Thread: Same sex marriage

More hot off the press from the Betoota Advocate....!!


Man Who Used To ‘Bash Poofters’ For Fun Says Leftie Bullies Turned Him Off Voting Yes

A 55-year-old who spent a big part of the eighties looking for gay men to bash at local parks says he was almost considering lending his vote to marriage equality, until ‘these people’ tried to make him feel a certain way.

Bradley, a prominent football manager at his medium-sized coastal hometown, says his past behaviour of going poofter bashing for fun has nothing to do with his current opinions towards the Federal Goverment’s same-sex marriage postal vote.

“It was a different time back then” he said.

“You weren’t made to feel a certain way about people who were different to you. The cops would do it too”

That part of Brad’s life is way behind him now, and he says no one he knows has been bashing shirtlifter since the local boys accidentally killed a German backpacker in 1989 after he ended up being thrown off a 70-foot ocean cliffs in the heat of the moment.

“Bamarama’s not the same anymore” he says.

“Those boys learnt their lesson. It never happened again. Most of them were forced to leave town. This has got nothing to do with my views on traditional marriage”

Brad, who has never married, and has an obscure take on men’s fashion, says the 88 gay men that were either bashed to death or thrown of cliffs to drown between the eighties and nineties in his town and surrounding beaches has nothing to do with his recent decision to vote no against same-sex marriage.

“Mate, I had no problem with it until they tried to force themselves onto me”

“Try and tell me what to do and how to think. Fuck that”

“It’s tough luck mate, they’ve done it to themselves”

Man Who Used To 'Bash Poofters' For Fun Says Leftie Bullies Turned Him Off Voting Yes ? The Betoota Advocate

Tony Abbott headbutting charge against Hobart DJ Astro Labe upgraded


A charge against the Hobart DJ accused of headbutting former prime minister Tony Abbott has been upgraded to one that carries a maximum 10-year jail term.



Astro Labe, 38, was charged with common assault after a September 21 incident on Hobart's waterfront.

The charge has now been amended to causing harm to a Commonwealth public official.

Mr Labe appeared briefly in the Hobart Magistrates Court on Monday morning.

He did not enter a plea and his bail was continued.

At the time of the incident, Mr Abbott told the media the attacker was wearing a "Vote Yes" badge.

Mr Labe stated after being charged that the incident "had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality".

The case will return to court on January 18.

Tony Abbott headbutting charge against Hobart DJ Astro Labe upgraded - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Maybe the bald ginger-beard-man coont will get the gay-wedding royal ring-piece ripping treatment as a prison-bitch!

^ It will interesting to see how the Polling reflects the Actual voting.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

59% Yes – 41% no (should be 38%)

Where did you get those numbers SL?

Have to say they sound a bit low.

It will be interesting to plot the trend in popularity of the SSM question over time.

I think western society is currently going through its grovelling remorse phase w.r.t. homosexuality and is currently susceptible to accepting excessive political claims in a state of contrition and guilt at past unfair treatment of gays.

I think support for radical ideas like redefining marriage will peak and then ebb and a more objective view of the nature of homosexuality will slowly come into focus.

Ireland is a traditional, conservative and deeply religious society and they managed 62% in favour and 38% against.

You would think that a young progressive nation without so much religious baggage would be looking to knock that 62% out of the park.

I would have thought anything less than 70% would be considered lukewarm.

59% would be abysmal. It would signal that western society has possibly already peaked and is in the beginnings of the ebb w.r.t. sympathy for radical gay politics.

It's like watching the desperate last gasps of a dinosaur trying to avoid extinction.

Originally Posted by Looper

70% would be considered lukewarm

Originally Posted by Looper

59% would be abysmal

...however, 50.1% is a victory...and that's all that's necessary this time...

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's like watching the desperate last gasps of a dinosaur trying to avoid extinction.

My Kids love a Good Dinosaur

Just 11 more days of surveys to be counted and they’re done

31 October 2017 – ABS estimates 12.3 million Australian Marriage Law Postal Surveys returned

It’s estimated the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) received an additional 400,000 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey forms last week, bringing the total to 12.3 million (77.0 per cent) of forms as of Friday, 27 October 2017.: https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/news-alerts

To date –12.3 million surveys have been returned (77%) out of 16,000,000 sent.

Going to use 59% for YES and 41% voting no

Returned: 12,300,000
Yes: 7,257,000
no: 5,043,000
Outstanding surveys: 3,700,000

Estimating surveys to be returned

Using information from an Australian website, they estimate 12.7 million will be voting. Using that figure of 12.7, the outstanding surveys would be 400,000: SSM: ABC News

Returned: 12,300,000
Yes: 7,257,000
no: 5,043,000
Outstanding surveys: 400,000

On their way,…..

With a near 80% return the Yes vote should romp home.

It is annoying. I was really wanting it to be close just for the giggles!

I blame Turnbull.

If Abbott had still been in the lodge we might have got a more juicily worded question in the survey.

The question from Turnbull (who is a supporter of SSM) is

'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' YES/NO

There were going to be some people who were going to vote YES/NO no matter what the wording.

But the fence sitters can be swayed by sympathetic wording.

The question uses the word 'allow' which conveys a nice sense that passing SSM is an act of generosity and kindness on the part of society rather than a right to which gay people should be 'entitled'.

It also conveys the idea that if we are 'allowing' them then they have asked nicely rather than demanded in a shouty way.

It makes it that bit harder for someone on the fence to put an X in the No box because there is a sense that refusing to 'allow' someone who has asked nicely is mean.

A Tony Abbott question would have been worded in a much sneakier way to make it easier to vote 'No'

The whole thing was actually a monumental waste of time and tax-payer money.

There was already majority electorate support for same sex marriage so this just delayed the inevitable and cost a shitload.

^I don't know about it being a total waste of money.

I think it was useful from the perspective of justifying legislation since it will be supported by an ABS survey so nobody can really complain about any changes.

It also allowed both sides of the argument to put their case.

It is interesting that in Canada where they passed SSM without a vote 13 years ago that public opinion about gay marriage is still the same as it is every where in the west (about 60-70% in favour and 30-40% against). I don't think marriage legislation changes people's feelings about the validity of homosexuality as form of human sexual expression but if it gives gay people some practically useful rights for their relationships then hey-ho whatever.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't think marriage legislation changes people's feelings about the validity of homosexuality as form of human sexual expression

...puh...leeze...

Originally Posted by Looper

It is annoying. I was really wanting it to be close just for the giggles!

Getting joy from other peoples anguish?

Originally Posted by Looper

The question uses the word 'allow' which conveys a nice sense that passing SSM is an act of generosity and kindness on the part of society rather than a right to which gay people should be 'entitled'.

Yes, "allow". Sad, isn't it, that minorities have to be "allowed" equal rights to you white male hetero privileged people.

^^Not sure what you mean TC?

I think appealing to the idea of 'allowing' gay folk to use marriage legislation (act of generosity implicit) is something that the average punter can live with (in a shrugging 'whatever' kind of way) but blokes chasing other blokes instead of chasing women is always going to be a bit of a nudge-nudge wink-wink snigger type of thing due to it appearing to run counter to the natural order.

But who knows - maybe they will discover a convincing evolutionary rationale.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Getting joy from other peoples anguish?

I think 'anguish' is a bit strong. It is not like gays have to hide their behaviour like in the 70s and their relationships are already legally supported. The 'marriage' thing is more like icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by Looper

Not sure what you mean TC

I believe you...

Originally Posted by Looper

Ireland is a traditional, conservative and deeply religious society

What a ridiculous thing to say in 2017. You really are stuck in the past, aren't you? It's like the last 50 years have passed you by leaving no impression whatsoever on either your memory or your understanding.

Originally Posted by Looper

blokes chasing other blokes instead of chasing women is always going to be a bit of a nudge-nudge wink-wink snigger type of thing due to it appearing to run counter to the natural order.

Yeah, if you have the mental age of a fucking nine-year-old.

Grown ups don't generally give a fuck as it really is none of their fucking business.

I get it that marriage is not really the big deal that it used so who really cares if we redefine it. While, homosexuality may still be viewed with a degree of humour by a lot of people, it is not taboo in the way that it used to be so...meh... whatever... maybe we could let the gays use marriage...

I like the use of 'allow' in the wording of the proposition. Not only does it reel in the genuine fence sitters for the 'Yes' vote but it even makes it OK for folk who object to strident gay rights campaigning to go along with 'allowing' gays to use marriage.

But trying to elevate homosexuality to be equal in validity and social standing to heterosexuality is a wild goose chase. Without any evolutionary rationale the idea of a bloke rooting another bloke when there are women around is simply the stuff of comedy and always will be.

Originally Posted by Looper

I get it that marriage is not really the big deal that it used so who really cares if we redefine it. While, homosexuality may still be viewed with a degree of humour by a lot of people, it is not taboo in the way that it used to be so...meh... whatever... maybe we could let the gays use marriage...

I like the use of 'allow' in the wording of the proposition. Not only does it reel in the genuine fence sitters for the 'Yes' vote but it even makes it OK for folk who object to strident gay rights campaigning to go along with 'allowing' gays to use marriage.

But trying to elevate homosexuality to be equal in validity and social standing to heterosexuality is a wild goose chase. Without any evolutionary rationale the idea of a bloke rooting another bloke when there are women around is simply the stuff of comedy and always will be.

I can only assume that your obsession with this thread is down to your own fears that you may be queer yourself.

You should try Buttplug's approach. Let skanky ladyboys fuck you up the arse and use that to convince yourself that you are not, in fact, a deeply repressed homosexual.

Originally Posted by Looper

Without any evolutionary rationale

So, all laws should be based on evolutionary rationale? I would put to you that there are quite a few laws that inhibit evolutionary rationale; any laws that protect idiots, for example.
Your idea is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Looper

But trying to elevate homosexuality to be equal in validity and social standing to heterosexuality

"Elevate" and "validity" are two fallacious points. You're using fallacy to describe the situation.

^ He's definitely a repressed homosexual. Gold high heels, lady's knickers, and all.
And of course, Looper, you realise I say that without an ounce of derision or sarcasm, because you are what you are, and nobody can blame you for that. Just come out and be happier for God's sake.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I can only assume that your obsession with this thread

Don't blame me. It was Landreth that started it.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So, all laws should be based on evolutionary rationale?

I wasn't talking about the marriage law. Yes we could 'allow' gays to use marriage since it is not really the big deal that it used to be with marriage being optional for a relationship and easily dissolved with 'no fault' divorce.

I was talking about the nature of homosexuality and how society should regard it. Sex can be a humorous subject in the best of situations but when you have blokes whose brains are wired up so they want to chase other blokes, even when there are women around, it becomes simply priceless!

I say that the price of entry for marriage should be the shifter community giving up trying to get us to take them seriously and for them to admit that their shenanigans are the funniest joke that nature has ever played on any species!

Just admit it Looper, you're as bent as a 90 baht note.

Originally Posted by Looper

Don't blame me. It was Landreth that started it.



I wasn't talking about the marriage law. Yes we could 'allow' gays to use marriage since it is not really the big deal that it used to be with marriage being optional for a relationship and easily dissolved with 'no fault' divorce.

I was talking about the nature of homosexuality and how society should regard it. Sex can be a humorous subject in the best of situations but when you have blokes whose brains are wired up so they want to chase other blokes, even when there are women around, it becomes simply priceless!

I say that the price of entry for marriage should be the shifter community giving up trying to get us to take them seriously and for them to admit that their shenanigans are the funniest joke that nature has ever played on any species!

Why do you think marriage is about reproduction, it's not. Marriage is about property.