+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: SSM Plebiscite (/thread-3461.html)
Re: SSM Plebiscite - dodge - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 05:18 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.
Yet nothing happens about Rudds God son who got beaten up.
Agree with GIC, which is what Thry is talking about - ideology. The other aspects that I get are people being scared of change and not knowing if there will be other consequences that are not relevant to the actual debate eg Safe Schools arguments (ps Thanks Bernardi for your comments that lead to a magnificant fundraising effort)
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 06:36 AM)dodge link Wrote:Yet nothing happens about Rudds God son who got beaten up.
..........................
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920
Re: SSM Plebiscite - bignic - 09-22-2017
I have only just looked at this site as I have been pretty busy, and I'm not going to read all 20 pages thus far. So if I repeat something someone else has written I apologise.
I reckon that 90% of the public would not have an issue voting yes, IF the word marriage was not used to describe a same sex union. If it was called a Civil Union performed by a celebrant and a Civil Union certificate was issued, or a Rainbow Union, a politician recently referred to her family as a "Rainbow Family", only the most fanatical religious individuals would oppose it.
Why is it, that heterosexual couples who have lived together for years, have accepted the term De-facto to describe their union, or partnership, yet the Gay community find it impossible to come up with a term to describe their union. At least De-facto couples have enough respect for the term marriage which has been the term used for a man and a woman who go through a civil or religious ceremony to become man and wife, not to hijack it.
I have many Gay friends, two in particular, who have been a couple for 15 years, and are voting no. When I asked why, they said that they deplore the bully tactics being used by the Gay lobby, and they cannot understand the fixation with the Gay lobby wanting to use the word marriage to describe their SS union.
Finally, I am absolutely disgusted at that hypocrite Gillon McLaughlin. Our club was correct when they said it is up to individuals to vote how they see fit.
But what is so disgraceful about that goose Gillon, is that on the one hand he decides that the AFL are going to take a stand which has to alienate at least 40% of the Afl's supporters, some AFL members are not going to renew their memberships, but this hypocrite sees no conflict of interest in the AFL taking millions of dollars in sponsorship money from Etihad.
Etihad is the Qatari national airline. Not only are Qatar, along with Iran major sponsors of terrorism, but they have a law they enforce, and hang Homosexuals and Lesbians. And you can forget about women having any rights in the Country. Women can't even attend a soccer match there or drive car. But it is their abominable, disgusting murdering of Gays, that makes Gillon's "taking a stand" such hypocrisy.
Give back the money, Gill, then maybe you might have half a leg to stand on you hypocrite.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-22-2017
I think you will find the issue for the LGBT mob is not nomenclature, but rather equal rights and choice. Gay couples have no choice, and I'm sure not all of them wish to marry. Heterosexual couples are at least able to choose one or the other. And heterosexual de facto couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
No doubt there will be gays out there who will vote no. No group, once it reaches a certain critical mass, will ever have 100% consistency in the opinions of its constituents.
No comment from me on the rest of your post.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - bignic - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 07:08 AM)PaulP link Wrote:I think you will find the issue for the LGBT mob is not nomenclature, but rather equal rights and choice. Gay couples have no choice, and I'm sure not all of them wish to marry. Heterosexual couples are at least able to choose one or the other. And heterosexual de facto couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.You are wrong on all counts, Paul. I suggest you consult a partner in a law firm. One of my kids is.
No doubt there will be gays out there who will vote no. No group, once it reaches a certain critical mass, will ever have 100% consistency in the opinions of its constituents.
No comment from me on the rest of your post.
They will tell you that De facto and gay couples have all the same rights as married hetero couples. The only real difficulty faced by a gay couple, is in adopting a child. As far as making medical decisions is concerned, another furfy brought up by the gay lobby, as long as one of the partners signs a medical power of attorney, just like some heterosexual couples who are not married have to do, they have the same rights as married couples. And even with married couples, the hubby may not want the missus to make medical decisions on his behalf so he can do the same and sign an enduring medical power of attorney, authorizing someone else to make the decisions.
People need to check the ACTUAL law rather than listen to the bullcr@p. This no equal rights stuff is propaganda and untrue. By the way, living together for 6 months is enough for one partner, to make a claim on the other. Used to be 12 months.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-22-2017
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/same-sex-marriage-legal-rights-married-defacto-couples-explained/8964368
Re: SSM Plebiscite - ElwoodBlues1 - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 07:20 AM)bignic link Wrote:You are wrong on all counts, Paul. I suggest you consult a partner in a law firm. One of my kids is.
They will tell you that De facto and gay couples have all the same rights as married hetero couples. The only real difficulty faced by a gay couple, is in adopting a child. As far as making medical decisions is concerned, another furfy brought up by the gay lobby, as long as one of the partners signs a medical power of attorney, just like some heterosexual couples who are not married have to do, they have the same rights as married couples. And even with married couples, the hubby may not want the missus to make medical decisions on his behalf so he can do the same and sign an enduring medical power of attorney, authorizing someone else to make the decisions.
People need to check the ACTUAL law rather than listen to the bullcr@p. This no equal rights stuff is propaganda and untrue. By the way, living together for 6 months is enough for one partner, to make a claim on the other. Used to be 12 months.
I did mention the enduring medical power of attorney previously as I was surprised by Magda S's comments and her not knowing that advice...
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 05:18 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.
Nothing to do with ssm, supposedly.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-samesex-marriage-anarchist-dj-who-headbutted-tony-abbott-speaks-out-20170922-gymu2z.html
Re: SSM Plebiscite - madbluboy - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 08:34 AM)PaulP link Wrote:Nothing to do with ssm, supposedly.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-samesex-marriage-anarchist-dj-who-headbutted-tony-abbott-speaks-out-20170922-gymu2z.html
Sure it wasn't.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - dodge - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 06:48 AM)PaulP link Wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920Oops - I didn't look very thoroughly.