Roast If You Don't Stand For Something...

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
FiveStrings said:
Because white people and heterosexuals haven't been systemically persecuted for decades for being white or heterosexual?
Click to expand...

Well white people and heterosexuals are being systematically persecuted in recent years.

But if you are talking about equality there should be equal attention and celebration for all races and sexual persuasion.

And again. The fact that there has been racism and persecution of homosexuals is sad but people go to the football to watch football and get away from real life many times, not have it shoved in their face again.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ochre said:
I think gay marriage would do a lot of good for a lot of people. I don't believe anybody in this debate is doing anything they believe is evil.

Ignore the gay marriage side of it though if you'd rather, do you think WCE have a responsibility with their influence to do good with it?
Click to expand...
What if the majority voted no ? its there right to have that opinion , I may not agree with it but it's still their right .

They may think they are doing a good thing spreading the No message .

But of course they wouldn't do that it's bad publicity .
I'm Happy for them to stay neutral on this .

As an organization if they had a hard yes stance it would then ostracize all the no voters for their opinion which they have every right to have
 
Eagleboy68 said:
It's not what you said but it's what your statement implied and what I felt when I read it. See I feel offended by it.

And no it shouldn't have been a bill put to parliament because firstly Turnbull went to the election with a clear policy of holding a pebicite which the labour and greens opposed funnily enough. Maybe they knew what the answer would be but more to the point they wanted it to be a long drawn out decisive issue so they could hold the so called higher moral ground.
And secondly changing the constitution regarding the definition of marriage should be done by a vote of the people not some politicians with agendas.
Click to expand...

OK here we go.

1. Marriage is not actually defined anywhere in the Constitution. There's no change to the Constitution required and the current rigmarole of a process we're going through wouldn't be sufficient to change the Constitution anyway. And as I hinted at before, Howard changed the Marriage Act to specifically exclude anything other than one man and one woman. And he did that without any reference to the public.

2. Labor and the Greens didn't want a long drawn-out process, they wanted a Bill put to Parliament. Hence why they blocked the plebiscite, then challenged the survey in the High Court. Because, presumably, they didn't want two months of people arguing and hating on each other.
 
FiveStrings said:
That's not actually what I said, but yes changing the definition should be a trivial issue. As it was when Howard changed it in 2004.

It's been blown immensely out of proportion. It should have been a bill put to the parliament, voted in and gotten on with.
Click to expand...
Yeah should quickly shove stuff through parliament before people against it have a chance to stop it. Sounds democratic
 
Ochre said:
The fact people believe things like this is just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Why?

Watch the videos throughout this whole issue.

Did you see the video of those supporting the no vote outside the university?

The abuse and villification was horrendous towards them.
Many have been called homophobe and been made fun of just because they believe in God or have moral beliefs.
In this thread it's happened.

Sam dastyari abused a Christian lady saying her belief was religious claptrap.

So much for equality and anti villification for all.
 
liam123 said:
Yeah should quickly shove stuff through parliament before people against it have a chance to stop it. Sounds democratic
Click to expand...

There's hundreds of bills put to parliament every year. Literally hundreds. Should we have to put each one to a public vote before it gets passed?
 
Eagleboy68 said:
Why?

Watch the videos throughout this whole issue.

Did you see the video of those supporting the no vote outside the university?

The abuse and villification was horrendous towards them.
Many have been called homophobe and been made fun of just because they believe in God or have moral beliefs.
In this thread it's happened.

Sam dastyari abused a Christian lady saying her belief was religious claptrap.

So much for equality and anti villification for all.
Click to expand...

Do you genuinely, genuinely think this is worse than the discrimination people who are not white and/or not straight face?
 
FiveStrings said:
There's hundreds of bills put to parliament every year. Literally hundreds. Should we have to put each one to a public vote before it gets passed?
Click to expand...

We should have some sort of public vote where we vote on people to decide these things for us. That would save time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FiveStrings said:
OK here we go.

1. Marriage is not actually defined anywhere in the Constitution. There's no change to the Constitution required and the current rigmarole of a process we're going through wouldn't be sufficient to change the Constitution anyway. And as I hinted at before, Howard changed the Marriage Act to specifically exclude anything other than one man and one woman. And he did that without any reference to the public.

2. Labor and the Greens didn't want a long drawn-out process, they wanted a Bill put to Parliament. Hence why they blocked the plebiscite, then challenged the survey in the High Court. Because, presumably, they didn't want two months of people arguing and hating on each other.
Click to expand...

You are correct.
I meant the marriage act.

So it would have been advantageous you would think to hold a plebiscite and find out what all Australians want don't you think?

It is a major issue since it's been part of our culture and country for hundreds of years right?
 
FiveStrings said:
There's hundreds of bills put to parliament every year. Literally hundreds. Should we have to put each one to a public vote before it gets passed?
Click to expand...
No but as a so called "Christian" nation surely something this big needs a vote. I can't help but think the lefties want it rushed through to avoid any chance of the majority voting no
 
Ochre said:
Do you genuinely, genuinely think this is worse than the discrimination people who are not white and/or not straight face?
Click to expand...

Do you genuinely think any discrimination is acceptable?

So where is the equality measured?
How much discrimination is acceptable?

Aren't we all supposed to have freedom of our opinion and voice without abusing others? Or is it acceptable to abuse white people and villify religious people now because it wasn't as much as they faced?

Hypocrisy at its finest
 
liam123 said:
No but as a so called "Christian" nation surely something this big needs a vote. I can't help but think the lefties want it rushed through to avoid any chance of the majority voting no
Click to expand...

Well we've already learnt that what you think and the truth don't always go hand in hand.
 
liam123 said:
No but as a so called "Christian" nation surely something this big needs a vote. I can't help but think the lefties want it rushed through to avoid any chance of the majority voting no
Click to expand...

Exactly.

That's their fear through all this.
It is a major issue as it affect not just the marriage definition but it potentially has far reaching ramifications.
 
Eagleboy68 said:
Do you genuinely think any discrimination is acceptable?
Click to expand...

By any are we including the imaginary ones in your head?

Like when poor white, straight people are forced to deal with people that disagree with them?

Oh how I bet the 1 in 6 LGBT people that still experience violence as a result of being LGBT and the indigenous population with a life expectancy over 10 years lower than the rest of Australia thank their lucky stars that Sam Dastyari didn't say their beliefs were 'religious claptrap'. Oh the humanity!
 
liam123 said:
No but as a so called "Christian" nation surely something this big needs a vote. I can't help but think the lefties want it rushed through to avoid any chance of the majority voting no
Click to expand...

We're not a Christian nation. We're supposed to be a secular nation. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution - that's freedom to follow the religion of your choice, not freedom of the Christian church to dictate what laws we can and can't pass without a massive public poll.
 
FiveStrings said:
We're not a Christian nation. We're supposed to be a secular nation. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution - that's freedom to follow the religion of your choice, not freedom of the Christian church to dictate what laws we can and can't pass without a massive public poll.
Click to expand...
Your right we are no longer a Christian nation hence the ever changing moral landscape
 
Ochre said:
Side note: If you come in here trying to extoll the virtues of voting no, I can't describe how little I care for your opinion, and how quickly I will tell you to **** off.
Click to expand...

Ochre said:
The fact people believe things like this is just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Frankly the fact that you don't give a s**t about other people's opinions on his free country that is supposed to respect everyone equally is embarrassing.

You aren't even worth discussing this with as clearly only your opinion is right and worthy of mention.

What you are saying in the first comment is akin to what has happened to people throughout the history of racism and villification. But it's ok because it's your opinion and the so called "right" opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top