Beer Garden

[monotonehell]

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.

We are having a non-binding survey about people's opinion about ssm focused to a ridiculous yes or no.

Of course the other stuff is to be discussed later - the content of a bill hasn't even been hinted at. A yes or a no does not infer any content. This is one of the reasons people were against a plebiscite or a survey - there's zero detail.

You're irrationally saying "no" because "what about all this other stuff?" Outcome: nothing happens.

We're rationally saying "yes" let's move onto the next step, please. Outcome: things will be discussed further.

We are not voting on making ssm law. We are being polled as to whether we would like to have a (as yet nonexistent) bill debated in parliament.

[Nort]

If John Howard is so concerned about religious freedom then why in his 11 years as PM didn't he campaign for laws to protect churches that oppose interracial marriage?

(The same reason Abbott, Abetz and Bernardi never talk about protecting those churches, because it actually has nothing to do with religious freedom but is entirely about them legislating their religious beliefs on others)

[rev]

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.

We are having a non-binding survey about people's opinion about ssm focused to a ridiculous yes or no.

Of course the other stuff is to be discussed later - the content of a bill hasn't even been hinted at. A yes or a no does not infer any content. This is one of the reasons people were against a plebiscite or a survey - there's zero detail.

You're irrationally saying "no" because "what about all this other stuff?" Outcome: nothing happens.

We're rationally saying "yes" let's move onto the next step, please. Outcome: things will be discussed further.

We are not voting on making ssm law. We are being polled as to whether we would like to have a (as yet nonexistent) bill debated in parliament.

Many parliaments in Canberra have voted on same sex marriage and each and every times it’s been a no result.
The minority(no im not in the minority that would be you guys who identify as LGBTIQSTUVWXYZ), have continued to force their minority needs on the rest of society and forced this waste of money.
If there’s a Yes result they’ll demand the government immediately act because it’s what the “majority” want.
How come sexual predators like Bill Shorten have said they will not accept a No result?

Your side is full of hypocrisy and double standards. To say the least.
There is nothing honest or good about your campaign.
It is built on lies, manipulations, and deception.
And let’s not forget violence.
Luckily for your side we aren’t living in a regular society anymore, so this depraved stupidity has been tolerated to this point.
But every social experiment has an expiration date.

[rev]

If John Howard is so concerned about religious freedom then why in his 11 years as PM didn't he campaign for laws to protect churches that oppose interracial marriage?

(The same reason Abbott, Abetz and Bernardi never talk about protecting those churches, because it actually has nothing to do with religious freedom but is entirely about them legislating their religious beliefs on others)

Oh wow this is priceless.

You do realise religion crosses those boundaries right?
There’s white yellow black brown Christian’s, muslims as well etc.

There is no skin colour requirement.

[Nort]

If John Howard is so concerned about religious freedom then why in his 11 years as PM didn't he campaign for laws to protect churches that oppose interracial marriage?

(The same reason Abbott, Abetz and Bernardi never talk about protecting those churches, because it actually has nothing to do with religious freedom but is entirely about them legislating their religious beliefs on others)

Oh wow this is priceless.

You do realise religion crosses those boundaries right?
There’s white yellow black brown Christian’s, muslims as well etc.

There is no skin colour requirement.

Plenty of churches and religions are fine with gay people mate.

[[Shuz]]

I'm surprised Rev hasn't been detained under the Mental Health Act yet.

[serca]

The churches can't not be ok with it, how many priest have been found out to be gay and gay abusing pedo's The church needs to sweep their own porch.

Anyhow Rev has been pretty brutal in his point but non the less he sure does speak quiet a few truths, i can see and agree with his underlining points ,

I realise now i think a majority of people on here dont mind old mate wearing his lipstick and high heels to work on any given day. And how dare me for saying I don't agree with it. So be it he is a adult que sera sera: . But Rev is right this safe schools program is insane. Do some actual research on it. In Australia we are well behind US , Canada , South America and more so Europe in this new curriculum of the education system. The safe schools program in Australia was enforced by members of a Trans gender movement within La Trobe University in Melbourne. The curriculum's main object is to educate Primary school children on Gender identity. The fundamentals of the text is that we are assigned an agenda at birth decided upon our genitals. From there we are conditioned to become that gender. This education seeks to remove this so called conditioning and educate children that despite their natural genitals gender is actually formed in the mind during childhood. Therefor children should be educated and encouraged to explore both genders before making a decision. This is happening people . Throughout Europe especially. Built into our education systems without parental acknowledgement. Commented on here saying this education is not as bad as being taught about God ???!!? This is seriously ok ? Your defending this ? Weather the children are to straight or gay couples they shouldn't be subject to this for too many reasons. I don't have an issues with gays at all or them being united or even married but this I believe this is in a round about way , along with other equal rights movements and political correctness gone mad it is all connected and I don't know but something isn't right..... Its a shame I personally see a link in this cos I don't have a problem with gays being legally united or even having kids but I think there is a bigger agenda , there has to be? why else would this shit actually be happening?

Previously I made comment on, in the US some Colleges now forbid lectures to identify people by their agenda and I was asked to prove it. Well I also don't trust any media either, but there is irrefutable proof this is happening. In fact this whole situation come to light for me by a family member studying at University of Oregon who informed me this is exactly what is happening there.

Rev is also correct about leftist if you want to call them that I'd say any minority or even perceived "underdog", suppress others opinions in the name of race, religion or equality or social and moral norms in their eyes. I see many examples of this. The problem is the not only are you suppressed and they are shocked, how dare you have a difference of opinion the attacks get personal. It's pathetic. They use the terms, fascist, racist, sexist, bigot, etc to suppress and push forward their ideology and agenda's

See where I am going with this ???? Kind of reminds me of a mate who would say to his wife "hey your out quiet a lot after hours" or "do you really need to get that dressed up to go to the gym" or "I'd rather you not go out tonight" too which she would retort with the very powerful and surpressive "YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLING AND THATS ABUSIVE" To which made him feel guilty into suppression...... So she used this heavy politicised moral and socialably acceptable stance to pursue her affair while he looked after the kids.

Remind you of anything "YOU ARE BEING HOMOPHOBIC AND GENDER PHOBIC"............

[SRW]

The logical inconsistencies and lazy hypocrisy of Rev's posts belie any objective for rational discussion. Wholesale reposting of screeds by the man responsible for the Children Overboard myth and right wing websites show this. At this stage I feel it's better not to indulge him with any response, least of all jibes about mental health. It's about as productive as arguing with those unChristian preachers in the Mall who prompted this topic in the first place.

[SRW]

The churches can't not be ok with it, how many priest have been found out to be gay and gay abusing pedo's The church needs to sweep their own porch.

Being gay in the church and being a paedophile are two completely different things. Please do not equate them.

I realise now i think a majority of people on here dont mind old mate wearing his lipstick and high heels to work on any given day. And how dare me for saying I don't agree with it. So be it he is a adult que sera sera: . But Rev is right this safe schools program is insane. Do some actual research on it. In Australia we are well behind US , Canada , South America and more so Europe in this new curriculum of the education system. The safe schools program in Australia was enforced by members of a Trans gender movement within La Trobe University in Melbourne. The curriculum's main object is to educate Primary school children on Gender identity. The fundamentals of the text is that we are assigned an agenda at birth decided upon our genitals. From there we are conditioned to become that gender. This education seeks to remove this so called conditioning and educate children that despite their natural genitals gender is actually formed in the mind during childhood. Therefor children should be educated and encouraged to explore both genders before making a decision. This is happening people . Throughout Europe especially. Built into our education systems without parental acknowledgement. Commented on here saying this education is not as bad as being taught about God ???!!? This is seriously ok ? Your defending this ? Weather the children are to straight or gay couples they shouldn't be subject to this for too many reasons. I don't have an issues with gays at all or them being united or even married but this I believe this is in a round about way , along with other equal rights movements and political correctness gone mad it is all connected and I don't know but something isn't right..... Its a shame I personally see a link in this cos I don't have a problem with gays being legally united or even having kids but I think there is a bigger agenda , there has to be? why else would this shit actually be happening?

I think you're struggling here because you're fundamentally misunderstanding the differences between sex, sexuality and gender. Per your own insistence, do some research. If you still come off feeling iffy, consider that schools don't exist in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to educate our children about how the world is, not the world as you think it should be.

Oh and btw "I don't have issues with gays, but..." sounds a lot like "I'm not racist, but.." If the sentiment is true, you shouldn't need a caveat.

Previously I made comment on, in the US some Colleges now forbid lectures to identify people by their agenda and I was asked to prove it. Well I also don't trust any media either, but there is irrefutable proof this is happening. In fact this whole situation come to light for me by a family member studying at University of Oregon who informed me this is exactly what is happening there.

That's not 'irrefutable proof'. That's hearsay.

Rev is also correct about leftist if you want to call them that I'd say any minority or even perceived "underdog", suppress others opinions in the name of race, religion or equality or social and moral norms in their eyes. I see many examples of this. The problem is the not only are you suppressed and they are shocked, how dare you have a difference of opinion the attacks get personal. It's pathetic. They use the terms, fascist, racist, sexist, bigot, etc to suppress and push forward their ideology and agenda's

You're curiously quiet about the epithets hurled at others by Rev.

See where I am going with this ???? Kind of reminds me of a mate who would say to his wife "hey your out quiet a lot after hours" or "do you really need to get that dressed up to go to the gym" or "I'd rather you not go out tonight" too which she would retort with the very powerful and surpressive "YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLING AND THATS ABUSIVE" To which made him feel guilty into suppression...... So she used this heavy politicised moral and socialably acceptable stance to pursue her affair while he looked after the kids.

Remind you of anything "YOU ARE BEING HOMOPHOBIC AND GENDER PHOBIC"...........

Anecdotes aren't that useful but I don't think the one you've deployed here even supports your point. If that's the approach your mate took then he was attempting to control and undermine her agency to make decisions for herself. It may be why she looked elsewhere in the first place. But even if not, he had healthier and more direct ways to address a relationship decline and/or suspected affair.

And just btw, if someone is displaying an extreme and irrational hate and/or aversion to someone's sexuality, gender or race, it's not an insult to call out such a display as homophobic, sexist or racist. That's literally what those words describe.

[rev]

I'm surprised Rev hasn't been detained under the Mental Health Act yet.

What, given up on your red Mitsubishi comments finally? Hallelujah...are we still allowed to say that or does that offend the commies and their sexual social experimenting ideology?

[rev]

If John Howard is so concerned about religious freedom then why in his 11 years as PM didn't he campaign for laws to protect churches that oppose interracial marriage?

(The same reason Abbott, Abetz and Bernardi never talk about protecting those churches, because it actually has nothing to do with religious freedom but is entirely about them legislating their religious beliefs on others)

Oh wow this is priceless.

You do realise religion crosses those boundaries right?
There’s white yellow black brown Christian’s, muslims as well etc.

There is no skin colour requirement.

Plenty of churches and religions are fine with gay people mate.

And, did I say there wasn't? Good luck to them and their contradictions.
Both you and Mono seem to comment a lot on things that haven't actually been said. Have you been medicating from shuz's stash?

[Llessur2002]

Something needs to seriously happen about that fucking preacher that rocks up in the mall.

[Nort]

Oh wow this is priceless.

You do realise religion crosses those boundaries right?
There’s white yellow black brown Christian’s, muslims as well etc.

There is no skin colour requirement.

Plenty of churches and religions are fine with gay people mate.

And, did I say there wasn't? Good luck to them and their contradictions.
Both you and Mono seem to comment a lot on things that haven't actually been said. Have you been medicating from shuz's stash?

Let's put it in simple terms:

1. There are some religious groups opposed to interracial/intercultural marriage, some supportive.

2. There are some religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage, some supportive.

If the laws are already good enough to protect the religious freedom of those opponents in group 1, then the religious freedom of opponents in group 2 is already protected.

If the laws aren't good enough to protect the opponents in group 1 then the call for extra laws has nothing to do with religious freedom and is actually about being anti-gay.

[rev]

Yet again you are going off answering something that hasn't been brought up.
Why? Are the real issues with all of this that I've brought up too much to handle? Got no answers besides the usual tripe of the radical left?

Come on mate, you support the radical left wings sexual revolution that indoctrinates kids. Shouldn't you have answers to defend what you are so passionate about?

Why can't we talk about the pedos behind safe schools who want to indoctrinate kids into some pedo lifestyle? One guy behind it from La Trobe has had some interesting things to say about sex when it comes to children.

Why don't you want to talk about the facts John Howard brings up, that under current laws, gay couples already have the same legal rights as normal people?
Why don't you want to talk about the fact your campaign is hypocritical? You are opposed to inter-species marriage.
Or are you? Maybe you guys don't find inter-species marriage a problem, but for obvious reasons you wont go to that extreme and come out and say you don't have an issue with it being legal.
You guys obviously don't have a problem with the sexual indoctrination of children.

Some really sick, perverted people on the left wing it seems.

Then again we only need look at their champion, Hillary Clinton, and the perverts and sex offenders she surrounds her self with. Shit roles down hill as they say.

[Nort]

Yet again you are going off answering something that hasn't been brought up.

http://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/v ... 70#p158370

You made multiple posts quoting John Howard, including this one which is pretty much just Howard talking about religious freedom.

Since you apparently aren't even reading the stuff you are posting there is no point further continuing this conversation.