Beer Garden

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2551 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:01 pm

I'm causing harm? Why Mono, because the facts are inconvenient for you?

One mother on the commercials about safe schools said her sons school told him he could wear a dress...Bill Shorten, him self a sex predator(surprise a lefty whose a sex predator) and grub in general, said it was rubbish, as well as dismissing the other mothers concerns in that commercial.

Here you go, proof is in the pudding.

Image
Nice touch with glossing up his lips in photoshop. Gives him a more feminine look.

Asking children to roleplay being homosexuals, to pretend to be in a same sex relationship..yeh, seems like a great thing right? Are they roleplaying being in a straight relationship as well? Of course not, straights are the enemy.

One mother said her child was asked to roleplay being in a gay relationship. Shorten said it was rubbish.
Here, from the Victorian government safe schools propaganda it self..Lesson 2.
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documen ... tGuide.pdf
ACTiViTY METhODS iNTERACTiVE EXERCiSE: STEPPiNG OUT Before watching ‘Jaimee’s Video’ ask your students to separate themselves from their usual friendship groups, then divide the class in to two groups with a physical space between each half. Have students be seated in their new areas. Tell students to write the numbers 1 to 10 down the left hand side of a page. Invite students to imagine themselves in the role of a young person who is aged 16 years or older and is going out with someone they are really into. Advise students that they should not play themselves in this activity. Rather, encourage them to imagine themselves in someone else’s shoes. Tell students on the left-hand side of the room that their character is going out with someone of the same
sex, while the character of those on the right-hand side of the room is going out with someone of the opposite sex. Tell students you are going to ask them 10 questions which they need to answer as their character. Students can only answer 'yes' or 'no' to these questions.
This is what they are having 11 year olds do in Victoria.

Apparently, you guys keep saying, or should I say lying, because that's what the radical left wing are good at, lying and deception, like good little communists, that nothing will be imposed on religious groups.
One thing that I've said, is that I think same sex marriage should be legalized, so long as nothing is imposed or forced upon religious groups.

In the UK there's a private Jewish girls school which is facing forced government closure because it is not indoctrinated those Jewish girls into the depraved, against natural law, communist sex cult.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 09221.html

Tell us again how nothing will be imposed on religious groups.
Tell us again how its about equality. Equality? How is it equality when one side is silenced and forced to conform to what one side wants.
Of course being unhinged communist indoctrinates you can't even see the hypocrisy of your own side.

Nah, not indoctrination. Parents wont be forced into anything. Apparently I'm lying, and not dealing in facts.
Apparently parents will be able to pull their kids out of lessons on this depravity. They'll need permission slips to be signed by them though if there's any activity with religious content though. But no, it's not an attack on Christianity, and being straight.

Just ask this couple from America..



George Christensen exposes the depravity being taught to children in schools. The sexual grooming of children.


rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2552 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:05 pm

I thought Mono said it was about giving gays the same rights under the law, as couples, that straight normal couples have?

Another gay communist myth debunked?
What other lies will we be told to trick and force people into accepting this depravity as "normal"?


"There is nothing homophobic about supporting traditional marriage." - Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

"There is nothing homophobic about supporting traditional marriage." - Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

​Please do not be intimidated or cowed into thinking you  can't speak up for traditional marriage, for family, freedom of speech and for children. You can and you should. There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking up in the face of this attack on our society's foundations.

Speak boldly for your children's sake and your grandchildren's sake. When future generations see the consequential fruit of destroying traditional marriage and teaching children to accept and try depraved sex acts in school sex-ed classes they will ask: "Why did our parents and grandparents allow this?" Take action now!

​It is a bad idea. People who enter into homosexual relationships have full equality under Australian law already. They can do what they like. Over 80 pieces of legislation have already been passed to grant full equality to their relationships in the eyes of the law. They are free to enter into what ever sorts of relationships they choose with no discrimination whatsoever. That is up to them and people are generally not too worried about that.

​​But it is not marriage. Marriage is something very different. Marriage is simply a man and a woman coming together promising to remain faithful to each other at the exclusion of all others, and to build society through having children (if possible) and loving and protecting those children in the structure best designed for doing so.

​People are free to behave however they want and reap the consequences of their actions, as applies to all of us, however they are not free to impose gay sex on children, effectively grooming them to become gay or gay activists. Surely not without a fight at least.

​​Every child needs a Mum and a Dad. A man simply cannot be a mother and a woman just cannot be a father. For the sake of children and our society, marriage deserves to be preserved.

Australians should not even be asked to have to choose to change marriage. It simply is what it is. Those proposing to make the change do not even want to debate the merits of what they propose. They just want to impose it. What will  they want next?

They have taken away valuable parliamentary time and resources over many years trying unsuccessfully to change marriage laws. They have had their say. They are the ones now forcing tax-payers to bear the cost of a plebiscite. They should do the honorable thing and concede that they already have equality and for the sake of national unity, for the sake of children, they should abandon their selfish quest.

They are also not free to donate their blood according to the Red Cross and FDA, because it is deemed at a high risk of being contaminated with diseases which will wreak havoc on our communities. Therefore they should be required to give disclaimers in their campaigns to normalize and promote their unusual, unnatural and unhealthy sexual activity. 

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2553 Post by Nort » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:11 pm

Image

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2554 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:12 pm

Was it Mono, or one of the others whose feeling I've hurt by stating facts, that said that nothing will be imposed on religious groups? That they wont be obligated to perform depraved same sex marriages?
John Howard: Safeguards needed now in same-sex marriage vote

John Howard has intervened in the marriage equality debate, personally authorising a full-page newspaper advertisement calling for legal protection of religious freedoms ahead of the ballot result.
The former prime minister has used the full imprimatur of his status and office as a one-time Coalition leader in a public statement carried in The Australian newspaper on Saturday. The national broadsheet advertisement bears Mr Howard's photo and signature.

Mr Howard said it was incumbent on the Coalition government to spell out, before completion of the postal survey, the steps it will take to guarantee "parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom in the event of same sex marriage becoming law".
The case was compelling "given the experience of UK, US and Canada".

As conservative Christians framed themselves as possible victims of discrimination should same sex marriage be supported by a majority of Australians, Mr Howard warned education activists were at the ready to renew their push to introduce classroom material unacceptable to mainstream Australian parents.

These concerns were not red herrings or distractions but legitimate concerns, Mr Howard wrote.
Malcolm Turnbull has offered Mr Howard an opportunity to contribute to the terms of a final bill to be drafted after the postal vote results are revealed on November 15.

On the evidence to date, Mr Howard said, the proposed bill offered no more than protections for a minister, priest, rabbi or imam to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage.

"It is completely disingenuous to assert that a change of this magnitude to a fundamental social institution does not have consequences.
"It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the Government will do on protections before the survey is completed.
"Otherwise people will not have been fully informed when they cast their votes."
(this is what the commies want, for people not to be fully informed of the facts, hence the oh so many lies they spew)
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... yrw38.html

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2555 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:18 pm

Nice, I expect to see Mono, one of the sites moderators, to reinforce the continued personal abuse because I don't share the same depraved ideology.
I wonder, if I was to behave as badly as you lot are, including Mono, how Mono would react, as a moderator of this forum.

That's alright though, the more you attack me, the funnier it is. :secret:
Nort wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:11 pm
Image

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2556 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:22 pm

And still not one of these indoctrinated commies on this site, can give an answer as to why inter-species relations and marriage aren't included in their agenda.

Equality, but only on their terms.
Equality, but only if you agree with them.
Equality, but no compromise to reach a middle ground.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2557 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:27 pm

Image

And we criticise China on human rights... :hilarious:

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5415
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2558 Post by crawf » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:35 pm

What the f*ck Rev. Are you seriously okay?

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2559 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:38 pm

John Howard OM AC, Former Prime Minister of Australia

It is common ground in the same sex marriage debate that if the postal survey produces a Yes majority, then the peoples’ verdict should be respected, and Parliament support an amendment to the Marriage Act. There is less generosity of spirit if the outcome is a No vote. Bill Shorten has said that his party will not accept such a result. Nor will the Greens.
This contrast highlights just how important it is for the Government to spell out, before the postal survey is completed, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of same sex marriage becoming law. The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries, such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws.
This issue must be addressed before the survey is completed; leaving it as something to be taken up only in the event of a Yes vote prevailing is the equivalent of saying that it does not matter very much. If a Yes vote is recorded there will be overwhelming pressure to “move on”, legislate as quickly as possible, and then put the issue behind Parliament. There will be scant opportunity for serious consideration of protections in the areas I have cited. Very likely, those raising such matters will be met with a chorus of put-downs, and accused of attempting to frustrate the verdict of the people.
Thus far, the Government has said that religious rights will be protected, but not how - merely stating that it will facilitate a private members’ bill. On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protection in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

Same sex marriage will not be the end of this debate. As the safe schools debacle showed, there are education activists ready to introduce classroom material regarding gender issues unacceptable to the mainstream of Australian parents. These activists will use a change in the definition of marriage to renew their push. Parents are entitled to know what steps would be taken to ensure that this does not occur.
Despite the powerful evidence for reform represented by the Andrew Bolt case; the QUT computer room dispute and the disgraceful hounding of the late Bill Leak, the obnoxious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act remains unscathed. This does not bode well for the capacity of the current national Parliament to enact any effective protections of the kind that will be required if our marriage laws change.
Those campaigning for a Yes vote call any reference to these issues “red herrings” or distractions. On the contrary, they are legitimate concerns. It is completely disingenuous to assert that a change of this magnitude to a fundamental social institution does not have consequences. It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the Government will do on protections before the survey is completed. Otherwise people will not have been fully informed when they cast their votes.

John Howard OM AC


Authorised by John Howard, Sydney

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2560 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:40 pm

crawf wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:35 pm
What the f*ck Rev. Are you seriously okay?
I'm fine, are you okay?

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: Beer Garden

#2561 Post by monotonehell » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:45 pm

Rev, what already exists will not change.

A man and a woman will still be able to be married, have children, if they can and want to.

There will be nothing forced on religious groups.

The current civil union comes close but does not give some important rights compared to married couples.

Marriage is not as you define it. Check the Marriage Act. It's more of a financial arrangement, and says nothing about children.

Everything else you've said is either fear mongering, irrelevant, or outright insulting. - You're complaining of personal abuse - but you're meating out some pretty vile accusations.

You can't even see that what you're saying is unhinged. You've equated homosexual people with paedophiles and beastiality. Now you're bringing up the blood donation rules that were rooted in the 1980's AIDS scare. Did you eat beef in the UK during the 1990's Mad Cow scare? You're also unable to donate blood.

Doesn't matter what sexual orientation you chose, a portion of that population will be sexually promiscuous, or pedophilic, or into beastiality. The "gays" don't have a monopoly on anything you've thrown up. You've been taking things that apply equally to some people in all groups and saying it applies to all homosexuals.

In all seriousness. Seek help. You are suffering from a deluded mania. You have this one idea that homosexuality is a sin and you are feebly trying to cherry pick as much bullshit as you gather from all the right wing nut jobs as you can to try to support it, no matter how nonsensical it is.


Take a step back and look at what you've become, man.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2562 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:47 pm

Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: Beer Garden

#2563 Post by monotonehell » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:59 pm

And I could just as easily go find a load of examples where either extreme of this debate that no one wanted has over stepped. Proves nothing, except that some people have become overheated from echo chamber discussions festering away amplifying hate on both sides.

Right now you're wayyyy out there saying the kinds of things the people in those extremes are saying. Why not come back and join the rational discussion, Rev?

Sure some people have reservations about what will come of this. But that's another discussion for another day. Right now we are discussing whether denying certain consenting adult people rights, while giving them to others is equality.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2564 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:06 pm

monotonehell wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:45 pm
Rev, what already exists will not change.

A man and a woman will still be able to be married, have children, if they can and want to.
Never said they wouldn't.
There will be nothing forced on religious groups.

The current civil union comes close but does not give some important rights compared to married couples.
Same was said overseas.
This isn't basic education that kids should be provided with, like maths, reading & writing, history etc. This is indoctrination. And it is being enforced with laws.
It is one thing to teach kids that some people are attracted to the same sex, it is another to groom children. If a paedophile was online doing this stuff, he'd get arrested.
Hmm, I thought we were a democracy, starting to sound more like a Stalinists wet dream.
Marriage is not as you define it. Check the Marriage Act. It's more of a financial arrangement, and says nothing about children.
I never said it relates to children. Stop lying.
Everything else you've said is either fear mongering, irrelevant, or outright insulting. - You're complaining of personal abuse - but you're meating out some pretty vile accusations.
I haven't personally attacked any member of this forum, and when a comment I made was taken the wrong way by Crawf, I openly apologized.
I've been talking about the depraved ideology, as you once said, play the ball not the man. Maybe dish out the same advice to your fellow ideologue comrades.
You can't even see that what you're saying is unhinged. You've equated homosexual people with paedophiles and beastiality. Now you're bringing up the blood donation rules that were rooted in the 1980's AIDS scare. Did you eat beef in the UK during the 1990's Mad Cow scare? You're also unable to donate blood.
No, what's unhinged is the twisting of what someone is saying to create the impression they are a few sandwiches short.
I did not equate homosexuality to paedophiles or bestiality.
I said there was a homosexual who was also a paedophile, part of the safe schools depravity, who was advocating adult-child sexual relations be taught to primary school children.
I asked why inter-species relations and marriage isn't part of the debate. You lot are all about equality apparently. But you are excluding people. Why not redefine the marriage act to allow inter-species marriage as well? Why shouldn't a woman whose in love with a horse be able to get married, just like you want for gays?
Doesn't matter what sexual orientation you chose, a portion of that population will be sexually promiscuous, or pedophilic, or into beastiality. The "gays" don't have a monopoly on anything you've thrown up. You've been taking things that apply equally to some people in all groups and saying it applies to all homosexuals.
Irrelevant.
In all seriousness. Seek help. You are suffering from a deluded mania. You have this one idea that homosexuality is a sin and you are feebly trying to cherry pick as much bullshit as you gather from all the right wing nut jobs as you can to try to support it, no matter how nonsensical it is.
It's probably you guys who should seek help.
See, straight people have never been considered to be suffering from a mental disorder for being straight. Because being straight, naturally, is normal. Your reproductive organs have a purpose. To fulfil that purpose you nee the opposite gender. Male and female. It's quite normal, try it some time.
On the other hand, gays have been considered to be suffering a mental disorder.
Where were these gender fluids, trans genders, and over 100 other new "genders" 500 years ago, or 10,000 years ago? Short answer, they didn't exist, they are a recent modern creation. A social experiment.
Take a step back and look at what you've become, man.
Enjoy being a lab rat.
Social experiments come to an end, eventually. So will this one. I guess the real winners in all of this are the psychiatrist who will be treating the same people when it ends that they are treating now. Hmm, new career choice maybe, guaranteed financial success. :lol:

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2565 Post by rev » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:18 pm

monotonehell wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:59 pm
And I could just as easily go find a load of examples where either extreme of this debate that no one wanted has over stepped. Proves nothing, except that some people have become overheated from echo chamber discussions festering away amplifying hate on both sides.

Right now you're wayyyy out there saying the kinds of things the people in those extremes are saying. Why not come back and join the rational discussion, Rev?

Sure some people have reservations about what will come of this. But that's another discussion for another day. Right now we are discussing whether denying certain consenting adult people rights, while giving them to others is equality.
Like I've said before, I've got no issue what two consenting adults do.
I even think the marriage act should be changed to reflect a "civil union", so the state doesn't call it a marriage, legally, and it should be open to everyone, regardless of if they are straight or gay, and then every group can call it whatever they want. A compromise to deflate the hate from both sides, that actually brings real equality, since you know, it's all about equality and all about having the same legal rights, isn't that what you keep saying?

Wayyy out there? What, because you and a few commie ideologues online disagree, its way out there?

Maybe you're the ones who are wayyyyy out there? Ever think of that?
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you aren't always right Mono?


The consequences and outcomes, what's to come, is a discussion for another day?
Are you serious? So basically, your side thinks it should all be passed and done with, and THEN we can discuss the consequences? It's too late then. And there you were, telling me about rational discussion.
What's rational about what you suggested? You want to have a discussion, but without discussing the cons. Just the pros.

Christ, I knew the left had lost it, but this is amazing. No wonder overseas they need laws stripping parents of their rights, so they can indoctrinate their kids. Because any rational sane person would see this shit for what it is and put a stop to it, at least as far as their kids are concerned.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests