Domestic Politics

[HeartFc]

1 hour ago, bt50 said:

Fuck off.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Edit : ive re-read thatand you mean that this will get him elected no? Thought for a minute you were some crazy SJW trying to blame it on him.

Yeah I think it'll get him elected. Im a big trump fan although he needs to be careful with the Muslim temporary ban talk, didn't think that was particularly wise, well worded of even possible. 

[Tesla]

If only one of those people in the night club had a gun themselves and stopped this maniac. Florida gun laws and self defence laws not free enough clearly, need RPGs for sale anonymously in supermarkets and the right to defend yourself in public if someone even looks at you the wrong way  

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

6 hours ago, Tesla said:

If only one of those people in the night club had a gun themselves and stopped this maniac. Florida gun laws and self defence laws not free enough clearly, need RPGs for sale anonymously in supermarkets and the right to defend yourself in public if someone even looks at you the wrong way  

FWIW, I was taking the piss out of the gun lobby in the US, I know that might not be obvious given I've made my beliefs on those two matters pretty well known before. But even I think the US needs to tighten up their gun laws in some areas.

Anyway what I wanted to add is, and I think I said similar when the Lindt cafe shit happened, that I think it's BS that these sort of 'lone wolf' attacks are classified in the same category as real religion-motivated terrorist attacks like 9/11. Just cause some mentally ill cunt mentions ISIS (and in reality has no affiliation with ISIS) shouldn't mean it's any different to any other mass shooting in the US. Just like the majority of mass-shootings in the US the motivation for these psychopaths is the media attention and recognition that they'll get rather than religious beliefs. Why does it matter? Because I think labelling them terrorism makes people more afraid and gives rise to more draconian laws to try stop them, when it's basically impossible to stop 'lone wolf' attacks. And if they can be stopped or reduced then the best bet would probably be to direct resources to better mental health care rather than spying on everyone (eg the NSA is spying on everyone in the US but this shit still happens).

But HeartFc is right, Trump will be all over this. I thought he was going to win anyway TBH.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

33 minutes ago, Tesla said:

FWIW, I was taking the piss out of the gun lobby in the US, I know that might not be obvious given I've made my beliefs on those two matters pretty well known before. But even I think the US needs to tighten up their gun laws in some areas.

Anyway what I wanted to add is, and I think I said similar when the Lindt cafe shit happened, that I think it's BS that these sort of 'lone wolf' attacks are classified in the same category as real religion-motivated terrorist attacks like 9/11. Just cause some mentally ill cunt mentions ISIS (and in reality has no affiliation with ISIS) shouldn't mean it's any different to any other mass shooting in the US. Just like the majority of mass-shootings in the US the motivation for these psychopaths is the media attention and recognition that they'll get rather than religious beliefs. Why does it matter? Because I think labelling them terrorism makes people more afraid and gives rise to more draconian laws to try stop them, when it's basically impossible to stop 'lone wolf' attacks. And if they can be stopped or reduced then the best bet would probably be to direct resources to better mental health care rather than spying on everyone (eg the NSA is spying on everyone in the US but this shit still happens).

But HeartFc is right, Trump will be all over this. I thought he was going to win anyway TBH.

I agree with that statement. Really any murderous incident and the sicko can yell out IS and all of a sudden it is a full blown religious terrorist act. I still think that these incidents are terrorist acts by definition random mass killing makes everybody paranoid even for a small moment. But, I prefer to have solid evidence that there was a trail of communications and training provided by IS. And you are right regarding the ever more draconian laws and the loss of liberty. The great irony of all of this is that the US could easily do a lot more with tightening the gun laws (eg no military grade weapons out in the streets) rather than increase surveillance. They will end up like communist East Germany with 1/3 of the people being informants to the FBI.

[Deeming]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

FWIW, I was taking the piss out of the gun lobby in the US, I know that might not be obvious given I've made my beliefs on those two matters pretty well known before. But even I think the US needs to tighten up their gun laws in some areas.

Anyway what I wanted to add is, and I think I said similar when the Lindt cafe shit happened, that I think it's BS that these sort of 'lone wolf' attacks are classified in the same category as real religion-motivated terrorist attacks like 9/11. Just cause some mentally ill cunt mentions ISIS (and in reality has no affiliation with ISIS) shouldn't mean it's any different to any other mass shooting in the US. Just like the majority of mass-shootings in the US the motivation for these psychopaths is the media attention and recognition that they'll get rather than religious beliefs. Why does it matter? Because I think labelling them terrorism makes people more afraid and gives rise to more draconian laws to try stop them, when it's basically impossible to stop 'lone wolf' attacks. And if they can be stopped or reduced then the best bet would probably be to direct resources to better mental health care rather than spying on everyone (eg the NSA is spying on everyone in the US but this shit still happens).

But HeartFc is right, Trump will be all over this. I thought he was going to win anyway TBH.

I disagree, IS have called for just these sort of terrorist attacks to occur. Terrorists need to keep changing their MO in order to be effective. Pretty much every major terrorism ct is different to the previous ones. This allows them to evade the new security protocols that get put in place after the latest terrorist attack. 
It fits the definition "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" while it might not be on the scale of 9/11 only having one attacker does not mean it wasn't terrorism. Suicide bombers are often solo, the Unabomber was a solo terrorist.

[GreenSeater]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

FWIW, I was taking the piss out of the gun lobby in the US, I know that might not be obvious given I've made my beliefs on those two matters pretty well known before. But even I think the US needs to tighten up their gun laws in some areas.

I'm glad you cleared that up because I really wasn't sure to be honest haha

[cadete]

14 hours ago, NewConvert said:

I agree with that statement. Really any murderous incident and the sicko can yell out IS and all of a sudden it is a full blown religious terrorist act. I still think that these incidents are terrorist acts by definition random mass killing makes everybody paranoid even for a small moment. But, I prefer to have solid evidence that there was a trail of communications and training provided by IS. And you are right regarding the ever more draconian laws and the loss of liberty. The great irony of all of this is that the US could easily do a lot more with tightening the gun laws (eg no military grade weapons out in the streets) rather than increase surveillance. They will end up like communist East Germany with 1/3 of the people being informants to the FBI.

I went to the Stasi Office Building last year (It has been kept exactly as it was - very 80's Soviet) when I was in Berlin... and they had photos in one room of different informants.

Anyway I had chuckle when I came across some Aussie Sokka History and saw former Perth Glory coach Bernd Stange on wall who informed for years on other Soccer Players and then was made coach of the National Side to inform the Stasi of his players political views.

This was pretty humorous because the back in the 90's when the Glory had by the far the most money/best squad they were going to sack him for not winning silverware and the Mass WA Public who was in love with the charisma of the bloke eventually prevented the club from doing so... basically they liked his funny accent.

Edited June 13, 2016 by cadete

[hedaik]

And his name sounded like Burnt Snagger 

[cadete]

1 hour ago, hedaik said:

And his name sounded like Burnt Snagger 

And he kissed a female cop after they won a semi final at the sold out WACA...

Edit - If he did that in 2016 he probably be in Chris Gayle trouble.

Edited June 14, 2016 by cadete

[malloy]

http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/greens-preference-fred-nile-candidate-in-sydney-over-gay-indigenous-liberal-20160614-gpimpw.html

The greens, the only party with principles.....

[HeartFc]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-dines-with-hate-preacher/news-story/07b9e88bf961dc60ba9ce16ba3e34a99

 

Malcom goes full cuck.

[GreenSeater]

21 minutes ago, HeartFc said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-dines-with-hate-preacher/news-story/07b9e88bf961dc60ba9ce16ba3e34a99

 

Malcom goes full cuck.

That's certainly an interesting decision... Although on this forum I think the fact that Waleed Aly was there would cause a bigger stir

[HeartFc]

7 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

That's certainly an interesting decision... Although on this forum I think the fact that Waleed Aly was there would cause a bigger stir

Haha so true.

[thisphantomfortress]

8 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

That's certainly an interesting decision... Although on this forum I think the fact that Waleed Aly was there would cause a bigger stir

Just opposite ends of the scale

[Tesla]

14 hours ago, HeartFc said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-dines-with-hate-preacher/news-story/07b9e88bf961dc60ba9ce16ba3e34a99

 

Malcom goes full cuck.

What a fuck up, wouldn't surprise me if someone in the PM's office got fired for that.

Honestly I don't think it's a big deal personally but if this dinner has shown anything is that a huge portion of Liberal voters are racist rednecks who didn't like the idea of a dinner with Isalmic figures in the first place let alone after this shit.

EDIT: fuck me, all these rednecks still all over social media today, I'm giving Turnbull some credit here for having the balls to do this dinner when seemingly these people are a large proportion of the Liberal vote.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

On 13/06/2016 at 8:22 PM, Deeming said:

I disagree, IS have called for just these sort of terrorist attacks to occur. Terrorists need to keep changing their MO in order to be effective. Pretty much every major terrorism ct is different to the previous ones. This allows them to evade the new security protocols that get put in place after the latest terrorist attack. 
It fits the definition "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" while it might not be on the scale of 9/11 only having one attacker does not mean it wasn't terrorism. Suicide bombers are often solo, the Unabomber was a solo terrorist.

 

Well now that a lot more about this guy has been revealed, I'm claiming a green line. Bloke was some closet self-hating homosexual plus a nutcase (who had threatened to shoot up his school when he was a kid) and so he went and shotup a club full of homosexuals. Had fuck all to do with any political agenda by the looks of things.

But you're right, a solo attacker can be a terrorist, but I disagree that suicide bombers are solo terrorists, since they're usually working in connection with other parties, which makes it easier to stop of course since someone could come forward or communications could be intercepted. Whether it's a terrorist attack or just a nutcase, someone acting completely alone is going to be hard or almost impossible to stop, just like a lot of other crimes are hard or impossible to stop and we accept that a certain level of these crimes is going to occur. So I suppose what I was trying to get at is that in general I hate the idea of more over the top policing in a pointless attempt to stop these things from happening, cause you really can't when it's someone acting alone. 

I have to say this stabbing/shooting in the UK is interesting, that apparently this guy said something about Britain First when doing it. So just by mentioning Britain First is this guy automatically affiliated with them regardless of wether any actual connection exists? And since what he did is a terrorist act (the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims), and he is apparently affiliated with Britain First, does that make Britain First a terrorist group?

Seriously the irony is fucking great.

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

What a fuck up, wouldn't surprise me if someone in the PM's office got fired for that.

Honestly I don't think it's a big deal personally but if this dinner has shown anything is that a huge portion of Liberal voters are racist rednecks who didn't like the idea of a dinner with Isalmic figures in the first place let alone after this shit.

EDIT: fuck me, all these rednecks still all over social media today, I'm giving Turnbull some credit here for having the balls to do this dinner when seemingly these people are a large proportion of the Liberal vote.

Fully agree with this. I can't see anything that the Sheik said that would be offensive as I have friends who are LGBTI and they openly acknowledge the rampant STDs in their community. The outroar are either rednecks or PC people who can't stand the truth being stated.

 

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Well now that a lot more about this guy has been revealed, I'm claiming a green line. Bloke was some closet self-hating homosexual plus a nutcase (who had threatened to shoot up his school when he was a kid) and so he went and shotup a club full of homosexuals. Had fuck all to do with any political agenda by the looks of things.

But you're right, a solo attacker can be a terrorist, but I disagree that suicide bombers are solo terrorists, since they're usually working in connection with other parties, which makes it easier to stop of course since someone could come forward or communications could be intercepted. Whether it's a terrorist attack or just a nutcase, someone acting completely alone is going to be hard or almost impossible to stop, just like a lot of other crimes are hard or impossible to solve and we accept that a certain level of these crimes is going to occur. So I suppose what I was trying to get at is that in general I hate the idea of more over the top policing in a pointless attempt to stop these things from happening, cause you really can't when it's someone acting alone. 

I have to say this stabbing/shooting in the UK is interesting, that apparently this guy said something about Britain First when doing it. So just by mentioning Britain First is this guy automatically affiliated with them regardless of wether any actual connection exists? And since what he did is a terrorist act (the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims), and he is apparently affiliated with Britain First, does that make Britain First a terrorist group?

Seriously the irony is fucking great.

 

Fully agree with the first bold statement.

The British murderer at the moment remains in a fog of allegations. Some say that he had mental health issues, his brother is saying that he had never expressed a political opinion, etc. Too early to tell. However where I disagree is the environment created by political parties and politicians. Ugly, belligerent and intolerant politicians create an atmosphere where a deranged person can act alone or people with real terrorists tendencies start organising. This has been an age old tactic used by a very young Stalin prior to hooking up with Lenin, Mussolini used it to the same effect (and Hitler became a willing student) and I can go on with examples from Latin America and Africa. So although Britain First may not be a terrorist group, it could be that their actions are formenting the environment to enable terrorism.

[Tesla]

What I got from that live Facebook debate is that the Coalition would be a lot less likely to win this election if Abbott was in charge. At the end of the day the Labor policies sound good when you don't consider the costs, plus gay marriage is a tap in for them, and Shorten is a good debater. But his good debating relies on him looking like a fucking asshole, and that's hardly going to help a bloke who is pretty disliked already. Putting aside that Abbott would barely be able to string a sentence together during a live debate like this, no one likes him either. On the other hand Turnbull is a likeable guy and with his good shit talking ability he was able to give the less popular Coalition policies about as good a sell as they're going to get, and most importantly he did it without being an asshole and if anything playing up his likeability (it's probably a deliberate strategy)  the whole time. That likeability could be enough to get the Coalition over the line if the election is close. 

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

What I got from that live Facebook debate is that the Coalition would be a lot less likely to win this election if Abbott was in charge. At the end of the day the Labor policies sound good when you don't consider the costs, plus gay marriage is a tap in for them, and Shorten is a good debater. But his good debating relies on him looking like a fucking asshole, and that's hardly going to help a bloke who is pretty disliked already. Putting aside that Abbott would barely be able to string a sentence together during a live debate like this, no one likes him either. On the other hand Turnbull is a likeable guy and with his good shit talking ability he was able to give the less popular Coalition policies about as good a sell as they're going to get, and most importantly he did it without being an asshole and if anything playing up his likeability (it's probably a deliberate strategy)  the whole time. That likeability could be enough to get the Coalition over the line if the election is close. 

I personally reckon that Turnbull's negotiating within the party ahead of the spill is the only reason this election is close. He keeps pandering to the conservative side of the party and going back on his own morals and ideals (gay marriage, climate change etc) because he probably made certain promises to people to get their vote. Personally I think if he had stuck to his own personal convictions and lead the party in a more progressive direction then this election would be in the bag for them.

[Tesla]

11 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

I personally reckon that Turnbull's negotiating within the party ahead of the spill is the only reason this election is close. He keeps pandering to the conservative side of the party and going back on his own morals and ideals (gay marriage, climate change etc) because he probably made certain promises to people to get their vote. Personally I think if he had stuck to his own personal convictions and lead the party in a more progressive direction then this election would be in the bag for them.

Is it due to negotiations he made or is it because he needs to be a bit more conservative to keep a lot of people voting Liberal? As Cad always says, most of those who like Turnbull's own beliefs aren't going to vote Liberal anyway. Losing conservative voters is a bigger risk so he needed to be more conservative to maximise his chances. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Tesla

[GreenSeater]

15 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Is it due to negotiations he made or is it because he needs to be a bit more conservative to keep a lot of people voting Liberal? As Cad always says, most of those who like Turnbull's own beliefs aren't going to vote Liberal anyway. Losing conservative voters is a bigger risk so he needed to be more conservative to maximise his chances. 

The thing is though, who else are conservative voters going to realistically vote for? Labor voters who think Labor isn't left enough have the third largest party in the country the Greens to vote for. If conservatives don't go Liberal they don't have many realistic choices to vote for apart from independents. He also didn't have to go fully blown lefty, just move slightly closer to centre and he'd win a lot of Labor voters as he is probably a better leader than Bill Shorten.

[Deeming]

The plebiscite is the only reason the Liberals will win with.

I know many long term Labor folk who are voting coalition this time round because of Labors SSM push and the coalitions promise of a plebiscite.

 

Where else will Liberals go? Lower house no where really. At least eventually but it will cost them $ as they miss out on first preference votes.

In the Upper house there will be a big swing to other right of centre parties (LibDems, ALA, Family First etc)

[malloy]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

Is it due to negotiations he made or is it because he needs to be a bit more conservative to keep a lot of people voting Liberal? As Cad always says, most of those who like Turnbull's own beliefs aren't going to vote Liberal anyway. Losing conservative voters is a bigger risk so he needed to be more conservative to maximise his chances. 

This.

[thisphantomfortress]

47 minutes ago, Deeming said:

The plebiscite is the only reason the Liberals will win with.

I know many long term Labor folk who are voting coalition this time round because of Labors SSM push and the coalitions promise of a plebiscite.

 

Where else will Liberals go? Lower house no where really. At least eventually but it will cost them $ as they miss out on first preference votes.

In the Upper house there will be a big swing to other right of centre parties (LibDems, ALA, Family First etc)

Can I have one good reason anyone would oppose SSM?

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Can I have one good reason anyone would oppose SSM?

A lot of people do oppose it, some just don't like homosexuality, others don't have too much of an issue with it they just prefer it wasn't so public, others have even less issue with it but just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I haven't seen any polls on the plebiscite, but I imagine it will be closer than a lot of people think, though of course SSM will get up.

FWIW, as much as I support homosexual rights including marriage, I also don't have any issue with people who don't agree with or like homosexuality, they are perfectly fine to be against it and even voice their issues with it (though currently pretty much illegal cause no freedom of speech in Aus), they just have no right to stop other people being homosexuals or stop them having the same rights as heterosexuals.

That's thing #75824 I hate about SJWs, they want rights for some people but not others, I want rights for everyone. If your gay you can fuck 10 other consenting adult dudes a night if you like, or get married to one, or do both, I don't care. But if you're against homosexuals you can say it's not natural and they're going to hell etc, that's fine by me as well. What's not okay in my book is interfering in someone's right to do either of those things.

[thisphantomfortress]

Trust BigotT50 to like an anti gay marriage post. My point isn't that people can't hold those views they can think and say what they like. But I'd love to hear and arguement against it that is more than just "gays are icky"

Edited June 18, 2016 by thisphantomfortress

[bt50]

2 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Trust BigotT50 to like an anti gay marriage post. My point isn't that people can't hold those views they can think and say what they like. But I'd love to hear and arguement against it that is more than just "gays are icky"

Fuck i thought it was a liberty post. Thanks for clearing that up thisSJWfortress.

[Deeming]

21 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Can I have one good reason anyone would oppose SSM?

1) Religious reasons every major religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism) opposes it bar the liberals within that religion. People might not like religions but many but many follow a faith.

2) To protect religious liberty. For those from 1) every country that has legislated for SSM have then taken those that disagree and refuse to participate to court for civil claims or criminal charges. The former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson acknowledged this and was pushing for a version of SSM that gave full religious liberty The way the current plebiscite is heading only religious ministers will be exempt not photographers, cake makers, people talking in public opposing it once it is legalised etc.

3) If the definition is changed to allow for SSM, then why restrict the number of participants? If people are for SSM then they should be for polygamy. I can't think of an argument for SSM where you cannot substitute gender for number. If people are okay with both I can accept that but otherwise just seems hypocritical.

4) Children are best raised in a house hold with both biological parents. Yes there are exceptions but in general this is the case.

[thisphantomfortress]

1 hour ago, Deeming said:

1) Religious reasons every major religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism) opposes it bar the liberals within that religion. People might not like religions but many but many follow a faith.

2) To protect religious liberty. For those from 1) every country that has legislated for SSM have then taken those that disagree and refuse to participate to court for civil claims or criminal charges. The former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson acknowledged this and was pushing for a version of SSM that gave full religious liberty The way the current plebiscite is heading only religious ministers will be exempt not photographers, cake makers, people talking in public opposing it once it is legalised etc.

3) If the definition is changed to allow for SSM, then why restrict the number of participants? If people are for SSM then they should be for polygamy. I can't think of an argument for SSM where you cannot substitute gender for number. If people are okay with both I can accept that but otherwise just seems hypocritical.

4) Children are best raised in a house hold with both biological parents. Yes there are exceptions but in general this is the case.

Number one should be redundant as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with the religious liberty argument TBH, but I don't think that should the exclude SSM just cake shops for example shouldn't have to make SSM cakes should they choose not to. But I disagree with a lot of the current laws so that's no surprise 

SSM isn't polygamy though and a marriage as a contract between two people doesn't legitimise polygamy, which TBH is already happening here if we like it or not.

number 4 I have the most issue with. My exs old man lived in Poland and he parents relationship was a trainwreck and my current missus parents are split and she has fuck all to do with her dad. Based on their experiences (I'm lucky to have been brought up by parents who's marriage worked) I'd rather two gay parents raise a kid than divorsed parents 

 

[Tesla]

8 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Trust BigotT50 to like an anti gay marriage post. My point isn't that people can't hold those views they can think and say what they like. But I'd love to hear and arguement against it that is more than just "gays are icky"

I take exception to my post being labelled anti-gay marriage TBH.

I'm a bigger supporter of gay marriage than the fucking Greens.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

I've personally got no issue with SSM at all but I do foresee one negative outcome. 

There will almost certainly be repercussions for Christians  who don't want to be a part of it. The incident involving the Christian bakery and florist in the states will happen here. Business' will be the first who'll be forced to cater to those who they should have the right to refuse service. You may disagree with that but remember its technically not the person the business is refusing service, its the what the person will use the cake or flowers for. A gay person could lie if they want or get someone else to order the product... but they wont. There'll be gay people who have an axe to grind that will search far and wide to try and find Christians to fuck with. They'll use their demigod (the state) to ruin those they despise, its happened several times in the states. 

Once the business' freedom is taken and their livelihood destroyed by the state and media the churches will become the next target. Churches who refuse SSM will be fined and you'll probably see more burnt down. (Thats already an epidemic in this country but you wont hear a peep about that in the main stream media.)

Now you may disagree with the whole concept of organisations being able to discriminate but that might be because you only like freedom if it agrees with your point of view (not trying to have a go at you). I personally I believe business' should be able to refuse absolutely anyone eg. a black person, an elderly Asian hooker, a sober Irishmen, a Muslim feminist or even a non-binary/gender fluid/pan sexual viking who identifies as a pickle. Its not that I agree with their fucked up views but its because I believe freedom is also the freedom to be a cunt (this includes drugs and guns too). Once freedom is chipped away it becomes a slippery slope which only ever leads to tyranny. Sorry if that sounds Alex Jones-ish but its what I believe in. 

The reason I only mention Christians is because no one will bother the Muslims. That would be racist and islamophobic. 

 

Ps. Gay weddings would be super duper fabulous and if gay people wanna have the right to ruin their lives too, I'm all for it. 

[NewConvert]

8 hours ago, Deeming said:

1) Religious reasons every major religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism) opposes it bar the liberals within that religion. People might not like religions but many but many follow a faith.

2) To protect religious liberty. For those from 1) every country that has legislated for SSM have then taken those that disagree and refuse to participate to court for civil claims or criminal charges. The former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson acknowledged this and was pushing for a version of SSM that gave full religious liberty The way the current plebiscite is heading only religious ministers will be exempt not photographers, cake makers, people talking in public opposing it once it is legalised etc.

3) If the definition is changed to allow for SSM, then why restrict the number of participants? If people are for SSM then they should be for polygamy. I can't think of an argument for SSM where you cannot substitute gender for number. If people are okay with both I can accept that but otherwise just seems hypocritical.

4) Children are best raised in a house hold with both biological parents. Yes there are exceptions but in general this is the case.

You answered thisphantomfortress's question all right. Here is my take:

1) True - many people will oppose SSM because of their faith. However when you say that only liberals oppose it (I only have first hand knowledge of Christianity) I am not so sure. Where there has been legislated recognition in South America, which is a very Catholic sub-continent, the opposition has been found to be in the minority. Chile which is considered the most conservative nation in SA is also debating SSM with every likelihood of winning a majority. So the question then becomes should the majority of the people accept the opposition of a minority?

2) The question of exemptions can be fraught with danger. The West has a long and sorry history with exemptions (the USA had Jim Crow which in effect reversed most of the gains of the abolition of slavery). It could be argued that allowing exemptions diminishes the dignity of LGBTI before the law. Whether the converse can be argued by the cake shop owner is more difficult to tell.

3) Had a quick look as to why polygamy is illegal in the West, after all it has been legal in the Middle East, Africa and Asia for ever. It appears that it is both a cultural and religious matter. For some reason the northern European countries never did develop polygamy and Christianity forbade outright. However, it is noted that throughout Western history it was not uncommon for people to have children outside of wedlock and in many instances be looked after by the father (example King Henry I had about 20 children most outside of wedlock and he raised them because he could afford to, IIRC he even made on of his bastards the Earl of Bristol because he was so capable). But is polygamy on par with SSM? I don't think so because the consequences are different - in societies where the ratio of male to female is about the same (1:1) the possibility of poor males being able to mate decreases markedly and this could either lead to massive crime or social unrest. As two analogical examples: Jarred Diamond wrote that part of the genocide in Rwanda was Hutu against Hutu because traditionally the eldest male inherited property enabling him to find a wife so the younger brothers were left dirt poor and no wife; end result was that part of the slaughter was just to get property to be able to marry. The second example is China with their one child policy. The net result was that females foetuses were aborted leading to an imbalanced ratio. These days the surviving females 'auction' themselves to the richest bidder but there is also an underground trade in the kidnapping and selling of girls. I cannot think of any scenario where legalising SSM will lead to a similar result.

4) I have doubts on the validity of this statement. thisphantomfortress has given you some examples but my doubts stem from a historical context. Basically up until the 20th century life was fragile in many different ways: disease could kill one or both parents, males would be taken away to war, workplace injuries/death, etc. When Napoleon conducted the first census they found that one third of households were single parent or alone. This means that historically a huge volume of children were not raised by their biological parents. WW1 and 2 also slaughtered huge numbers of males and women had to raise children on their own - indeed I have met people (elderly) with this history, and I cannot say to them that they would have been better people if they had been raised by both parents. The West has been fortunate since WW2 that penicillin was discovered, that potable water and sewerage has been delivered to most homes, technology has increased food production and that the weather conditions have not produced famines. So when I hear people say that children are better off being raised by parents of both genders, that would only apply since WW2 and then there are enough cases to suggest that this is not always so.

[thisphantomfortress]

7 hours ago, Tesla said:

I take exception to my post being labelled anti-gay marriage TBH.

I'm a bigger supporter of gay marriage than the fucking Greens.

Was a dig at BT50 your post was just the vehicle no offence intended 

[Shahanga]

I see old mate Andrews has managed to turn over sufficient rocks to find 5(? Sychophants to be his yes men and women on the CFA board. Some people will do anything for a dollar.

[thisphantomfortress]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

I see old mate Andrews has managed to turn over sufficient rocks to find 5(? Sychophants to be his yes men and women on the CFA board. Some people will do anything for a dollar.

I am somewhat friendly with an ALP staffer needless to say this whole ordeal has not gone down well behind closed doors.

[Shahanga]

It's immoral/ ethic less shit like this that really pisses me off. Different governments have different ideas about what's a good policy and whilst you might not like half of them, really it's fair enough.

This though is the type of government behaviour I got used to when I lived in a third world country.

Who appoints a union to oversee a volunteer fire brigade and then sacks the leaders who point out its both immoral and illegal?

This is the sort of thing that ends up in a corruption enquiry down the track.

[thisphantomfortress]

32 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

It's immoral/ ethic less shit like this that really pisses me off. Different governments have different ideas about what's a good policy and whilst you might not like half of them, really it's fair enough.

This though is the type of government behaviour I got used to when I lived in a third world country.

Who appoints a union to oversee a volunteer fire brigade and then sacks the leaders who point out its both immoral and illegal?

This is the sort of thing that ends up in a corruption enquiry down the track.

 But the royal commission is a political attack by the liberals...

[bt50]

11 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

 But the royal commission is a political attack by the liberals...

We might make a CFMEU rep out of you yet!

[Shahanga]

25 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

 But the royal commission is a political attack by the liberals...

Lol

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

It's immoral/ ethic less shit like this that really pisses me off. Different governments have different ideas about what's a good policy and whilst you might not like half of them, really it's fair enough.

This though is the type of government behaviour I got used to when I lived in a third world country.

Who appoints a union to oversee a volunteer fire brigade and then sacks the leaders who point out its both immoral and illegal?

This is the sort of thing that ends up in a corruption enquiry down the track.

So what i your take on the fair work commission that came down on the side of the unions. Especially knowing that many of the members were appointed by the coalition?