if one of these polls rang me up I'd tell them to fuck off

OK, so that's evidence that you're a Tony Abbott, but what about evidence to back up your claim that you can rubbish polls of your choosing?

Why don't you support gay marriage? That is if you don't support it.

So rather than provide a counter-argument you deflect anything that doesnt fit your narrow selected view of acceptable evidence (i.e. anything that conflicts with your view) and constantly try dodge the burden of proof for your own argument?

why dont you provide me evidence that newspolls for homosexual marriage are accurate

why dont you provide me evidence that banks and large corporations are advertising support for homosexual marriage out of the goodness of their hearts and as a service to the community

what planet are you living on?

Damn, you're naive. :lol:

Literally the only reason banks do this is to get publicity.

"Look at us guys, we're pro (insert popular position on social issue here)."

But ok, the banks just do this because they're nice people :))

there's money in it for them I have no doubt
a short term run on marriages will boost spending on all manner of goods that will generate revenue for banks via credit card debts and interest

but, no... the banks really care about you :lol:

You're right Ricey, now you mention it, marriage equality being legislated would surely result in a bump in weddings and the resultant commercial activity that affects just about every sector, so it'll be good for everyone.

Unless you're some sort of bitter commie who thinks having banks and access to debt to facilitate commercial activity for everyone is a bad thing, like you apparently are today.

again you assume

However it will only be short term so it wont provide any tangible benefit to you or I. Certainly a worthwhile ROI for a full page ad in the paper though shared among a number of companies.

Its all about the dollars for the few by exploiting demand for something people have been convinced by advertising that they want and nothing about morality or equality. Probably should be called marriage equity.

The reason the banks do it is because none of them want to be the bank who didn't support gay marriage. In such a small industry, one bank doing it means they all have to.

You forgot the gay illuminati.

:lol: :lol:
You seriously have a victim complex about this?

It's a simple issue. Either you think all Australians are deserving of the same legal rights, or you don't.

"The Globalists and the Left' aren't going to kidnap your children and force them to start sucking dicks, Churches seems to have that market cornered.

Why would banks support it?

Banks don't care about "right" or "wrong" but they care about their image, like all businesses.
Support for gay marriage is populist and a view shared by the majority of Australians. Banks wouldn't support it if it wasn't a view shared by the majority.
Average wedding I think costs about 20k - Banks would salivate at the prospect of more people getting married, not less. They are great for banks, especially an extravagant gay wedding.

Surely this is obvious.

Banks seeking profits via gay wedding loans is highly questionable.

Third world baby farming practices though will be on the up and up.

right now they're not. but in 10 15 years ? if we keep going down the same track ?

Banks seeking profits via gay wedding loans is highly questionable.

Third world baby farming practices though will be on the up and up.

The conviction of a gay couple who lived in Australia and the United States for trafficking their adopted surrogate baby and using him to make paedophile pornography ought to provoke questions about the wisdom of same-sex adoption and marriage.

Mark J. Newton, 42, American-born, but an Australian citizen, and his long-term partner Peter Truong, 36, an Australian, were arrested in Los Angeles in 2011. The facts of the case, which was tried in Indiana, have just emerged after Newton was sentenced to 40 years last Friday. Truong is awaiting sentencing.

The abuse was so appalling that the case was tried at a district court level to avoid subjecting a jury to the repellent images.

Media reports only provide a sketchy outline of the story. However it appears that Newton and Truong, who were based in the Queensland city of Cairns, began searching for a surrogate mother in the US in 2002. There they were unsuccessful. But in 2005 they found a Russian woman and paid her US$8,000 to bear a child. Newton was the biological father. The mother handed the child over five days after birth.

The pair began sexually abusing the child when he was less than two weeks old. They also took him around the world and allowed him to be abused by at least eight men in several countries. Photographs and videos were uploaded to a paedophile site. The men told the child that the abuse was normal behaviour and coached him on what to say if he were ever questioned.

American police say that the child was created “for the sole purpose of exploitation”. “Personally... I think this is probably the worst [paedophile] rings... if not the worst ring I’ve ever heard of,” was the comment of an investigator from the US Postal Inspection Service.

The child is now in foster care.

Abuse of infants and children is not confined to homosexuals. But Newton and Truong actually portrayed themselves in the media as champions of gay rights. Under the headline “Two dads are better than one”, the ABC (Australia) described the idyllic world of their son in 2010. “Becoming gay parents was hard work for Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to,” the ABC journalist wrote. “It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles [their son] was born by surrogacy in Russia.”

Three years later, the words ring false, but the journalist was completely duped. “We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002,” Truong told him.

Incredibly, they admitted that one of the difficulties they faced was police suspicion that they might be paedophiles. The journalist asked whether the authorities believed that there was “something dodgy ... something paedophlic going on here?” Newton seems to have laughed it off. “Absolutely, absolutely, I’m sure that was completely the concern,” he responded.

Child abuse, sadly, is nothing new. What is new is bringing children into the world for the express purpose of being abused. The toxic combination of same-sex adoption and surrogate motherhood makes that possible.

Last year I asked American and Indian IVF clinics whether the demand for surrogate mothers would rise when same-sex marriage was legalised. The response of a doctor in Hyderabad whose clinic catered for gay clients was typical: ''We have seen an increase in the number of gay couples and single men approaching our clinic as soon as legitimacy to their public union is granted in their respective states or country."

Whether the clinics are in India, or Guatemala, or the Ukraine, or Cyprus, surrogate mother brokers do not ask many questions about what happens to the children after they are handed over.

Children are created as an industrial product in overseas baby farms. They have no mother. They are brainwashed to accept abuse as normal. Their owners are entitled to a presumption of respectability because of their status as a committed (and perhaps married) couple. And suspicions can be doused by treating them as homophobic paranoia.

Probably only a few of the gay couples who enter same-sex marriage will be paedophiles. But the ghastly story of Newton and Truong suggests that same-sex marriage will be the best possible cover for those who are.

Ricecrackers is the ultimate heel of 442, for that I respect him

Kutgw

Already legal in most states. :-"

The world didn't end when Anglicans and Catholics started marrying.
It didn't end when blacks and whites started marrying.
It won't end when ~5% of Australians are given the same legal rights as the other ~95% of Australians.

they already have the same legal rights
they want additional legal rights

:lol: No.

gays have decided they are another species and want new laws that apply to this new species