|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. We have a country full of Halal certified products for 2.2% of the population though...... Religion claiming ownership of the word marriage is extremely ignorant. It's as if before some fucking parasite crucified 2000 pagans in the centre of Rome (Constantine I) marriage did not exist which is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't often agree with Andrew Bolt but while waiting for the footy to start last night I was watching the Bolt Report. I can't verify his statistics but apparently some universities have a drop out rate of up to 30%. That's 1 in 3 students not completing a degree at the tax payers expense. I think if you drop out of university, you should have 2 years to pay your student loan back in full or interest goes up considerably. The country can't stand for ridiculous losses due to people not working hard enough to get a degree or whatever other reason.
We can thank KRudd for making universities too easy to get into so we have a glut of qualified graduates squabbling for fewer and fewer positions.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius.
|
|
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11, the only argument you've thrown up in opposition to same sex marriage is "They can get all the same benefits from a civil partnership". Since you claim there's no difference between marriage and a civil partnership, why should they not be allowed to get married?
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Re-read and while you never specifically stated you're against gay marriage, you keep insisting that there's no reason to legalise it as a civil partnership is practically the same thing.
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
|
|
Harrison84
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 230,
Visits: 0
|
+xRe-read and while you never specifically stated you're against gay marriage, you keep insisting that there's no reason to legalise it as a civil partnership is practically the same thing. I'd vote for it even if only so the debate will go away and the politicians will have one less excuse for why they can't get their shit together and sort out our structural budget deficit. Sick of song social issues dragged up to distract the masses from the real issues wrong with how the country is being run...
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
Gayfish
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
What about gayfish?
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on. But they aren't the same, and it's not about whether I am capable of understanding what it means to them, its about whether the nation in question is capable of understanding. Instead of worrying about the "right" to the title of married in a nation that allows and celebrates homosexual culture otherwise, we should be worried about the last culture on earth that sees fit to throw them from the rooftops.
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on. But they aren't the same, and it's not about whether I am capable of understanding what it means to them, its about whether the nation in question is capable of understanding. Instead of worrying about the "right" to the title of married in a nation that allows and celebrates homosexual culture otherwise, we should be worried about the last culture on earth that sees fit to throw them from the rooftops. How are gay people not the same as straight in this context....why should we or the law treat them differently? (last time i checked, this country already had laws against throwing people off roofs)
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Well in Doug Cameron.
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on. But they aren't the same, and it's not about whether I am capable of understanding what it means to them, its about whether the nation in question is capable of understanding. Instead of worrying about the "right" to the title of married in a nation that allows and celebrates homosexual culture otherwise, we should be worried about the last culture on earth that sees fit to throw them from the rooftops. How are gay people not the same as straight in this context....why should we or the law treat them differently? (last time i checked, this country already had laws against throwing people off roofs) Hey Im all for marriage equality, how can it be equal between a man and a woman? Anyway, if youre going for marriage equality how about 2 guys 1 girl 2 girls 1 guy? Instead of it being 50/50 its 33 1/3 by 33 1/3 by 33 1/3
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBefore we move on from the SSM discussion here, I'd like to raise something with Mvfc.11.Move on mate, this battle is lost. Gay marriage will happen, abortion is already legalised, weed is slowly being legalised. These stupid issues are just distractions from the real concerns the West faces. Does it really fucking matter if two blokes can get married? These wedge social issues pushed by the modern neocon movement really need to die, so we can focus on the important battles like immigration to delflate wages, wars to profit the military industrial complex and Islam. I thought you were smart enough to see that, but it appears you've fallen for the bait for complete non-issues. He's trolling dude. I think he's srs. That's kind of the point. You're being deliberately contrarian? I'm being deliberately exaggerative. I don't think they should be denied the right to marry, I just question why they would want to hold the inarguably religious and male/female title of married, when a civil union provides the same legal and ceremonial benefits, sans one word. I especially don't like the idea that this thought or any more extreme ideas should be labeled as bigoted and dismissed without discussion, for the placation of no more than 5% (five per cent!) of the population. Why they would want to?? - For the same reasons as their male/female friends want to marry. For the same reasons as atheists. Think about it genius. To have a ceremonial union to celebrate and contract their love? Can still do that without the word marriage, turbo. Or.....we could just treat gay people the same as the majority, .....not worry about whether you are capable of understanding what it means to them.....and move on. But they aren't the same, and it's not about whether I am capable of understanding what it means to them, its about whether the nation in question is capable of understanding. Instead of worrying about the "right" to the title of married in a nation that allows and celebrates homosexual culture otherwise, we should be worried about the last culture on earth that sees fit to throw them from the rooftops. How are gay people not the same as straight in this context....why should we or the law treat them differently? (last time i checked, this country already had laws against throwing people off roofs) Hey Im all for marriage equality, how can it be equal between a man and a woman? Anyway, if youre going for marriage equality how about 2 guys 1 girl 2 girls 1 guy? Instead of it being 50/50 its 33 1/3 by 33 1/3 by 33 1/3 Do they truly love each other in a three way relationship? Probably not. Now take your pills and go to bed old man.
E
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI don't often agree with Andrew Bolt but while waiting for the footy to start last night I was watching the Bolt Report. I can't verify his statistics but apparently some universities have a drop out rate of up to 30%. That's 1 in 3 students not completing a degree at the tax payers expense. I think if you drop out of university, you should have 2 years to pay your student loan back in full or interest goes up considerably. The country can't stand for ridiculous losses due to people not working hard enough to get a degree or whatever other reason. We can thank KRudd for making universities too easy to get into so we have a glut of qualified graduates squabbling for fewer and fewer positions. There were high drop outs long before KRudd got any where near power. When I started uni in 1999 at a general lecture during O-Week we were informed that around 50% of students will drop out by the end of the first semester (halfway through their first year). Then I had others drop out during the remaining four years for various reasons, e.g. had to quit and get a job (couldn't pay the bills whilst a student), change of heart (didn't want to study that), girls / boys (love!), and a few couldn't keep up. I similarly had a mate studying a degree where he was told that they only expect about 10% of those starting to complete the degree (they purposefully made it hard to weed out the "weak" ... his lectures dropped from a thousand to a hundred after one year.) HECS debts need to be paid back irrespective if you finish the degree or not (and most unis now have a maximum length of time you can attend uni ... at the time my uni had an 8 year maximum for undergraduate studies). I believe the loophole use to be (not sure if still exists) that HECS debts only start to be repaid when you work / pay taxes in Australia. So you could work overseas and avoid repaying your HECS debt (hence why international students have to pay fees upfront ... but didn't stop Aussies moving overseas for work at the end of their degrees). I remember hearing something about them cracking down on this ... but not sure of details.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
In regards to same sex marriages. I suppose my issue is that if marriage is a "religious" context, then why do we as a secular nation have a Marriage Act??
Our Constitution states:
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
So therefore "marriage" in Australia can not legally be defined by an religious observance, otherwise the Marriage Act becomes null and void. The Act gets around this by defining Marriage, but the current arguments regarding the term marriage are religious based ...
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
They stated that they are keeping it for now. Australia Day definitely needs to be changed.
E
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThey stated that they are keeping it for now. Australia Day definitely needs to be changed. Agreed. Eureka stockade for mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RedshirtWilly
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI don't often agree with Andrew Bolt but while waiting for the footy to start last night I was watching the Bolt Report. I can't verify his statistics but apparently some universities have a drop out rate of up to 30%. That's 1 in 3 students not completing a degree at the tax payers expense. I think if you drop out of university, you should have 2 years to pay your student loan back in full or interest goes up considerably. The country can't stand for ridiculous losses due to people not working hard enough to get a degree or whatever other reason. We can thank KRudd for making universities too easy to get into so we have a glut of qualified graduates squabbling for fewer and fewer positions. There were high drop outs long before KRudd got any where near power. When I started uni in 1999 at a general lecture during O-Week we were informed that around 50% of students will drop out by the end of the first semester (halfway through their first year). Then I had others drop out during the remaining four years for various reasons, e.g. had to quit and get a job (couldn't pay the bills whilst a student), change of heart (didn't want to study that), girls / boys (love!), and a few couldn't keep up. I similarly had a mate studying a degree where he was told that they only expect about 10% of those starting to complete the degree (they purposefully made it hard to weed out the "weak" ... his lectures dropped from a thousand to a hundred after one year.) HECS debts need to be paid back irrespective if you finish the degree or not (and most unis now have a maximum length of time you can attend uni ... at the time my uni had an 8 year maximum for undergraduate studies). I believe the loophole use to be (not sure if still exists) that HECS debts only start to be repaid when you work / pay taxes in Australia. So you could work overseas and avoid repaying your HECS debt (hence why international students have to pay fees upfront ... but didn't stop Aussies moving overseas for work at the end of their degrees). I remember hearing something about them cracking down on this ... but not sure of details. You only start repaying it if you earn over around $53,000 in taxable income. From there it's about $2,500 a year at least. With what you are able to claim back against your taxable income without the ATO coming sniffing you could earn $56k before you really have to do anything, which is pretty comfortably living (if not in Sydney or Melbourne with a mortgage I suppose)
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Listening to Pauline Hanson attempting to deliver a speech is just painful.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xListening to Pauline Hanson attempting to deliver a speech is just painful. She rehashed a bit of her maiden speech to the House of Reps a few decades ago ... simply replaced Asians with Muslims. Someone said many pages ago on this site she'd simply gone through her old policies please CTL-F "Asian" and then replaced all with "Muslims". Sounds like she did the same for her speech too. Rhetoric only gets you so far, and doesn't lead to anyone taking you serious in parliament (or people with half a brain).
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol at the Greens upping and leaving though rather than sitting, listening and getting points to counter her argument with. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xlol at the Greens upping and leaving though rather than sitting, listening and getting points to counter her argument with. -PB Shit like this only makes her support grow.
E
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't think you really need to takes notes on Pauline Hanson's arguments. It has changed in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI don't think you really need to takes notes on Pauline Hanson's arguments. It has changed in 20 years. first it was Asians now its Muslims. if she was around in the 50s and 60s it would have been us wogs..
|
|
|
|
|
PerthRed
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 227,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xlol at the Greens upping and leaving though rather than sitting, listening and getting points to counter her argument with. -PB Shit like this only makes her support grow. Shit like this sends the message that a lot of people don't take anything she has to say seriously. Honestly listening to her speech was painful. Not only the content but the delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
StiflersMom
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI don't think you really need to takes notes on Pauline Hanson's arguments. It has changed in 20 years. first it was Asians now its Muslims. if she was around in the 50s and 60s it would have been us wogs.. Good point, the term "wogs" is now more a term of endearment, brought so much to this country and generally good people, I think back then after being so long under white Australia policy it was purely racist driven as I believe Pauline's Asian speech was, and once again Asian's are a real part of our society and contributing/fitting in well. She did change her tone on Muslims though, whilst she used the same "swamped by" catch cry she didn't mention race, rather focused on the culture of a specific religion, basically insisting if you come here you live by our rules, well that was my take on it.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI don't think you really need to takes notes on Pauline Hanson's arguments. It has changed in 20 years. first it was Asians now its Muslims. if she was around in the 50s and 60s it would have been us wogs.. Good point, the term "wogs" is now more a term of endearment, brought so much to this country and generally good people, I think back then after being so long under white Australia policy it was purely racist driven as I believe Pauline's Asian speech was, and once again Asian's are a real part of our society and contributing/fitting in well. She did change her tone on Muslims though, whilst she used the same "swamped by" catch cry she didn't mention race, rather focused on the culture of a specific religion, basically insisting if you come here you live by our rules, well that was my take on it. Only a matter of time before she moves on from Muslims and starts on Africans.
|
|
|
|