although may be useful for people have a thorough understanding of its limitations, the reality is that most do not, and it simply gets used as an insult and/or to polarise people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2184
Farva wrote:
Crazy Ed wrote:
On a side point how can any "organisation" have an opinion on a matter like this.
It is surly a private matter and anything other than personal opinion stinks of big brother and the nanny state.


I can certainly understand companies doing it.
But organisations like the ARU, NRL and CA, who have all endorsed the yes vote, confuse me.
They shouldnt have an opinion on this.



Companies should not either, unless they have canvassed their entire workforce and taken their views into consideration when making statements like this. Employees will basically feel unable to speak out against whatever the "company" has decided is their view for fear of retribution, even though it goes against whatever beliefs they as an individual personally hold, how is that freedom of speech? Decisions like this are not taken because the company believes it is the right thing, but more through fear that if they do not publicly support this, sales etc will suffer due to PC backlash.

All organisations and companies should be doing is promising to support and adhere to the result of the vote and the subsequent laws drafted to enable it.

Situations like this should be down to everyone's own individual conscience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32884
Location: in transit
ASMO wrote:
Farva wrote:
Crazy Ed wrote:
On a side point how can any "organisation" have an opinion on a matter like this.
It is surly a private matter and anything other than personal opinion stinks of big brother and the nanny state.


I can certainly understand companies doing it.
But organisations like the ARU, NRL and CA, who have all endorsed the yes vote, confuse me.
They shouldnt have an opinion on this.



Companies should not either, unless they have canvassed their entire workforce and taken their views into consideration when making statements like this. Employees will basically feel unable to speak out against whatever the "company" has decided is their view for fear of retribution, even though it goes against whatever beliefs they as an individual personally hold, how is that freedom of speech? Decisions like this are not taken because the company believes it is the right thing, but more through fear that if they do not publicly support this, sales etc will suffer due to PC backlash.

All organisations and companies should be doing is promising to support and adhere to the result of the vote and the subsequent laws drafted to enable it.

Situations like this should be down to everyone's own individual conscience.



What a crock.

Companies can do what the board feels is suitable. So long as they don't coerce or stifle their employee's opinions in dong so there's nothing wrong with organisations taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11985
Location: XPAT CUNT
ASMO wrote:
Farva wrote:
Crazy Ed wrote:
On a side point how can any "organisation" have an opinion on a matter like this.
It is surly a private matter and anything other than personal opinion stinks of big brother and the nanny state.


I can certainly understand companies doing it.
But organisations like the ARU, NRL and CA, who have all endorsed the yes vote, confuse me.
They shouldnt have an opinion on this.



Companies should not either, unless they have canvassed their entire workforce and taken their views into consideration when making statements like this. Employees will basically feel unable to speak out against whatever the "company" has decided is their view for fear of retribution, even though it goes against whatever beliefs they as an individual personally hold, how is that freedom of speech? Decisions like this are not taken because the company believes it is the right thing, but more through fear that if they do not publicly support this, sales etc will suffer due to PC backlash.

All organisations and companies should be doing is promising to support and adhere to the result of the vote and the subsequent laws drafted to enable it.

Situations like this should be down to everyone's own individual conscience.


Companies supporting social causes is a bellwether for change...they would only(for most companies) support a cause that had a substantial support amongst their customers.

I think companies and organisations should do as they like, and like all of us, wear the consequences. If you chose to work for a company you don't agree with on a particular issue, you've got two clear choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18455
Ali's Choice wrote:
PornDog wrote:
The other point, and back on the topic at hand is, why on earth is there a vote on this issue in the first place! While I agree 100% that Folau is entitled to his opinion and to vote how sees fit, seeing as a vote has been called - civilized societies should not enfranchise the notion of majority subjugation. The majority should not be allowed to define a subset of rights for the minority. If the majority voted to bring in a law that forced women to wear burkas in public it would not make it any less of a prejudicial law or give it any moral validity.

This should not be voted on by the public (I know its non binding so I guess its just a glorified poll, but still). One would hope that constitutions are robust enough that it should not even be voted on in Parliament on a yes/no basis, but on a "how do we go about facilitating this" basis.


We can all thank Australia's Coalition Federal government for the meaningless, non-binding postal survey. It was a simple delaying tactic, to appease the conservative wing of the govt that seem to be calling the shots at the moment. Posters such as fatprop, shanky and Towny all voted for this mob, who have proven to be the worst government in modern Australian history. Whatever happens, SSM will become legal in Australia once the Labor party win office, whenever that may be.



WTF?

Go fudge yourself you old flog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6025
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???

BTW, are there any perks or tax implications for Aussie getting married? In South Africa Medical aid is cheaper if you are married, also easier to buy a house.


Any gay couple who has been in a live in relationship for 6 months in Aus has the same de facto rights as any hetrosexual couple.

The extra rights marriage provides are currently provided by enduring Powers of Attorneys and decent wills etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
shanky wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
PornDog wrote:
The other point, and back on the topic at hand is, why on earth is there a vote on this issue in the first place! While I agree 100% that Folau is entitled to his opinion and to vote how sees fit, seeing as a vote has been called - civilized societies should not enfranchise the notion of majority subjugation. The majority should not be allowed to define a subset of rights for the minority. If the majority voted to bring in a law that forced women to wear burkas in public it would not make it any less of a prejudicial law or give it any moral validity.

This should not be voted on by the public (I know its non binding so I guess its just a glorified poll, but still). One would hope that constitutions are robust enough that it should not even be voted on in Parliament on a yes/no basis, but on a "how do we go about facilitating this" basis.


We can all thank Australia's Coalition Federal government for the meaningless, non-binding postal survey. It was a simple delaying tactic, to appease the conservative wing of the govt that seem to be calling the shots at the moment. Posters such as fatprop, shanky and Towny all voted for this mob, who have proven to be the worst government in modern Australian history. Whatever happens, SSM will become legal in Australia once the Labor party win office, whenever that may be.



WTF?

Go fudge yourself you old flog


You are cyber scrum shanky.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4238
_fatprop wrote:
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???

BTW, are there any perks or tax implications for Aussie getting married? In South Africa Medical aid is cheaper if you are married, also easier to buy a house.


Any gay couple who has been in a live in relationship for 6 months in Aus has the same de facto rights as any hetrosexual couple.

The extra rights marriage provides are currently provided by enduring Powers of Attorneys and decent wills etc


Are you saying that gay people suffer absolutely no legal deficit in terms of marriage?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 43857
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
so much shrill...

Image


There's something particularly unedifying even by internet standards of the last decade or so of using autism and similar afflictions as the go-to insult.

It's, like, entire layers of shitty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
JM2K6 wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
so much shrill...

Image


There's something particularly unedifying even by internet standards of the last decade or so of using autism and similar afflictions as the go-to insult.

It's, like, entire layers of shitty.


Don't the 4 Chan crew claim to be autists?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 10:49 am
Posts: 1244
Location: Sunny Plymouth
Seneca of the Night wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
so much shrill...

Image


There's something particularly unedifying even by internet standards of the last decade or so of using autism and similar afflictions as the go-to insult.

It's, like, entire layers of shitty.


Don't the 4 Chan crew claim to be autists?
Weaponised Autists.

As the father of an Autistic child, if he achieves a 10th of what they have done, i'll be very proud.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 43857
Seneca of the Night wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
so much shrill...

Image


There's something particularly unedifying even by internet standards of the last decade or so of using autism and similar afflictions as the go-to insult.

It's, like, entire layers of shitty.


Don't the 4 Chan crew claim to be autists?


It's supposed to be "ironic", like every other really shitty thing 4chan does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9750
Gareth Thomas appears to disagree with Folau.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
La soule wrote:
Gareth Thomas appears to disagree with Folau.


What's your point you stupid cnt?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9750
Seneca of the Night wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gareth Thomas appears to disagree with Folau.


What's your point you stupid cnt?


Is it the fact that there are two verbs in that sentence that make it difficult for you to answer you scared old man?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
La soule wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gareth Thomas appears to disagree with Folau.


What's your point you stupid cnt?


Is it the fact that there are two verbs in that sentence that make it difficult for you to answer you scared old man?


Answer the question. What's your point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
In fact, we can divide that question in to two:

a) what is your point in this particular case and

b) what is the point of you as a poster.

A will meet no response thus evidenting that in the case of B , well there is no point.

None at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9750
Seneca of the Night wrote:
In fact, we can divide that question in to two:

a) what is your point in this particular case and

b) what is the point of you as a poster.

A will meet no response thus evidenting that in the case of B , well there is no point.

None at all.


You are clearly over complicating this.

Have you seen the twit from Gareth Thomas, shared by O'Driscoll?

I guess not you ignoramus.

Perhaps you should confined yourself to speaking with your servant Santa and the other fluffers that you have surrounded yourself with lately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27200
La soule wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
In fact, we can divide that question in to two:

a) what is your point in this particular case and

b) what is the point of you as a poster.

A will meet no response thus evidenting that in the case of B , well there is no point.

None at all.


You are clearly over complicating this.

Have you seen the twit from Gareth Thomas, shared by O'Driscoll?

I guess not you ignoramus.

Perhaps you should confined yourself to speaking with your servant Santa and the other fluffers that you have surrounded yourself with lately.


Jesus wept.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9750
Seneca of the Night wrote:
La soule wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
In fact, we can divide that question in to two:

a) what is your point in this particular case and

b) what is the point of you as a poster.

A will meet no response thus evidenting that in the case of B , well there is no point.

None at all.


You are clearly over complicating this.

Have you seen the twit from Gareth Thomas, shared by O'Driscoll?

I guess not you ignoramus.

Perhaps you should confined yourself to speaking with your servant Santa and the other fluffers that you have surrounded yourself with lately.


Jesus wept.


Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5395
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???


Can someone please clarify this, what difference in rights exists in Aus? Lots of people have been talking about denying SSM is denying same sex couples some rights, but exactly what rights are being denied?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11985
Location: XPAT CUNT
Edinburgh01 wrote:
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???


Can someone please clarify this, what difference in rights exists in Aus? Lots of people have been talking about denying SSM is denying same sex couples some rights, but exactly what rights are being denied?


Off hand, I know that same sex couples have no rights in intestacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18444
koroke hangareka wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Is Folau really being homophobic? Or is he just opposed to the idea of gay marriage?


Not sure how you can support denying gay people the same rights as straight people, and not be homophobic?


I'm not sure about that one. Are there any other legal rights that straight people have that gay people don't? I am aware that in NZ, a gay female couple can adopt children, but a gay male couple can't.


That would be very poor if it were true, luckily it isn't.


If it's not law, it's definitely policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:01 pm
Posts: 10206
Location: Donegal
Edinburgh01 wrote:
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???


Can someone please clarify this, what difference in rights exists in Aus? Lots of people have been talking about denying SSM is denying same sex couples some rights, but exactly what rights are being denied?


In Ireland we had a referendum that was advertised as a vote on legalizing same sex marriages but in reality they were legal already under Civil Partnerships.

The referendum was required to change our constitutions definition of marriage as it was defined as between a man and woman. So in a situation were two couples (one same sex, the other not) were looking to adopt, the one considered married under the constitution got favored.

I know a number of gay men who voted against it as they believed that straight couples should be considered a better fit for adopted kids.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26195
The Anointed (bleeding heart "liberal intellectuals") are strong on high moral stances and outrage, not so strong on facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11985
Location: XPAT CUNT
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
The Anointed (bleeding heart "liberal intellectuals") are strong on high moral stances and outrage, not so strong on facts.


It's 3am in Australia you f**king moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4238
Zakar wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???


Can someone please clarify this, what difference in rights exists in Aus? Lots of people have been talking about denying SSM is denying same sex couples some rights, but exactly what rights are being denied?


Off hand, I know that same sex couples have no rights in intestacy.


That's pretty easy to remedy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5395
Zakar wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
DraadkarD wrote:
First world country denying certain citizens the same contractual rights, because of a gender issue? How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? Please elaborate to me how it can be justified???


Can someone please clarify this, what difference in rights exists in Aus? Lots of people have been talking about denying SSM is denying same sex couples some rights, but exactly what rights are being denied?


Off hand, I know that same sex couples have no rights in intestacy.


I can see why there is an issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1091 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 28  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], brat, ElementFreak, Fat Old Git, _fatprop, Google Adsense [Bot], rabble, RuggaBugga, Smee, Ted., Yourmother and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group