Non Footy Chat Thread

[Gronk]

I'm not worried about how complicated equality is. I'm more worried about the hijacking of morality to push an agenda.

Equality is what it is, end of story. If it's complicated then so be it. I can handle it.

Both of my points expressed in this thread are perfectly objective, which is why they are constantly ignored by the left who seek nothing more than to use equality as a Trojan Horse to push their own little niche agenda.

OK news flash: polls clearly indicate that those in favour of a swift change to the marriage act are equally from the right of center.

It's the far right that are constantly road blocking. Whilst trying not to appear obstructive, they are continually finding reason not to move forward.

 

[strider]

The Butchers Shop Café in Church street does a good country breakfast. ;-)

Does a bloody good lunch too

 

[Gary Gutful]

You should try their dinners. Fantastic!

 

[Bigfella]

I often go to the Station Bar & Pizza in Katoomba on weekends. They have a rotation of beers on tap which includes Stone & Wood amongst others you wouldn't get elsewhere. Young Henrys is one of their rotation beers on tap and that's quite nice as well. They also let you sample beers before you buy which is also good. Pizzas are top notch. Anything from a crocodile pizza to a vegemite pizza.

Do you see parra pete in there regularly saying "I'll have a crocodile pizza, and make it snappy"?

 

[T.S Quint]

You should try their dinners. Fantastic!

I hear their brunch is to die for.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Do you see parra pete in there regularly saying "I'll have a crocodile pizza, and make it snappy"?

"What's that, you are all out crocodile? OK, I'll just have the Kangaroo Pizza. Now hop to it"

 

[oldmancraigy]

Great idea. Over complicate it by playing the polygamy card.

The Marriage Act 1961 defines "marriage" as

"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

The amendment proposed at this time is as follows:-

"marriage" means the union of two people to the exclusion of all
others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Just get it done. Wowsers need to step aside.

Crazy thinking Gronk.

Serious question, why the arbitrary language? Why two? That's just a decision being made.

Currently the game is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others that may bear children'
Why change that to something else, falsely call it equality while being unequal to those who want 3 men, or 3 women, or 1 man and 3 women, or sisters, or brothers, etc etc.

Don't understand the hoo-ha about this. I actually agree with Barnaby Joyce on this - 'calling a diamond a square will not make it a square' [or however he more eloquently put it]
Currently same sex relationships have the exact same rights as those who are in a marriage relationship. Why make a change to the law to change marriage from what it currently is WITHOUT including all manner of different parameters??
What is the basis for making this decision?

 

[Eelogical]

"What's that, you are all out crocodile? OK, I'll just have the Kangaroo Pizza. Now hop to it"

What about the duck?

 

[Gary Gutful]

What about the duck?

Parra Pete doesn't like duck.

 

[Gary Gutful]

What is the basis for making this decision?

At the risk of sounding 'crazy', it might actually be important to a lot of people. Is that not a good enough reason?

What is the basis for objecting to it?

 

[Eelogical]

Parra Pete doesn't like duck.

You know this to be true?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

And if you're not a big punter but like to put something on the Eels sometimes, Unibet is the go. As they sponsor us, they have a weekly special on the Eels, which is always worth betting on. And their 4+ leg multi special where you get money back if one leg fails is great value.

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

F*ck me, this Kyrios is a wanker.

 

[oldmancraigy]

At the risk of sounding 'crazy', it might actually be important to a lot of people. Is that not a good enough reason?

What is the basis for objecting to it?

At the risk of sounding 'crazy', it might actually be important to a lot of people. Is that not a good enough reason?

Essentially is your argument that the act should be completly changed on the basis of 'that is what someone thinks is important'??
Dont get me wrong, i am all for reducing the marginalization of any group in society. But if we are going to change the marriage act, then lets look at everything? Bring in polygamy, brothers and sisters etc. What if it is important to them?

I just dont know if that is a good basis for making decisions and changing acts of parliament....

 

[Gronk]

Crazy thinking Gronk.

How does it have any effect on your life ? Really, why deny two people who love each other the right to marry ?

Serious question, why the arbitrary language? Why two? That's just a decision being made.

The amendment is for two people. No suggestion otherwise

Currently the game is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others that may bear children'

Are you quoting the bible there ? Hmmok. Not sure why that is relevant.

Why change that to something else, falsely call it equality while being unequal to those who want 3 men, or 3 women, or 1 man and 3 women, or sisters, or brothers, etc etc.

Don't understand the hoo-ha about this. I actually agree with Barnaby Joyce on this - 'calling a diamond a square will not make it a square' [or however he more eloquently put it]
Currently same sex relationships have the exact same rights as those who are in a marriage relationship. Why make a change to the law to change marriage from what it currently is WITHOUT including all manner of different parameters??
What is the basis for making this decision?

I don't get why you, HJ, Andrew Bolt and Corey Bernardi are playing in the polygamy card ?

Malcolm Turnbull recently said this about the polygamy argument raised by Bolt

This is the weakest and worst sort of argument used against any change and known as the ?slippery slope? argument ? if first you make one change then a whole series of other changes will follow. As any lawyers reading this blog will know, judges treat arguments like this with the contempt they deserve.

But let us deal with the substance. There is no demand, no lobby, no support, no constituency for legalising polygamy under the Marriage Act. If you needed a contemporary, as opposed to a traditional or cultural, justification for not recognising polygamy it can be found in our, and most societies? view of the equality of men and women.

Just get it done.

 

[Gary Gutful]

At the risk of sounding 'crazy', it might actually be important to a lot of people. Is that not a good enough reason?

Essentially is your argument that the act should be completly changed on the basis of 'that is what someone thinks is important'??
Dont get me wrong, i am all for reducing the marginalization of any group in society. But if we are going to change the marriage act, then lets look at everything? Bring in polygamy, brothers and sisters etc. What if it is important to them?

I just dont know if that is a good basis for making decisions and changing acts of parliament....

Important to A LOT of people, not a few.

Those arguments about polygamy etc. are not relevant. A large portion of the population wants it done, including a lot of straight people. Just get it done.

....and no, I am not left leaning in case anyone was going to respond.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Important to A LOT of people, not a few.

Those arguments about polygamy etc. are not relevant. A large portion of the population wants it done, including a lot of straight people. Just get it done.

....and no, I am not left leaning in case anyone was going to respond.

You leftie!

But, serious question, a large portion of the population would like the tax bill amended so they pass less tax. I think that is a horible reason to make a decision!

Base it on something and be consistent, that is all i am saying.
some countries want sharia law, i dont think that makes it in any way acceptable.... (not equating things, pointing out how 'we wants it') is a bad basis for decision making.

 

[Gary Gutful]

You leftie!

But, serious question, a large portion of the population would like the tax bill amended so they pass less tax. I think that is a horible reason to make a decision!

Base it on something and be consistent, that is all i am saying.
some countries want sharia law, i dont think that makes it in any way acceptable.... (not equating things, pointing out how 'we wants it') is a bad basis for decision making.

I am consistent.

You are assuming that I jumped straight to the "everyone wants it" bit. Why?

Clearly, the first step is a considered analysis of whether the proposed change would detrimentally impact the country. The proposed change the we are talking about arguably passes that first test. The others examples that you provided arguably don't.

It's not that hard.

 

[Gronk]

The NRL have now backed the call for marriage equality.

In a statement announcing the support NRL Chief Operating Officer Suzanne Young said, ‘One of the NRL’s core values is inclusiveness and we have put in place practices and policies to support and recognize the rights of our LGBTI community. Accordingly, the NRL supports marriage equality.’

 

[ash411]

Crazy thinking Gronk.

Serious question, why the arbitrary language? Why two? That's just a decision being made.

Currently the game is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others that may bear children'
Why change that to something else, falsely call it equality while being unequal to those who want 3 men, or 3 women, or 1 man and 3 women, or sisters, or brothers, etc etc.

Don't understand the hoo-ha about this. I actually agree with Barnaby Joyce on this - 'calling a diamond a square will not make it a square' [or however he more eloquently put it]
Currently same sex relationships have the exact same rights as those who are in a marriage relationship. Why make a change to the law to change marriage from what it currently is WITHOUT including all manner of different parameters??
What is the basis for making this decision?

No they absolutely don't. Firstly, they don't have the right to be married for starters, that one is an easy distinction to make. Secondly, the government does not recognise a same sex partner as a persons spouse, so all rights that a spouse has (i.e. medical choices for their partner, estate planning, and I'm sure a bunch of other official stuff) are denied to them, as they are not their "Legal" spouse, so that responsibility falls to their next of kin.

Apart from that, If two people want to be married, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to? People who make religious arguments to this question are stupid, not because I think religion is stupid (I do, but that's not the point), but because no one is lobbying to get married by a specific church, they are asking for the right to marry LEGALLY. Remember that religious law and civil law are very very different (or at least they should be). The government has no right to make religious judgments on its citizens, nor make laws that push the religion of anyone onto anyone else. I'm pretty sure that we do not have the same "Separation of church and state" declaration in our constitution that the US does (I don't know, so I say we do) but we should though.

All they are asking for is to have the wording changed from "A Man and a Woman" to "Two People".

The polygamy, incest, and (sigh) bestiality arguments that are made against rulings like these are as stupid as the religious ones. There is no one asking for these things to be included, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The "Slippery Slope" argument (as was mentioned earlier) is pretty weak.

You know who makes that argument more than anyone else? The KKK and Westboro Baptist Church. You really wanna lump in with those guys?

If same sex couples want to marry, they should be allowed to, plain and simple. I personally think it should be a public referendum, a parliamentary vote under the current government won't pass cause Abbott will lean on his MP's to strike it down, regardless of their views on the subject.

Just let them be married, so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.. :lol: