SA Footy

The question is, who can you vote for if both Rudd and Abbott seem like dud options?

Failed Creation wrote:The question is, who can you vote for if both Rudd and Abbott seem like dud options?

well fortunately they arent in the same electorate so you wont be able to vote for either

gossipgirl wrote:

Failed Creation wrote:The question is, who can you vote for if both Rudd and Abbott seem like dud options?

well fortunately they arent in the same electorate so you wont be able to vote for either

Well played.

A vote for a certain party is a vote for their leader. Unfortunately we don't get to choose the leader of the party.

Failed Creation wrote:A vote for a certain party is a vote for their leader. Unfortunately we don't get to choose the leader of the party.

Not really. Well, only if you live in a marginal seat

Turns out Cory Bernardi's hysterical fears about this dangerous precedent being a slippery slope to humans marrying animals ARE justified!

^^^ is that Gareth Evans?

Yes.......or no??

Tony Abbott seems like he's beginning to unravel under the glare of the election campaign spotlight, goes on radio and calls gay marriage "the fashion of the moment":

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... ge-comment

To quote a recently departed shock jock "Bloody dickbrain".

It's a shame this pre-election stuff won't go for long enough for his brain to implode.

I'm half-cut or I probably wouldn't do this, because I'm pretty sure my parents don't know and MM probably thinks I was just pissed when I told him. But I'm bisexual. I don't really think it's a big deal, and I certainly don't need anyone's approval. I've never had a girlfriend, only the odd fling. Had a lot of boyfriends. In a long-term relationship with a bloke. I'm attracted to both men and women, but I fall in love with men and that hasn't happened with a woman so far. It's never seemed to be that big an issue to me, which made me think 'maybe I'm just one of those curious people, or one of those people who doesn't really give a s*** about sex' - except for the fact that I'm s***-scared to tell my parents. Oh hell, I don't know.

Good on ya, Fisho.

Today gay marriage was legalised in the A.C.T.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... riage-bill

Brodlach wrote:Today gay marriage was legalised in the A.C.T.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... riage-bill

That's a great start, hopefully it soon follows to the rest of Australia. EVERYONE has the right to be happy.

Failed Creation wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Today gay marriage was legalised in the A.C.T.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... riage-bill

That's a great start, hopefully it soon follows to the rest of Australia. EVERYONE has the right to be happy.

Well nobody should get married then

Brodlach wrote:

Failed Creation wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Today gay marriage was legalised in the A.C.T.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... riage-bill

That's a great start, hopefully it soon follows to the rest of Australia. EVERYONE has the right to be happy.

Well nobody should get married then

Oops...

I honestly don't see any rational argument for people not thinking allowing same sex marriage is a good idea. Unless you are homophobic.

The main issue I have with religious groups saying that same sex marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage is that they ignore the fact that divorce rates have skyrocketed, and there are people out there that are on their 4th marriage etc. or like Britney Spears and only last a few weeks or whatever. All of those things undermine the sanctity of marriage much more than two people who happen to be of the same sex getting married.

The current liberal argument for opposing this law makes me so angry. They say there should be a congruent set of laws over marriage in Australia. And while I actually agree with that, it sidesteps the issue that YOU D*ckheads are now in government? Fking change the law at the commonwealth level!

Lastly, with regards to the debate about same sex couples having access to IVF, I think they should be allowed to. At the present time a single mother can also have access, which is surely a worse situation than having two loving parents. Not to mention 15 year olds can have babies whenever they want so they can get a new tv. Or just because they are careless. IVF is a massive commitment, financially and also in terms of how stressful it would be. And it has to be a choice of the parents. Surely this puts them in a better position than the 15 year old that gets knocked up

bennymacca wrote:I honestly don't see any rational argument for people not thinking allowing same sex marriage is a good idea. Unless you are homophobic.

The main issue I have with religious groups saying that same sex marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage is that they ignore the fact that divorce rates have skyrocketed, and there are people out there that are on their 4th marriage etc. or like Britney Spears and only last a few weeks or whatever. All of those things undermine the sanctity of marriage much more than two people who happen to be of the same sex getting married.

The current liberal argument for opposing this law makes me so angry. They say there should be a congruent set of laws over marriage in Australia. And while I actually agree with that, it sidesteps the issue that YOU D*ckheads are now in government? Fking change the law at the commonwealth level!

Lastly, with regards to the debate about same sex couples having access to IVF, I think they should be allowed to. At the present time a single mother can also have access, which is surely a worse situation than having two loving parents. Not to mention 15 year olds can have babies whenever they want so they can get a new tv. Or just because they are careless. IVF is a massive commitment, financially and also in terms of how stressful it would be. And it has to be a choice of the parents. Surely this puts them in a better position than the 15 year old that gets knocked up

Well said.

Without wanting to pigeonhole any religious users of this forum, they're just as inclined to commit adultery, rape, indecent acts against children and people in general, and other crimes as non-believers.

Having done the majority of my schooling in the private system, I couldn't believe the level of homophobia, bigotry and sexism many of my teachers tried to pass on to us. But that's not to say all religious people are like that. In fact, some of the most open-minded, caring and compassionate people I have ever met have faith in one god or another. But there are also a great deal on non-religious types who are as bad as some faith-based folk.

What I'm trying to say is that like Pierre Trudeau once said "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" and "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".

I'm still with the principle of allowing gay marriage for those who are foolish enough to want to marry, but I think it would be a different matter to try to force religious institutions to perform the marriage ceremonies if they conflict with their beliefs.

The problem seems to be that religious institutions hold an historical mortgage on the term "Marriage" which the state goes along with by referring to non-religious ceremonies as "Civil Union".

Perhaps if we could agree on a general term for the non-religious union, and another for the religious union, it may take some of the heat out of the debate.

IVF?
It is hard to justify in an overpopulated world, and it may help increase the percentage in the population who can't breed naturally over time. It is also a very expensive to provide for what is not a life threatening situation. Perhaps the government should not offer the service to anyone, and promote adoption instead, but not ban it. Then those who can pay all their costs to use their money this way if they wish.

Psyber wrote:I'm still with the principle of allowing gay marriage for those who are foolish enough to want to marry, but I think it would be a different matter to try to force religious institutions to perform the marriage ceremonies if they conflict with their beliefs.

The problem seems to be that religious institutions hold an historical mortgage on the term "Marriage" which the state goes along with by referring to non-religious ceremonies as "Civil Union".
.

most weddings performed nowadays are civil unions anyway. something like 70% are outside of the church as far as i know (cant remember exactly). they are still called marriages even though they are performed by civil ceremony with a celebrant. so i dont see this as an issue at all to allow gay people this right.

there would be at least some ministers that would welcome gay members of their congregation a chance to marry in their church too, and that should also be allowed.