Grand Final Entertainment (AKA: 'The SSM Debate Thread')

[Technical Coach]

Whilst “ The Killers” aren’t my type of music ( not much modern stuff is to be honest) I have to say watching the AFL today that they did do a great job BUT the best part was they played post game, for the fans and one of the Tigers players actually got up and sang a song , great stuff AFL that’s the way to engage the fans.

PS: I’m not engaging in the debate re YES / NO, how I voted is my business.

Merely stating "how i vote is my business" or "i don't care either way" 9/10 times usually means "No", so you would of been better off without the PS: ending lol.

I've never come across a Yes supporter who would use the above lines.

 

[Technical Coach]

This thread is done. Can I just highlight the cordial way everyone got along whatever their opinion. Speaks volumes for the character of those who support the club and are members of this site. Had it been on Facebook it would be disgusting nazi throwing drivel.

Peace out all.

A little pretentious proclaiming "This thread is done" when this will arrive of it's own volition.

In the same way when people debate with the line "at the end of the day" like from this point on every other opinion or comment has zero worth or is wrong.

All good to announce ones removal from a debate though...

 

[Technical Coach]

It's a government run "straights only club", man.

If your relationship is considered to be illegitimate based on your sexuality, isn't that indicative of broader issues re: sexuality based inequality?

It's like saying - "Who cares if black people have to sit at the back of the bus, at least we let them on it!"

The law is what legitimizes a relationship not the definition of a word.

Your second point has zero to do with or even relates to the subject at hand, that is plain and simple discrimination.

 

[StuBoot]

You can have all the rights without the definition is the point.

A bigger agenda is at play here not even related to the content of discussion dressed up as "Equal Rights" to make it more palatable to the masses.

I don't even care in the eyes of the law if marriage includes same sex marriage,(i would never recognize the relationship as a marriage) but i do care about the hidden agenda/intentions behind all this.

What are the hidden agendas/intentions you speak of?

 

[Brookie Brawler]

This thread is done. Can I just highlight the cordial way everyone got along whatever their opinion. Speaks volumes for the character of those who support the club and are members of this site. Had it been on Facebook it would be disgusting nazi throwing drivel.

Peace out all.

Agree, although there is nothing wrong with Nazi throwing - or kicking, hanging etc...

 

[lsz]

I know facts are a dirty word here but this is worth a read (and yes it is the pinko snowflake smh)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...amesex-marriage-campaign-20170929-gyrd1s.html

I would be keen to understand from those who would vote no which of these facts they dispute.

 

[BOZO]

I know facts are a dirty word here but this is worth a read (and yes it is the pinko snowflake smh)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...amesex-marriage-campaign-20170929-gyrd1s.html

I would be keen to understand from those who would vote no which of these facts they dispute.

Facts and Family values .....
Just to put things in perspective feathered friend .

'Gay and lesbian friends already have equality'
Lyle Shelton, head of the Australian Christian Lobby and spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, also drew links between the marriage laws and changes to discrimination laws.

"Gay and lesbian friends already have freedom and equality under the law in Australia but if we change the definition of marriage the freedom and the rights of other Australians will change forever," Mr Shelton said.
Liberal Party senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells also spoke in support of the No campaign.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells said she wanted to protect the "cornerstone" family values of the migrant populations.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman … coming together in one unique union," she said to the crowd.
"If the state redefines marriage it also redefines how you can speak, think, advocate, and believe about marriage."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-17/same-sex-marriage-survey-no-campaign-launched/8954368

 

[HappilyManly]

And that's the point, they don't have ALL the rights of a straight couple.

Having worked in Land titles and Estates work, as well as having friends affected by late stage cancers - gay couples have no legal rights in these fields.

A divorce or death in a marriage enables free transfer of title - but not for same sex couples

A medical treatment decision for an impaired spouse, is legal for their spouse - but not for same sex couples

Death duty is not incured by a surviving spouse and their super is transferred free of fees to the survivor - but not for same sex couples


As I posted before, the de facto laws could be expanded to afford actual equality to all legally commited couples

To quote the great Lewis Brown

Go Manly

 

[lsz]

Facts and Family values .....
Just to put things in perspective feathered friend .

'Gay and lesbian friends already have equality'
Lyle Shelton, head of the Australian Christian Lobby and spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, also drew links between the marriage laws and changes to discrimination laws.

"Gay and lesbian friends already have freedom and equality under the law in Australia but if we change the definition of marriage the freedom and the rights of other Australians will change forever," Mr Shelton said.
Liberal Party senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells also spoke in support of the No campaign.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells said she wanted to protect the "cornerstone" family values of the migrant populations.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman … coming together in one unique union," she said to the crowd.
"If the state redefines marriage it also redefines how you can speak, think, advocate, and believe about marriage."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-17/same-sex-marriage-survey-no-campaign-launched/8954368

This is the difference

Once side has facts the other has general statements like "it will change for all people"

 

[Smokin Joe]

Merely stating "how i vote is my business" or "i don't care either way" 9/10 times usually means "No", so you would of been better off without the PS: ending lol.

I've never come across a Yes supporter who would use the above lines.

I have come across many who have but for their own reasons don't post their political views on social media,many of them did not grow up with social media and still view privacy in all its forms as a right.Don't know why or how you are conducting polls about how yes or no supporters answer questions lol.

 

[Catch_20_2]

This is the difference

Once side has facts the other has general statements like "it will change for all people"

Have to call in the Bunker to review this comment. Both sides are guilty of twisting facts to suit the left or right agenda. I think you would be a brave man to deny that.

The government should list out ALL the facts in regard to this vote rather than leave it up to news and social media.

 

[nightster]

Have to call in the Bunker to review this comment. Both sides are guilty of twisting facts to suit the left or right agenda. I think you would be a brave man to deny that.

The government should list out ALL the facts in regard to this vote rather than leave it up to news and social media.

Do you really think that would get rid of bias

 

[Shoe1]

The government should list out ALL the facts in regard to this vote rather than leave it up to news and social media.

All the facts in regard to the survey (it is not a vote) are in this sentence:

Do you support a change to the law to allow people of the same sex to get married?

That's it. No other agenda. The government is asking what we think.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I don't even care in the eyes of the law if marriage includes same sex marriage,(i would never recognize the relationship as a marriage) but i do care about the hidden agenda/intentions behind all this.

Hmm a thought out of left field, if you ever got together with @TerryRandall ... there's so much in common, and no neck tattoos. Might be a match made in heaven?

 

[anthonyb1965]

I know facts are a dirty word here but this is worth a read (and yes it is the pinko snowflake smh)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...amesex-marriage-campaign-20170929-gyrd1s.html

I would be keen to understand from those who would vote no which of these facts they dispute.

Isz, there is way to much BS and jockeying from both sides.

I find it bizarre that the UN would "rebuke" Australia for not allowing same sex divorce as it is a human rights issue. This is the same UN that does not recognize SSM as a human rights issue. WTF?

Then there is the draft marriage amendments (attorney generals) that I find disturbing;
2 Paragraph 23B(2)(b) 7 Omit “a brother and a sister”, substitute “2 siblings”. WTF?

I tried to find a balanced view of the below video (stating on a sign you will burn in hell is just plain stupid, not abuse) where the "NO's" were abusing and throwing **** at the "YES" campaigners. Sadly, I couldn't find anything. All the gay community is doing is segregating itself further from society. There were probably a lot of people who would have said yes but continued outbursts like the above have pushed them to no. The Government should never have put them in this position and unfortunately, I suspect this is a small minority of the gay community. Being petulant/belligerent in public is just plain stupid.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...s/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

My tolerance/respect for SSM is wearing very thin but SSM deserves legal recognition.

Back to my post topic; Macklemore stated this morning (on the news), that this was a "great platform to recognize SSM". His presence is political, pure and simple. The money would definitely better spent elsewhere.

 

[Shoe1]

Isz, there is way to much BS and jockeying from both sides.

I find it bizarre that the UN would "rebuke" Australia for not allowing same sex divorce as it is a human rights issue. This is the same UN that does not recognize SSM as a human rights issue. WTF?

Then there is the draft marriage amendments (attorney generals) that I find disturbing;
2 Paragraph 23B(2)(b) 7 Omit “a brother and a sister”, substitute “2 siblings”. WTF?

I tried to find a balanced view of the below video (stating on a sign you will burn in hell is just plain stupid, not abuse) where the "NO's" were abusing and throwing **** at the "YES" campaigners. Sadly, I couldn't find anything. All the gay community is doing is segregating itself further from society. There were probably a lot of people who would have said yes but continued outbursts like the above have pushed them to no. The Government should never have put them in this position and unfortunately, I suspect this is a small minority of the gay community. Being petulant/belligerent in public is just plain stupid.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...s/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

My tolerance/respect for SSM is wearing very thin but SSM deserves legal recognition.

Back to my post topic; Macklemore stated this morning (on the news), that this was a "great platform to recognize SSM". His presence is political, pure and simple. The money would definitely better spent elsewhere.

Simple. If ssm is allowed, then the law that currently forbids a brother and a sister from marrying each other would need to be amended to "2 siblings". This would then forbid 2 brothers or 2 sisters from marrying.

To me this is really easy to understand.

 

[lsz]

Isz, there is way to much BS and jockeying from both sides.

I find it bizarre that the UN would "rebuke" Australia for not allowing same sex divorce as it is a human rights issue. This is the same UN that does not recognize SSM as a human rights issue. WTF?

Then there is the draft marriage amendments (attorney generals) that I find disturbing;
2 Paragraph 23B(2)(b) 7 Omit “a brother and a sister”, substitute “2 siblings”. WTF?

I tried to find a balanced view of the below video (stating on a sign you will burn in hell is just plain stupid, not abuse) where the "NO's" were abusing and throwing **** at the "YES" campaigners. Sadly, I couldn't find anything. All the gay community is doing is segregating itself further from society. There were probably a lot of people who would have said yes but continued outbursts like the above have pushed them to no. The Government should never have put them in this position and unfortunately, I suspect this is a small minority of the gay community. Being petulant/belligerent in public is just plain stupid.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...s/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

My tolerance/respect for SSM is wearing very thin but SSM deserves legal recognition.

Back to my post topic; Macklemore stated this morning (on the news), that this was a "great platform to recognize SSM". His presence is political, pure and simple. The money would definitely better spent elsewhere.

There are extremist on both sides which is why this sort of a non binding plebiscite should never have even been considered - as much on the pro as no which is not great.

 

[lsz]

I stopped reading at "smh".

Why stay informed when it is easier to live in the dark?

I am happy to read what ever Bolt/ Alex Jones / Miranda Devine article you want to post

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I find it really sad that the GF day gets highjacked and turned into a political discussion regarding SSM.

This is footy. Not SSM. Not music. Not politics. Footy. Yet the NRL plays 2nd fiddle to Spicklepuff and his soundchecks. Wtf.

The entire week has been about ficklepoor and SSM. It should have been about a great consistent Storm side and a ever fighting Cowboys team. Sad day when footy just can't be about footy anymore.

Anyway, it's just a sign of the times I guess. Go Manly in the 20's. do us proud.

I have to agree 100%, and this thread is only perpetuating it.

I’m not an AFL fan but have a really great mate who is a life long Tigers fan, so I sort of “ bought in” to the day.

What a difference it is down there, Grand Final parades, tens of thousands turning up just for a training session, a day that’s more like a festival than a football game, pre and post match entertainment, need I go on?

And here we are, on the same day arguing about Yes or No on a survey.

I know it’s an important issue, and for the record if a bloke wants to marry another bloke I’m cool with that, if a chick wants to marry another chick I’m also cool with that.

I imagine if Manly was playing today there would be none of this conversation on Silvertails, but let’s not forget they ARE playing.

Yes only the under 20’s, but they deserve as much discussion as if it’s First Grade.

Seeya over at the 20’s thread!

 

[Volley]

I have to agree 100%, and this thread is only perpetuating it.

I’m not an AFL fan but have a really great mate who is a life long Tigers fan, so I sort of “ bought in” to the day.

What a difference it is down there, Grand Final parades, tens of thousands turning up just for a training session, a day that’s more like a festival than a football game, pre and post match entertainment, need I go on?

And here we are, on the same day arguing about Yes or No on a survey.

I know it’s an important issue, and for the record if a bloke wants to marry another bloke I’m cool with that, if a chick wants to marry another chick I’m also cool with that.

I imagine if Manly was playing today there would be none of this conversation on Silvertails, but let’s not forget they ARE playing.

Yes only the under 20’s, but they deserve as much discussion as if it’s First Grade.

Seeya over at the 20’s thread!

Did you miss the AFL changing their logo to “YES”? Guess so.