Same sex Marriage - Will you be voting Yes or No?

[DB44]

yes there are media outlets that report it that way but when you actually look into the facts, it doesn't add up.

the bill of rights gets applied to any legislation that is passed in Canada that relates to human rights.

as for the religious parents that only affects parents who are forcing LGBT children to under go conversion therapy or punishing them for being gay.

it is a form of psychological abuse, and religious families are the most likely to inflict it on gay people.

again, your referencing the UK schools and only going by what is reported in the media, I am shocked that you seem unwilling to research what is actually said in the media and accept it without question. it is very clear you have no interest in finding the truth.

A lot of Christians think that being gay is a choice, it is very clear you also do given the fact you say "schools promoting homosexuality" i am always boggled as to why people think and say that considering the difficulties LGBT people suffer in life is not something anyone would choose.

Your ignorance is quite simply astonishing. I've actually read the Canadian case and some of the available Court of Appeal documents. I have heard the father concerned interviewed. As for religious parents affected only being those punishing gay children or trying "conversion therapy", I can only presume that you have outright fabricated it. Clearly you have not read the case concerned. Perhaps you could provide your source for this nonsense.

Try including some actual facts rather than simply making statements fuelled by ignorance.

[bazzy]

Your ignorance is quite simply astonishing. I've actually read the Canadian case and some of the available Court of Appeal documents. I have heard the father concerned interviewed. As for religious parents affected only being those punishing gay children or trying "conversion therapy", I can only presume that you have outright fabricated it. Clearly you have not read the case concerned. Perhaps you could provide your source for this nonsense.

Try including some actual facts rather than simply making statements fuelled by ignorance.

and you call yes people aggressive.

No i didnt fabricate it. i actually enguaged with real people in canada who are in the know about their legal system, i even started a thread on reddit that a member of the baptist church responded saying to the contrary of your claims and also made a point to mention that we should not be using their legal system in our debate because their legal system works completely different to ours.

here is his a screenshot of this response.





Here is the link he provided

and yes i have done research and that is just one part of it.

now considering you have done all this research yourself and have allegedly got these court documents you will have no issue in supplying them to back up your claims. but something tells me you wont. see below

[DB44]

and you call yes people aggressive.

No i didnt fabricate it. i actually enguaged with real people in canada who are in the know about their legal system, i even started a thread on reddit that a member of the baptist church responded saying to the contrary of your claims and also made a point to mention that we should not be using their legal system in our debate because their legal system works completely different to ours.

here is his a screenshot of this response.





Here is the link he provided

and yes i have done research and that is just one part of it.

now considering you have done all this research yourself and have allegedly got these court documents you will have no issue in supplying them to back up your claims. but something tells me you wont. see below

The source of your information is your own Reddit thread and responses to it! Seriously. I'm still waiting for your facebook and Twitter links. And Crikey, The Age and the Guardian.

The case is called E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. A google search with appropriate variations will find all of the reading you may want on both the original case and the current appeal. And will actually teach you far more about the Canadian Charter than your Reddit pals. I'm not going to spoon feed you links, but much of the actual source material is available online. Just to get you started, this link is to submissions made by one of the interveners in the Court of Appeal proceedings, in this case by the Christian Legal Fellowship.



It is of course a partisan document, but does contain a good summary of the case to that point and the issues. The appellant, E.T., the parent involved, was interviewed recently on Australian radio. If I get a chance later I will see if I can find the link for you. This aside, as I posted in the related thread, we seem to be going around in circles. Unless you educate yourself from materials other than Reddit, the Guardian and the like and post intelligently I'm not going to waste further time and continue to bore other Austech members. I have nothing against you. After all, anyone who shares our common bond of love of technology can't be all bad!

[trublu]

I guess I will be accused of being homophobic for voting no in this poll but the truth of the matter is that there is more implications in this campaign than most people realise.
All the politicians should hang their heads in shame for letting this debacle get out of hand with all the bigotry being displayed on both sides as this is turning Australians on each other.

Just my simplistic view on this subject

[DB44]

@bazzy. The interview link I referred to is:

[bazzy]

The source of your information is your own Reddit thread and responses to it! Seriously. I'm still waiting for your facebook and Twitter links. And Crikey, The Age and the Guardian.

The case is called E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. A google search with appropriate variations will find all of the reading you may want on both the original case and the current appeal. And will actually teach you far more about the Canadian Charter than your Reddit pals. I'm not going to spoon feed you links, but much of the actual source material is available online. Just to get you started, this link is to submissions made by one of the interveners in the Court of Appeal proceedings, in this case by the Christian Legal Fellowship.



It is of course a partisan document, but does contain a good summary of the case to that point and the issues. The appellant, E.T., the parent involved, was interviewed recently on Australian radio. If I get a chance later I will see if I can find the link for you. This aside, as I posted in the related thread, we seem to be going around in circles. Unless you educate yourself from materials other than Reddit, the Guardian and the like and post intelligently I'm not going to waste further time and continue to bore other Austech members. I have nothing against you. After all, anyone who shares our common bond of love of technology can't be all bad!

just because the comment was on reddit doesn't make it any less valid.

when you actually read the case you submitted it is again a cause from the charter of rights that has been in existence for decades before same sex marriage was legalized, and it basically is saying that the discrimination based on sexuality violates the charter of rights and a student should not be removed from the curriculum based on religion. that is reasonable, it is also worth noting there are christian schools that this student in question could attend. however there is nothing in that case that indicates that it is a result of marriage equality but is rather speaking of the bill of rights.

the canadian bill of rights was passed in 1960
see below



same sex marriage was passed in 2003



in addition this appeal was done "Appeal to be heard June 26, 2017" 14 years after marriage was passed in Canada

Considering this time that passed without any issue it is unreasonable to conclude that it is a result of marriage law being changed.

in addition to all that we don't have the bill of rights here in Australia and as i have said many times before our legal system is structured completely different to theirs so this case is completely irreverent here. there ARE also protections drafted into the marriage bill tabled that we are voting on to protect religious freedom, and there is nothing to stop you from voicing your opposition to same sex couples after marriage equality passes any more than what you can now.

just like i can say (not that this is my opinion) your marriage is not worth the paper it is written on because i believe you should not be married (assuming you are married), it makes no difference to the validity of your marriage or to your relationship, it is an opinion that people can choose to listen or not. freedom of speech laws cover this in the same way.

this should however not be used as an excuse to deny other people the same rights due to a far out hypothetical backed up only by a single case in another country under a completely different legal structure.

for the record these same arguments you table where used in the debate under interracial marriage. the biblical argument was used when abolishing slavery (the bible does condone slavery. look it up) and the slippery slope argument was used when woman pushed for the right to vote.

[bazzy]

@bazzy. The interview link I referred to is:

thankyou i will listen to it tonight but i doubt it will make a difference to my opinion as i stand by my statement that what an isolated incident that happens under a different legal system in a different country has no bearing on what happens here.

[westcoaster]

Can't vote.

Wrong country.... (Canada)

[lsemmens]

What is any different to you forcing me to accept your viewpoint, or me forcing you to accept mine. There have been dangerous precedents set at law, which, if not carefully crafted, can open the way for unintended consequences. For all it's absurdity here is a simple example. I make a law that says, "Thou shalt not speed, penalty; death". Without specifying what "speed" is the law may have the unintended consequence of anyone walking too quickly down the footpath might be condemned for speeding, when there are horses and carts travelling at twice that speed that are not "speeding". The must needs be checks and balances in every legislation, and these laws must be carefully crafted and made. There were many clubs designed to cater to particular tastes that discriminated upon whom they permitted into membership. Many have now closed. The question being, were they right to discriminate? It all depends upon the tenets of said club. If my club is set up for a particular group, say, Greek women, then I should permitted to discriminate based on the fact that you are not Greek, nor are you a Woman.

As for the current "debate" homosexual couples do need equal rights, at law. Provided that the Law is crafted to permit those without infringing upon other's rights.

[bazzy]

What is any different to you forcing me to accept your viewpoint, or me forcing you to accept mine. There have been dangerous precedents set at law, which, if not carefully crafted, can open the way for unintended consequences. For all it's absurdity here is a simple example. I make a law that says, "Thou shalt not speed, penalty; death". Without specifying what "speed" is the law may have the unintended consequence of anyone walking too quickly down the footpath might be condemned for speeding, when there are horses and carts travelling at twice that speed that are not "speeding". The must needs be checks and balances in every legislation, and these laws must be carefully crafted and made. There were many clubs designed to cater to particular tastes that discriminated upon whom they permitted into membership. Many have now closed. The question being, were they right to discriminate? It all depends upon the tenets of said club. If my club is set up for a particular group, say, Greek women, then I should permitted to discriminate based on the fact that you are not Greek, nor are you a Woman.

As for the current "debate" homosexual couples do need equal rights, at law. Provided that the Law is crafted to permit those without infringing upon other's rights.

I completely agree, there should be protections,

the problem here is we are not voting on that as such we are voting on if the law should be changed to provide rights to gay people. the bill tabled has protections for religious groups that churches do not have to marry gay people if the laws are changed. there are also previsions for businesses to register as having religious values that allows them to deny service to same sex couples same as marriage celebrants,

You will find that under the bill tabled it actually puts more freedom to people faith than there currently is on the subject.

For example now if a business refuses service to an open gay couple they have the potential to be taken through the legal system for discrimination, under this bill a business that registers as having a religions affiliation will have the freedom to reject that same sex couple.

when you listen to the comments ACL made on the bill their issue is not with the bill, they are saying those protections "wont stand the test of time" or in other words may be removed in the future. again another hypothetical scenario.

but as it stands now we are not voting on the bill itself we are voting on if the laws should be changed to allow same sex couples to get married.

at that point then there will discussion arround the bill and how that gets implemented so that has protections for all while allowing rights to gay people.

In essence this whole debate is just a means to kick this issue into the long grass and usually to deflect people attention from other issues. in this case it is power.
last time this came up it was so they could slip a cut to the pension of the elderly. and really when you actually stand back and look at how the government is using this issue as a smoke screen to get something sly done it is very wrong.

i am in no way forcing you to adopt my opinion but i am however entitled to my opinion and to voice it.

if the vote comes back no, the issue just gets deflected for a later date likely under a different government, if the yes vote comes back, they will probably take it to the next election so that card is there to play every time they want to push something they know will erode their support. they have done it time and time again. i am nearly willing to bet on this actually.

[gogot]

No

[allover]

I think bazzy has shut down all comments here
Fact check

[DB44]

Please don't mention ABC and Fact Check in the same sentence. The two seem to be mutually exclusive.

[enf]

Please don't mention ABC and Fact Check in the same sentence. The two seem to be mutually exclusive.

Now THAT'S a fact....

[allover]

And don't forget the RMIT acedemics!

[DB44]

And don't forget the RMIT acedemics!

I'm not. bazzy voiced his opinion continually in this thread as is his right. He continually refused to address the issues raised or to provide sources. When he did provide one source it turned out to be his own thread on Reddit! I grew tired of bashing my head against the wall in both this and the associated thread. It seems he also grew tired, and the thread died a natural death.

Now you seek to resurrect it, firstly by mischaracterising the natural petering out of the thread and then by following up with a link to a so-called fact check by the ABC! I read it and, in accordance with my expectations, was totally unimpressed. It made me sad more than anything else. The ABC, which once enjoyed an enviable reputation and credibility now enjoys neither. It has degenerated into nothing more than a propaganda arm for the extreme left.

If you want me to participate further in this thread you will need to do much better than a purported "fact check" by the ABC to gain my interest. It is simply not worth my time. If you don't have anything credible better to let the dead lie.

Sorry. I should say let the dead rest in peace. We'll leave the lying to the ABC.

[DB44]

Deleted. Double Post.

[Splinter17]

I remember my old man getting the 308 out and putting a bull in the freezer.

The bull wouldn't do his job, he kept jumping on the other bulls, so that was that.

Then another time was a cow that just wouldn't let the bull jump on.

Same result, in the freezer....if you get my drift

[DB44]

I remember my old man getting the 308 out and putting a bull in the freezer.

The bull wouldn't do his job, he kept jumping on the other bulls, so that was that.

Then another time was a cow that just wouldn't let the bull jump on.

Same result, in the freezer....if you get my drift

This quote from an old Science Fiction story comes to mind:

Also we got worlds colonized by religious nuts, diet faddists, hobbyists, political fanatics, sado-masochists, alcoholics, lotus-eaters and a few hundred other kinds of loonies. Also we had a few worlds colonized by homosexuals of both types, but they didn't breed true in captivity and they died out.

[allover]

You stupid old fart, take your self into the room of mirrors and give your self good flogging

I'm not. bazzy voiced his opinion continually in this thread as is his right. He continually refused to address the issues raised or to provide sources. When he did provide one source it turned out to be his own thread on Reddit! I grew tired of bashing my head against the wall in both this and the associated thread. It seems he also grew tired, and the thread died a natural death.

Agreed, but thought he put up a good fight that's why i put the smilly there, good on him

Now you seek to resurrect it, firstly by mischaracterising the natural petering out of the thread and then by following up with a link to a so-called fact check by the ABC! I read it and, in accordance with my expectations, was totally unimpressed. It made me sad more than anything else. The ABC, which once enjoyed an enviable reputation and credibility now enjoys neither. It has degenerated into nothing more than a propaganda arm for the extreme left.

What a lot of crap, all i did was put a link to an article to the ABC fact check, did not say i agreed with it, but placed there for open discussion, may be you are the one that is a bigot by your answer that you don't want to see some thing you don't agree with, and who says the post is closed, didn't see the closed post sign, but sure it aint far away


If you want me to participate further in this thread you will need to do much better than a purported "fact check" by the ABC to gain my interest. It is simply not worth my time. If you don't have anything credible better to let the dead lie.'

I don't give a brass rozoot about your interests, you are only one of many, what makes you think you are so self important, Hey you are also drawing an analogy which aint there

Are you such a right wing,

Uhhh

Sorry. I should say let the dead rest in peace. We'll leave the lying to the ABC.

Not all the ABC says can be lying, that is just a stupid, un educated comment, geez no wonder Trash never puts his name to these threads

But every one is allowed their opinions, but cannot remember expressing mine other than submitting a link