Page 89 of 90 FirstFirst ... 397981828384858687888990 LastLast
Results 2,201 to 2,225 of 2227
  1. #2201
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    It was a good clean debate.
    No it wasn't.
    On one side were people arguing for human equality, on the other side were people disparaging sexual preferences and talking about non-sequitur arguments about evolution, making it a nasty debate.

  2. #2202
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,857
    If those disgusting faggots hadn't voted for themselves (as they're entitled to do) we redneck bigots would still have lost.

  3. #2203
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    I thought you were a manipulating, energetic troll
    ...FTFY: now totally agree...

  4. #2204
    Thailand Expat
    David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    I honestly think the result is a vindication for No-voters. The presumption that voting No was the preserve of a small minority of hateful homophobes has been proved wrong. A huge proportion of regular Australians do not agree with the politically correct positioning of the argument.

    61.6% Yes in progressive Australia is less than traditional Ireland managed nearly 3 years ago. The high tide mark of support for radical gay politics is behind us.

    If the gay vote is subtracted then almost half of non-gay Australians do not favour redefining marriage.

    But in the spirit of good grace I just wanna wish congratulations to the pooves anyway!

    It was a good clean debate.

    Everybody got to put forward their point of view.

    We all had fun and the long-suffering shifters are now free to get married so happy honeymoon fellas - you earned it!

    Mate, and I'm not asking, but you and I probably ticked the same box on the SSM Letter.

    For me ... good luck to Gay Community. They fought a good fight, spoke with passion and genuine heart.
    And, in the end, the vast majority of Australia agreed with their argument, their desire.

    The main point for my reply is to draw to your attention that, most likely about 4% - 5% of the population is Gay.
    There are no hard and fast figures, but it seems a common statistic.

    So, even if we removed that vote for the consensus, the majority of Australians most likely are in favour of SSM.

    Where I agree with the thrust or your argument was that, should you have hopped on that soap box and cry 'no to SSM',
    there would be no 'high -5in' no rapturous applause, it's not socially trendy to hold that view point.

    Those 'socially trendy' voters are the equivalent of the 'swinging voter' and, on this question they swung towards
    the affirmation of SSM.

    To counter that, I would have thought the silent majority outnumbered them, but clearly that didn't occur.

    For me ... we were asked the question, it was a fair fight ... a few skirmishes around the fringes, but both sides
    held their dignity.

    AUSTRALIA said YES

    I support the democratic process, so yes it is.

    May we all live in peace and harmony ... especially if the ScoccerRoos beat Honduras tonight in Sydney
    Perspective is everything ... it's the difference between going through an ordeal or going through an adventure..

  5. #2205
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,857
    Jeezus, David!
    Quote Originally Posted by David48atTD View Post
    even if we removed that vote for the consensus,
    Can't you see, as I've condemned Looper for, that even considering that is ludicrous.
    What is this, let society democratically decide on an issue about a minority but don't let that minority in on the vote because they just might swing it?

    Next up, a referendum on Aboriginal rights, but no Aboriginal can cast a ballot? It's not abut what they want but what the rest of Australia want for them?

    Looper posted a surly bad-loser response, couched in fake bonhomie, that was ludicrous in it's implication and that was moot anyway because even if he had his way and didn't allow gay people to vote, he still would have lost.

    Let the US vote on restrictions on gun ownership, but gun owners are disallowed because their vote might swing it towards no change. Probably a good idea, but it's a stupid proposal to suggest interested parties can not vote.

  6. #2206
    Thailand Expat
    David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    3,370
    ^ Umm ... err ... correct me if I misunderstood, but I was correcting Looper on what I perceive, the folly of his logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    <snip>but no Aboriginal can cast a ballot? <snip>
    What exactly are you referring to? If they were registered to vote, they had the option to vote in the SSM question.

    In 1962, the Menzies Government amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act to give Indigenous people the right to enrol
    and vote in Commonwealth elections


    What am I missing?

  7. #2207
    Totemic Lust User
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Posts
    10,580
    Quote Originally Posted by David48atTD View Post
    Mate, and I'm not asking, but you and I probably ticked the same box on the SSM Letter.
    I voted No. Not because I am 100% against the gays getting married but because I want to protest the prevailing political atmosphere where it is a thought-crime and socially unmentionable to even raise any opposition to any parts of the gay political agenda.

    We had an Australian tennis legend ripped to shreds by the media for voicing an opinion which, it turns out, is shared by a very significant proportion of the general population even though saying it out loud is politically verboten.

    Anyway, I was pleased with the result. I did not really imagine that No was going to prevail. It was all about the margin for Yes. Given our turnout was much higher than Ireland and yet our Yes vote was lower I think this bodes well for healthy uncensored future discussion around other gay issues. It seems that support is mired around the 60% mark, probably at a high watermark and possibly slowly receding.

    Don't get me wrong, I genuinely don't mind the gays having marriage but I cannot stand the atmosphere of censorship that surrounds open and free discussion around gay politics. The fact that we know for sure that nearly 40% of Australians do not buy this politically laundered crap is reassuring.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...FTFY: now totally agree...
    I don't think we should let bitterness and rancour get in the way of what is a big day for the gheys TC. The pooves got up and can hold their heads high and wave their rainbow flag with pride. It was a fair debate and the main thing that we can take away from it is that thank goodness we were allowed to have the public debate and vote which was denied to our merkin brethren.

  8. #2208
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,786
    ...^more of the same, I'm afraid...Maanaam nailed your trolling butt:

    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Looper posted a surly bad-loser response, couched in fake bonhomie, that was ludicrous in it's implication and that was moot anyway

  9. #2209
    Totemic Lust User
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Posts
    10,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Can't you see, as I've condemned Looper for, that even considering that is ludicrous.
    The question was worded as 'allowing' gays to marry.

    This nicey nicey asking nicely wording was deliberately chosen to maximise the Yes vote by a sympathetic prime minister.

    But since the wording was chosen that way, gays cannot really 'allow' themselves to get married. It has to be the people to whom marriage belongs in the first place who can 'allow' it to be shared.

    So semantically there is an argument for excluding the ghaeys from the voting process.

  10. #2210
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    27,337
    White male somehow manages to turn the issue of equal rights to marriage into a bleat about being the victim of oppression. Astounding.

    Please tell me more of your tales of sorrow from suffering under the yoke of discrimination...


  11. #2211
    Thailand Expat Thai3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,391
    Seems like you are very passionate about gay rights and poofters getting married Tony, and there's nothing wrong with that of course, very understandable.

  12. #2212
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    White male somehow manages to turn the issue of equal rights to marriage into a bleat about being the victim of oppression. Astounding.

    Please tell me more of your tales of sorrow from suffering under the yoke of discrimination...
    ...perfect response to the troll...

  13. #2213
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    27,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Thai3
    Seems like you are very passionate about gay rights and poofters getting married Tony, and there's nothing wrong with that of course, very understandable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thai3
    On TD he seems very happy about Australia saying yes to gay marriage, most of us don't care one way or the other. He seems very keen on it though, and there's nothing wrong with that
    How peculiar.

  14. #2214
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    The question was worded as 'allowing' gays to marry.
    Yes, because at the moment they're not allowed. How else do you word it? "Shall we change the law that disallows gays to marry?" Potentially ambiguous and open-ended, that one, and we can't have ambiguity or open-ended questions in a referendum question, you must agree.
    So how would you have worded it, not nicey nicey so as not to sway anyone?



    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    I voted No. Not because I am 100% against the gays getting married but because I want to protest ...
    If you're ambivalent about it, surely you would protest in a way that does not have the potential to affect other people's lives while not affecting your life one iota.
    You should have voted yes and voiced your disagreement of the issues you mention in the proper forum. You voted no but didn't mean it, you actually meant you don't like the thought police.
    A bit silly.
    (and not believable )

  15. #2215
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,786
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Maanaam again." ...a persistent troll put in his place: well said...

  16. #2216
    Totemic Lust User
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Posts
    10,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    If you're ambivalent about it, surely you would protest in a way that does not have the potential to affect other people's lives while not affecting your life one iota.
    I don't really believe that it does affect gays that much. I think Civil Unions and De facto arrangements provide adequate legal supports in Australia and if not they could have been tweaked. It seems to me to be more of a political desire than a practical need.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Yes, because at the moment they're not allowed. How else do you word it? "Shall we change the law that disallows gays to marry?"
    The question was

    should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

    If the question had been

    should the law be changed so same-sex couples have the right to marry?

    It would have been a tiny bit less attractive as a proposition and a little bit easier to vote No. It is harder to vote No when you are not 'allowing' poor gay people to get married.

    It was a subtly persuasive word play using 'allow' but probably enough to translate to 1 or 2 %age points in the results I think.

    Referring to 'couples' was also a subtle way of framing the idea in a touchy feely way from the perspective of a poor gay couple who want to marry which would also have translated to a point or 2.

    61.6% was the result using the most attractive nicey nicey possible framing of the question and with a huge response rate

    I think a more neutrally framed question would have struggled to get out of the 50s in %age range and the response rate would have been down.

    But it is all water under the bridge and the pooves are up so lets not quibble and instead raise a glass to the shifters!


  17. #2217
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Posts
    45,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    I don't really believe that it does affect gays that much. I think Civil Unions and De facto arrangements provide adequate legal supports in Australia and if not they could have been tweaked. It seems to me to be more of a political desire than a practical need.



    The question was

    should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

    If the question had been

    should the law be changed so same-sex couples have the right to marry?

    It would have been a tiny bit less attractive as a proposition and a little bit easier to vote No. It is harder to vote No when you are not 'allowing' poor gay people to get married.

    It was a subtly persuasive word play using 'allow' but probably enough to translate to 1 or 2 %age points in the results I think.

    Referring to 'couples' was also a subtle way of framing the idea in a touchy feely way from the perspective of a poor gay couple who want to marry which would also have translated to a point or 2.

    61.6% was the result using the most attractive nicey nicey possible framing of the question and with a huge response rate

    I think a more neutrally framed question would have struggled to get out of the 50s in %age range and the response rate would have been down.

    But it is all water under the bridge and the pooves are up so lets not quibble and instead raise a glass to the shifters!

    Considering it's water under the bridge you do seem intent on banging on about it.

  18. #2218
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,674
    I should have looked up last night,........



    NYCís Empire State Building Has Lit Up Rainbow To Celebrate The Yes Vote: https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/empir...bow-yes-mates/

    ___________

    Government steps up the pace on same-sex marriage bill: https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-politics-live

    Malcolm Turnbull wants same-sex marriage passed into law by Christmas. So how is that going to be achieved? The decks of parliament have been cleared. Today, the Senate will do nothing else but consider how to legislate marriage equality.

    ∑ We learned yesterday that James Patersonís bill, which proposed greater protections to discriminate against same-sex weddings, has been withdrawn. That leaves us with the bill of moderate Liberal Dean Smith. Smithís bill has cross-party support, has been through a committee, and is widely considered the only starting point for legislating same-sex marriage.

    ∑ Smithís bill was introduced yesterday and the senator will give his second reading speech today, followed by debate, and a series of proposed amendments.


    _________


    sad note: Australian UN diplomat dies after fall from New York building - Julian Simpson fell from seventh floor after admiring Empire State Building which was lit up in rainbow colours to celebrate Australiaís marriage equality vote: https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-york-building
    Last edited by S Landreth; 16-11-2017 at 05:01 AM.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  19. #2219
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,786
    ...amid all the good news, this report from the BBC this morning:

    How does China try to 'convert' gay people?

    These are the suggested treatments for homosexuality listed in "Consulting Psychology" published by Guangdong Higher Education Press, a recommended text for mental health education:
    1. Platonic love relationship: Find an "elegant and caring" member of the opposite sex. Establish a relationship as friends initially. Then hope it becomes something else.
    2. Repulsion therapy: Induce nausea with forced vomiting or fear of electrocution when thoughts of having a lover of the same sex emerge.
    3. Shock therapy: Cause major shock to your lifestyle by moving to an entirely new environment in order to sever connection with previous friends, etc.
    4. Sexual orientation transfer: When you are aroused, practise channelling that feeling towards somebody of the opposite sex using pictures and audio recordings.
    Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd

  20. #2220
    Thailand Expat
    David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...amid all the good news, this report from the BBC this morning:

    How does China try to 'convert' gay people?

    These are the suggested treatments for homosexuality listed in "Consulting Psychology" published by Guangdong Higher Education Press, a recommended text for mental health education:
    1. Platonic love relationship: Find an "elegant and caring" member of the opposite sex. Establish a relationship as friends initially. Then hope it becomes something else.
    2. Repulsion therapy: Induce nausea with forced vomiting or fear of electrocution when thoughts of having a lover of the same sex emerge.
    3. Shock therapy: Cause major shock to your lifestyle by moving to an entirely new environment in order to sever connection with previous friends, etc.
    4. Sexual orientation transfer: When you are aroused, practise channelling that feeling towards somebody of the opposite sex using pictures and audio recordings.
    Yeh, that is sad.

    Same story from the Australian Media

    Rights group urges China to ban gay conversion that sometimes involves electroshock



    Key points:
    • Homosexuality was removed from China's official list of mental illnesses more than 15 years ago
    • Stories of conversion therapy victims being enrolled by their families remain common
    • China has no laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity

    Here

  21. #2221
    Totemic Lust User
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Posts
    10,580
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    How does China try to 'convert' gay people?
    It is sad and trying conversion therapy on people who are happy the way they are is inhumane and cruel.

    But, just for argument's sake, what about giving people a choice in case they are not happy the way they are?

    If it becomes medically feasible (which is not all that far-fetched) to give people a choice about their sexuality is that also a bad thing?

    We now offer people a choice about their gender. If people feel like they are a girl in a boys body we offer them hormones and drugs to get their body to physically comply with their desires about their gender.

    If the same thing were to become possible for sexuality would it be a good or a bad thing to make it available?

  22. #2222
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    27,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    But, just for argument's sake, what about giving people a choice in case they are not happy the way they are?
    Do you want to be gay?

  23. #2223
    Totemic Lust User
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Posts
    10,580
    ^Well that would also be an option!

    If a fella is struggling with the ladies or just bored and wants an active sex life he could consider becoming gay.

    But in principle is the idea of offering people a choice about their sexuality, the way we do with gender, wrong?

  24. #2224
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    27,337
    I think you want to be gay.

  25. #2225
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,857
    Hahaha. Another couple of losers. Literally.
    This couple, as a matter of principle, said they'd get a divorce if the Yes's won.

    Lawyer offers to help distraught No voting couple to divorce - NZ Herald.





    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    But in principle is the idea of offering people a choice about their sexuality, the way we do with gender, wrong?
    Not wrong at all. Why not?

    It would be a very daring experiment to become something you're not.
    And I can see the physical gender-reassignment argument coming up from what I just said. I won't pre-empt...let's see where this goes.


    Imagine it was a pill you could take and all of a sudden you were homosexual. Have an affair with that rich guy, and when bored and have his money, take another pill and go back to your wife.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •