This Government sux just like the last government did.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by doomsday surprise, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    "neither party has any influence over it" - Of course it happens now. Police, judges, lawyers, juries are all bribed occassionally. That it happens less often in Australia is because of our relative freedoms, auditing institutions and, most importantly, relative lack of placing abnormal powers over others into the hands of a few. As we both have said though, until we are in a position where such a transition is possible we're both on the same team and we can continue the debate at another time. :)
     
  2. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    bordsilver - it seems that I was a bit hasty in categorising you as a member of the circle jerk of egocentric hypocrites and bigots who have been involved in this thread. I'm not too proud to admit that I was, apparently, wrong in doing so and to apologise - so: sorry. It's nice to hear from somebody who claims to be libertarian and actually is libertarian, not just when it happens to align with what they think others should and shouldn't do, even when it has no real effect on them whatsoever (despite what they may think).
     
  3. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    Bring on the referendum i say... then we'll see whose in the minority :lol:
     
  4. Yippe-Ki-Ya

    Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of Guilty by Default
    Apology accepted ... ;)
     
  5. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    LOL cheeky prick :)
     
  6. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    That's all the gays and lesbians have been lobbying for. They couldn't even get a conscience vote on it.
     
  7. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    I nearly put in a part covering this but thought it irrelevant. My point was these institutions aren't there to make a profit. Putting such institutions(ones there for a profit) in a position of power like this is just asking for trouble. Agree on your last sentence.

    I can't believe I'm about to do it but I have to give Labor some credit today. I know it's politically expedient and in opposition it's a no brainer. But I'm glad they have announced that they will block any bill that requests a debt ceiling increase of more that 100B without releasing a budget that clearly outlines the need for a ceiling of more than 400B.

    In saying that. It's a little hypocritical to rack up 380B in two terms then all of a sudden jump up and down over a further 200B.
     
  8. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Another fallback argument/label ? Racist, misogynist, bigot.... all while avoiding the the fact that marriage has been and is still seen as the union of a man and a woman.

    Not one of the protagonist's here have substantially addressed the issue's of why a G&L couple would want to be seen as a married couple when they clearly do not identify as being so, why the vast majority of married couples should have their definition of marriage changed to accommodate the few, why when all legal options are already open to G&L's under law they still seek the legal definition of marriage be changed to suit their agenda ?
    It is all an emotionally charged vehemence filled tirade of name calling and derogatory rundowns instead.

    Just how is wanting to retain the traditional union of a man and woman in life with the label marriage holding anyone down ?

    I might also ask why I as an individual who seeks to retain the obvious traditional view of marriage despite a few token historic examples dragged out for entertainment purposes, and dares to argue the point on a forum should be labelled with some of the examples above ?

    So far as I am aware I am still entitled to hold a personal view on the subject, whether you like it or not. Some might find my personal opinions offensive but I really don't give two shits about your sensibility's as I am still entitled to my opinion. So far as I am aware I have avoided insulting comments for all but one of my post's and have refrained from labelling opposing commenter's with derogatory terms.

    If you can't argue your point cohesively without the name calling and common rundowns you have lost the debate. Racist , bigot, hater, slave trader, misogynist, blah de blah is complete drivel.
     
  9. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Of course you are entitled to hold a personal view. The same as the old saying of everyone being entitled to their opinion. What you aren't entitled to is to have an opinion, voice it and regardless of the content of that view/opinion be free from ridicule.

    In the same way that the founding fathers of the United States, had they been born today and held the same views, would be labelled a racist. Labelling someone a racist because they believe that a person of another colour should be kept as a slave doesn't make you lose the debate. It simply just points out a fact.

    Again and again you circle back to the same thing, even though your questions have been answered on more than one occasion.
     
  10. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    So you rely upon an unrelated misnomer to support your point of view to ridicule mine? So far as I am aware RACE has no part in this discussion.
     
  11. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Again, in your delusional world, you think that if one cannot justify to you why they'd want to get married, then there is no reason for them to get married. There is no need to "[address] the issue's of why a G&L couple would want to be seen as a married couple", because they are both obvious and do not affect you - but, here's a surprise - they're the same reasons that a straight couple would want to get married - exactly the same. You say that gays "clearly do not identify as being [married]" - of course they don't - it's illegal for them to be. That's the whole issue. No wonder you don't understand this.

    To adapt your question - "Just how is wanting to allow people to get married to the person that they love going to hold you down?"

    It's already been explained to you, more than once, that 'tradition' is an absurd argument - women's suffrage, slavery, etc... If we never strayed from tradition, we'd be living in caves and we certainly wouldn't be using the internet.

    "Token historical examples"? If you'd actually understood that article, you'd know that the main point it was making was that marriages that were not exclusively between a man and a woman were not at all unusual throughout many cultures through history, but were, in fact, quite common. The fact that you made statements in very absolute terms, such as marriage being universally between a man and a woman (among others), only increases the magnitude of your incorrectness and evident ignorance.

    You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. I'm aware of no law that prohibits bigots. I don't find your opinions offensive, more deranged. Where you have been told that you are wrong is where you have made factual claims that are absolutely false. This has been the case for just about every significant factual claim you have made. Unlike you, who likes to play 'scientist' in some of your threads on here, I am a scientist; I deal in reality - observations, data, evidence - as opposed to fanciful, baseless claims. Fanciful, baseless claims are foolish, but maintaining that they are valid in the face of evidence to the contrary is preposterous.

    At the end of the day, maniacs like you can only help the cause for same-sex marriage in the long term. People who are perhaps on the fence will wish to distance themselves from your puerile 'beliefs', just as people who are perhaps bordering on being slightly racist, but not overtly so, don't want anything to do with the white supremacist nutter ranting about how all the black people should be slaughtered or returned to slavery and segregation due to their 'obvious genetic inferiority'.

    If you don't care about being labelled a bigot, why do you keep protesting the classification? Also, note: being labelled a bigot is not 'name calling', it is simply a classification; you are a bigot. You're not Bigot, you are a bigot.

    You've asked many questions here, and many have been answered. You've also been asked many questions, and answered essentially nothing. You continue to spew the same misinformed, delusional nonsense that you were spewing thirteen pages ago, just as you continue to be a particularly bigoted member of a minority.
     
  12. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    And there lies the problem with my questions, None have been answered so far. All I have been met with is ridicule and smears rather than rational answers.

    Why would a couple who clearly do not identify as a male and female want to be seen as such, both under the law and the traditional concept of marriage ?

    Why the persistence on changing a clearly defined tradition of the majority as above to fit a minority viewpoint.

    Why when all legal rights are already available under current law does the G&L community insist upon changing the interpretation of marriage to suit themselves ?

    Why does it have to be called marriage ? Why not civil union or some other label ?

    Why does a very squeaky minority get to change the terminology of the majority to suit their wants ?

    If it is just a name then why the desperate need for a change ?

    All I have heard in response is emotional associations to racism and religious zealotry, references to online votes and insults, links to lefty justification of gay marriage drawn from dubious historic examples and responses that associate anyone who disagrees with the pro view as far right wing, racist, bigoted,salve trading, homophobic, backward thinking, you people, baby eating trolls.

    Most people are scared off from the debate as a result, as is probably intended, but I wont be.
     
  13. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Yet again up on your superior high horse with your supposed moral superior high ground huh ?

    And again you miss the point, why would a GAY couple want to be seen and recognised as a HETERO couple ? IE A MAN AND A WOMAN when the definition of MARRAIGE is of that between a MAN and a WOMAN. You are clearly intelligent but you seemingly consistently fail to see the argument that is being made.

    Again if you yourself had understood the article you posted you would of realised that it is from a outfit of the left clearly set up to assist any viewpoint put forward by the left, ABC Fact check ? Give me a break. You can provide any example you like Gooby but the clear fact is that throughout history and in every culture on earth the traditional view of marriage has been between a MAN and a WOMAN. It is a fact of life that the overwhelming vast majority of marriages have been between a Man and a Woman.

    Scientist of what Gooby ? Please do provide your full credentials as I would really like to know just who is labelling me as a maniac, puerile, racist, bigoted, member of a minority.

    Your post is yet another example of a shallow person hiding behind a pseudo intellect, way short on actual substance yet still full of personal insults as you are unable to actually mount a cogent argument.
     
  14. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    You've got to be joking. Much of this thread has been dedicated to answering, and re-answering your 'questions' (which have mostly come in the form of statements). Just because you have been shot down with evidence does not mean that they were not addressed. You've just been wrong.

    The problem with your 'questions' is that you provide nothing in support of your own assertions ('assertions' as opposed to mere opinion - personal opinion does not necessarily require supporting evidence, but, as Lovey80 pointed out, you have no right to complain when nonsensical views are called out as such), your assertions are refuted with evidence, you still fail to provide anything in support of your claims, yet refuse to accept that you are factually incorrect.

    Are you really that stupid? Let me lay it out for you:

    Two guys who want to get married to each other do not want to then be 'seen as' a male and female couple - neither legally nor under any 'traditional concept' (of anything, not just of marriage). They want to be seen as two guys (which, gasp!, they are) who are married. The same, of course, goes for two girls.

    It seems that part of this stems from your likely belief that there is something inherently wrong with being gay. It seems that you assume that, as they are aware of the obvious abomination it is to be gay, all gay couples are thus self-loathing and what they really want is to be recognised as a straight couple. This, obviously, is nonsensical and even paradoxical.

    You sought to establish that it was nothing other than the word that was important to you in your first few posts. I asked you about this in my first response to you (post #24) and, as has been the case for essentially everything you have been asked, you failed to address the question at all. You now attempt to make the counterargument in support of the same conclusion. Please, don't dispute being called a hypocrite ever again. Your hypocrisy has just been effortlessly proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt. QED
     
  15. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    I'm pretty sure speeding fines etc are actually factored into budgets... So it is for profit, is unethical and does lead to a misallocation of police resources where they focus on simple fines rather than labour intensive crimes.
     
  16. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind

    ?

    So Gooby why choose the term marraige ?
     
  17. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Because those of us who understand this realise that what marriage really is, is a commitment between two people who genuinely love one another.

    Do you think that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry? This was once explicitly and deliberately outside the legal definition of marriage. Things changed - and existing marriages were not degraded because of it.

    You still, clearly, don't understand any of this. People in support of same-sex marriage don't think that two gay people marrying each other would make them straight (can you imagine it? two (suddenly straight) guys... wedding night... nice hotel... time to consummate the marriage... wild terror ensues), and don't want that to happen. The whole point is for people of the same sex to be permitted to marry. If you hold the absurd belief that marriage is about the junk between your legs - and it seems that you do - you have some real thinking to do.
     
  18. southerncross

    southerncross Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    All in your mind

    Gooby I fully respect the love that two people may have despite their gender or sexual persuasion despite your understanding of viewpoints and values that I may hold. I just hold the personal belief that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. I have never passed any judgement based upon race , (that has all come from your side of the debate). As I quoted earlier with links G&L marriage is a recent phenomenon worldwide despite the fact check article you posted. Always has been. I am not anti Gay, I couldn't give two shits what consenting adults do in their private lives, I am agnostic, and unmarried with a very successful 18 year relationship and five kids.

    Time and time again your side of the debate resorts to Slavery and Racism as a base for your argument or as a basis for slander against any opposing opinion, in the real world most people are already well adjusted to gay relationships and accept such as an ordinary part of life.
    To most people though despite all your internet polls Marriage is still what it is, the union between a Man and a Woman.

    If it was ever the case that a majority of Australians changed the definition of what mariage meant in this country then I would have no choice but to agree with it.

    In the meantime though I will argue every point every step of the way based on my own opinion. You can dishonestly label me as a racist, religious zealot, bigot and whatever else based upon your own opinion but I will still stay true to my own beliefs and I will still state my point despite your opinion.

    The preponderance of every other ism that you have dragged into this debate is a clear sign that you have no real argument to present other than some pseudo opinion based upon a pseudo degree. (which you wont present). You repeatedly state you have answered questions but all we see is insults and the latest propaganda.
     
  19. renovator

    renovator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,414
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    QLD
    I think we need to change the title of this thread lol
     
  20. capt.sparrow

    capt.sparrow New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    U ASS
    Judging by his lunatic left rants I'd guess he thinks he's a "climate scientist".
    You know, those who believe actively lie and make up results to support the myth that the earth is still warming and that this is due to man-made CO2 emissions :lol:
     

Share This Page