Jump to content
Mac Dude

Same-sex postal survey is a go

Recommended Posts

 

...former prime minister is headbutted in the street...

http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/the-man-who-allegedly-headbutted-tony-abbott-confirmed-it-was-not-about-ssm/

It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It’s just about Tony Abbott, the fucking worm that he is. All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I’d had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the cunt.

 

Um yeah :) Random acts of physical violence are not on. The headbutter is being, or is already charged yes ? Not sure I understand why you feel this needed to be re-posted ...

 

Ina way Tones was right to assume the guy's motive seeing he was apparently wearing a ssm badge ... flimsy as the assumption may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand why you feel this needed to be re-posted ...

Because I didn't see any mention of the attacker's own take on it - just Mr Rabbit trying to be brave about it.

 

And I agree that the dipshit who did it fully needs to have all the books thrown at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Not pleasant, but to get back to topic we've so far had six survey forms appear in the mail, people who never updated their enrollment details I suppose.

 

I just took them back to the post office, as tempting as it was to use to boost the Yes vote.

 

It's a ridiculous debacle, could have been done on-line for a fraction of the cost and a lot less inconvenience.

 

Cheers

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No. I don't support us having law that says who can marry who at all.

 

I want SSM, but I don't want it while we have the Marriage Act in it's current state.

 

Why is there an Act that outlines what places I can stick my dick in, until death does us part?

 

Just abolish the Marriage Act, and we have no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there an Act that outlines what places I can stick my dick in, until death does us part?

 

just out of curiosity, would you pull out at T.O.D. or, ...you know ...finish up first?

 

this sort of thing is well beyond the scope of the Marriage Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No. I don't support us having law that says who can marry who at all.

 

I want SSM, but I don't want it while we have the Marriage Act in it's current state.

 

Why is there an Act that outlines what places I can stick my dick in, until death does us part?

 

Just abolish the Marriage Act, and we have no problem.

I wasn't aware the Marriage Act made anal and oral sex illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think if Lewis0076(2) had just included a " :P " at the end of his post you probably would have " Liked " it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an Act that outlines what places I can stick my dick in, until death does us part?

Just abolish the Marriage Act, and we have no problem.

 

I wasn't aware it did that?

 

The most retarded argument I see is "Marriage is sacred" blah blah blah.

No, Marriage is an English, Legal term these days.

 

The "Word" that belings to the church is likely in Ancient Hebrew, Arabic, or Egyptian.

 

If they really want it called something else, that's fine, but you don't see the 'marriage is sacred' crowd picketing the office of Births Deaths and Marriages to change to Births Deaths and Unions.

It's just CONVENIENT right now to make a fuss, they don't REALLY care, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Lewis though... you could probably tell him that ribbed frangers were illegal until a couple of years ago and have him believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The most retarded argument I see is "Marriage is sacred" blah blah blah.

 

 

I reckon those that choose to marry for love do see the idea as well " sacred ", at least in the sense that it's a solemn commitment between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while we're on the topic of radical pie-in-the-sky reform, i think there should only be civil unions.

 

that is, we should follow through properly with the constitutional 'separation of church and state'. allowing religious ceremonies to have legally binding significance in the first place was always a glaring contradiction to the egalitarian notions underpinning the desire for such a separation. we have just never been able to acknowledge this fact from under the vestigial cultural trappings of our primarily judeo-christian european history.

 

the quasi-religious/quasi-legal term "marriage", should be formally divested of all legal significance in its own right, remaining only a culturally defined proxy for the legal status of civil union. anyone empowered to "marry", whether they be a priest or a rabbi or a non-religious person, should by necessity be the holder of the very same secular legal power as the celebrant of a civil union. this way, if you are "married" then you must be in a civil union, and there is no person or group with any peculiar claim to ownership of that word. official legal forms then ask "Are you in a civil union? YES/NO" and nothing more, without undue presumptive interest in sniffing out ancillary details about the circumstances under which you attained this status — like whether or not youre a raging homosexual or have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour etc. and all the while, all religious persons remain 100% free to continue enjoying their legal rights to dress up the event of a civil union with whatever pageantry they deem appropriate. problem solved!

 

okay, back to reality. one of the main reasons i am pro-SSM, apart from being bored by the whole topic, is there are compelling reasons for why civil unions are not enough.

 

unfortunately, the sheer weight of prevailing (or lingering) cultural attitudes can sometimes subvert the letter of the law. if this were not the case, i would be tempted to dismiss this whole debate as a frivolous semantic one over 'just a word'. but it seems as though, in practise, the general public isnt sufficiently aware of or respectful of civil unions — and a law that makes a special category for a tiny minority of people that deviate from 'normal' as an afterthought to quietly dispense with the housekeeping of their rights, by its nature, does not exert positive social pressure to change this predicament. imagine youve been "civil unioned" to your same sex partner for a decade, and everything is going fine until they have a horrible accident and have hours left to live — but as precious minutes tick by you are running around barred from their bedside because everybody in authority at the hospital thinks your legal rights of visitation are as mythical as the easter bunny. that'd suck!

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/cory-bernardi-behind-robocalls-to-urge-millions-to-vote-no/8998500

" A million Australian households will be the target of an automated phone poll on same-sex marriage conducted on behalf of conservative senator Cory Bernardi."

" "I've done the voiceover for this call so people recognise they're talking directly to an elected politician rather than going through some anonymous research company," Senator Bernardi said."

The people aren't talking directly to him, it's a recording ffs ;)

If he really was determined to make the cold-call work he would manually do the calls ... that should keep him gainfully employed for a few years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the US guy Macklemore should either keep his earnings to his self and or change his song/s for the footy match. It's soooo fucking tedious to have this even as a thing.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing 'stars' so when they have a platform and an issue they care about, be it Bono or this dude. Yeah, it's sanctimonious - get over it. Don't like it? Turn it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the US guy Macklemore should either keep his earnings to his self and or change his song/s for the footy match. It's soooo fucking tedious to have this even as a thing.

This is exactly the sort of thing 'stars' so when they have a platform and an issue they care about, be it Bono or this dude. Yeah, it's sanctimonious - get over it. Don't like it? Turn it off.

 

It's on my news feed, I don't need to turn it off. I am however allowed to voice an opinion. Difference being that mine will not earn me a penny ...more's the pity

 

edit: ... also, it's my opinion that neither side of this postal vote issue needs funds, donated or other wise. It's a simple question that people on the electoral roll can choose to answer if they wish.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tedious that something booked months ago is being made a thing by the Abbott brigade. They should learn a lesson from Bernardi, or Hanson: the more you talk about it, the more it won't go away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am however allowed to voice an opinion. Difference being that mine will not earn me a penny

My point was not that you aren't entitled to an opinion, just that people in general (with yourself as exemplar) seem to have forgotten how to mind heir own feelings. Everyone these days seems to think it's everyone else's responsibility not to hurt their feelings, or offend their beliefs; rather than coping with those outraged faculties for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I wonder how Mr and Mrs Bowman feel about being described as " beige and banal " . ... Also dad couldn't help but say that if he and his wife hadn't chosen to vote yes they would have " been in trouble ". Now obviously the amount of "trouble" issuing from their loving children likely could have been forborne, but nevertheless pressure was voiced by dad, to be an issue, jokingly of course, but he still mouthed the words out loud ;) ... so it's still an ad for the yes vote Nich, it's just finally getting back to the true roots of the fair answer to the question ... FINALLY

 

 

 

 

I am however allowed to voice an opinion. Difference being that mine will not earn me a penny


My point was not that you aren't entitled to an opinion, just that people in general (with yourself as exemplar) seem to have forgotten how to mind heir own feelings. Everyone these days seems to think it's everyone else's responsibility not to hurt their feelings, or offend their beliefs; rather than coping with those outraged faculties for themselves.

 

Which is pretty much why I posted my comment on this dude ;)

 

It's an Aussie footy GF ffs. It's not an event organised by musos to band together for a cause. He's been asked ( I gather ) and is being paid to entertain during half time ( I think ). What he does with his pay is his business alone. He would do far more good to just fucking entertain without trying to show us how to be, and then give his fee to what ever charity he sees fit

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg on the song choice:

"It's certainly not a political statement"

 

not political? is it "not political" like that time Rosa Parks wouldnt give up her seat — because it was so comfy?

 

LOL if this is what the NRL really sees as sending a totally non-political message, then all i can say is PHEW! we definitely lucked out with the Macklemore song then!!!! :D

imagine if they had chosen to shoehorn in some other totally non-political positive message into this entertainment event. instead of this,

 

 

 

we mightve ended up with this:

 

 

FTR:

 

although i find the heavy-handedness of the tactic a bit on the nose, i acknowledge its end justifies the means value. i mean, its already led to gold like this:

 

"...this decision, mate, it's tantamount to seeping sewage into the debutante ball." — Bob Katter

 

yeah thats the stuff Bob, snappy on-point analogies like that'll really win the undecideds over!

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...this decision, mate, it's tantamount to seeping sewage into the debutante ball." — Bob Katter "

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So flipping radio stations last night, one of the presenters on TrippleM noticed a trend, and well, yep, he's spot on.

Every time a "Country Wide" issue that could potentially affect everyone comes to the table, the government 'casually' raises a "humanitarian" issue to cover it up, smokescreen if you will.

 

There's a shocking trend with this if you look back.

 

But in this case, he made a very interesting point about the timing of this non binding same sex postal survey, that doesn't matter in a legal sense; at the same time as we should be focusing on this Energy Crisis.

He went on about the big4 energy cartel, and export prices vs local prices. I'm not going to pretend I followed it all, but the points were interesting.

 

Since it's no binding, it could have been a cheap SMS poll (and since SMS logs a phone number, and phone numbers these days require name registration) it's be pretty accurate.

But that's less news worthy.

Less fluff to talk about on advertisements.

I'm not sure how much I buy into 'conspiracy theories' like this, but there were at least another 4 or so examples in recent years where "the government" has done similar things.

 

 

Either way, I posted my vote back, I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've never noticed it before? Don't remember the Tampa affair? Or Trump's entire presidency? Dumping bad news on a friday afternoon when noone cares?

 

I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy moreso than just basic politicking and doing your best to control media coverage and perception.

 

I'm not sure what more attention on the energy market would do, either: our export capacity was a long time coming, was expensive, and relied on certain assumptions holding. The assumptions haven't held, but they're locked into contracts now. Any 'solution' is going to be expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy-moley ! I guess the Sydney sect. of the Anglican Church don't care too much that the postal vote guarantees nothing. They put $1oooooo.oo into the No campaign.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/archbishop-defends-1m-donation-to-same-sex-marriage-no-campaign/9040322

" "Some have questioned whether the money would have been better spent on social justice issues — feeding the poor, Sydney's homeless, refugees etcetera," Archbishop Davies said.

"The reality is, however, that our participation in the Coalition for Marriage is not at the expense of our commitment to social justice, but because of it."

 

What a wanker. I'd love to hear what the homeless etc. think about ^^ that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same can be said about the $120mill the govt spent on the postal vote, and given that it's non binding makes the whole thing a farce.

 

Would have been nice if it was to be a final decision so it doesn't have to be dragged on for however much longer. Otherwise it's a huge bill for no outcome that could've been spent on something much more useful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×