Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bazal]

I'm already stuck married to the mother of my children.

Sounds like a personal problem!

 

[Haynzy]

Well you've kinda contradicted yourself, but thanks for trying. At least Izzy is not making lame excuses.

I disagree.
I think it's possible to love and respect people but not agree with the things they do.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sounds like a personal problem!

Yeah well, the personal problems of millions is how democracy works.

 

[Incorrect]

Well you've kinda contradicted yourself, but thanks for trying. At least Izzy is not making lame excuses.

Guessing he got a lot of Likes from SSM advocates saying they respect his opinion and appreciate the love and prayers??

 

[Bazal]

I disagree.
I think it's possible to love and respect people but not agree with the things they do.

100% agreed.

But I also think that we don't have the right to say that they cannot do those things (with obvious exceptions....)

 

[Haynzy]

100% agreed.

But I also think that we don't have the right to say that they cannot do those things (with obvious exceptions....)

Yeah agreed but I don't think Folau is doing that here.

 

[Gronk]

I disagree.
I think it's possible to love and respect people but not agree with the things they do.

OK I respect your position.

My position is that we are a country that believes in treating people equally.

Changing the law back to the way it was before (previous definition prior to 2004 was "two people") is the right thing to do.

I am yet to hear a compelling argument why this should not be the case.

 

[Bazal]

Yeah agreed but I don't think Folau is doing that here.

Well by voting no he kinda is....but anyway, just my opinion. I don't understand how anyone would vote no because what business is it of theirs if two people of the same sex get a piece of paper marrying them in the eyes of the law?

 

[Haynzy]

OK I respect your position.

My position is that we are a country that believes in treating people equally.

Changing the law back to the way it was before (previous definition prior to 2004 was "two people") is the right thing to do.

I am yet to hear a compelling argument why this should not be the case.

Careful mate, I didn't say I agreed with him.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I don't see a problem with what Izzy had to say. Expressed his opinion politely, with no attempt to say anything derogatory about those with a different opinion on the matter (such as me).

 

[Bandwagon]

Well by voting no he kinda is....but anyway, just my opinion. I don't understand how anyone would vote no because what business is it of theirs if two people of the same sex get a piece of paper marrying them in the eyes of the law?

Well........from what I've seen so far it's.....

Think of the children
Freedom of speech
My Skyman says it's bad.
slippery slope
Bestiality
Something about toasters.

I may have missed something, but hey, these are all valid arguments.

 

[Bazal]

Well........from what I've seen so far it's.....

Think of the children
Freedom of speech
My Skyman says it's bad.
slippery slope
Bestiality
Something about toasters.

I may have missed something, but hey, these are all valid arguments.

You missed paedophilia. Although maybe you covered it with think of the children

 

[Gronk]

Careful mate, I didn't say I agreed with him.

I was more replying to him rather than you. Sorry if that came across the wrong way.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Well........from what I've seen so far it's.....

Think of the children
Freedom of speech
My Skyman says it's bad.
slippery slope
Bestiality
Something about toasters.

I may have missed something, but hey, these are all valid arguments.

You also missed "I'll be less married if these people are also allowed to be married"

 

[Gronk]

Guessing he got a lot of Likes from SSM advocates saying they respect his opinion and appreciate the love and prayers??

Like are likes. Could be from SSM could be from Kim Jong Un.

 

[Bandwagon]

You missed paedophilia. Although maybe you covered it with think of the children

Yeah, think of the kiddies is a bit of a catch all.

You also missed "I'll be less married if these people are also allowed to be married"

Maybe that's what the toaster thing was about, almost makes sense.

 

[Haynzy]

Well by voting no he kinda is....but anyway, just my opinion. I don't understand how anyone would vote no because what business is it of theirs if two people of the same sex get a piece of paper marrying them in the eyes of the law?

Yep I get that.
I know people who will be voting no on a principle that they hold, not necessarily a religious principle either. The fact that they are sticking by their principles doesn't mean that they can't love or support others with different ideas. I think that this is something that has been missing in much of the debate and it's a pity.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well........from what I've seen so far it's.....

Think of the children
Freedom of speech
My Skyman says it's bad.
slippery slope
Bestiality
Something about toasters.

I may have missed something, but hey, these are all valid arguments.

How about the same argument put forward by those supporting any secular moral position?

"It's-just-wrong."

No it's not my position, but I certainly think it's as valid as any other supposedly self-evident truth.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yep I get that.
I know people who will be voting no on a principle that they hold, not necessarily a religious principle either. The fact that they are sticking by their principles doesn't mean that they can't love or support others with different ideas. I think that this is something that has been missing in much of the debate and it's a pity.

Yep. It's all you-believe-in-an-imaginary-friend-in-the-sky inflammatory bullshit, which completely overlooks the fact that even people with imaginary friends in the sky pick and choose what their imaginary friend finds important. It's very f**king clear that opposition to alternative sexualities (and their legitimisation through marriage) predates religion.