Beer Garden

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2521 Post by SRW » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:18 pm

And again, why? If the end result is that everyone can call it whatever they want, why bother changing what it is legally called? The only thing that matters is that it is legally accessible to everyone, which is what we're trying to remedy. Being bothered by the semantics is beyond precious (not cute).

EDIT: I specifically meant to distance myself from the cute comment but inadvertently supported it by originally mistyping 'note' instead of 'not'... :shock:
Last edited by SRW on Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2529
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 326 times
Contact:

Re: Beer Garden

#2522 Post by Nathan » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:33 pm

On a (slightly) lighter note, does anyone else enjoy the irony that the Anglican Church has donated campaign money to uphold the "traditional view of marriage"?

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2523 Post by Maximus » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm

Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
SRW wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm
My reason would be that which I and others have stated above: anything other than the same treatment under law as others is not equallty.
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm
The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other.
Equality under the law is exactly what the civil union idea seeks to do! And Llessur, your segregated bus example completely misses the point. I don't think either of you properly understand the civil union idea. It does not "allow one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name". Rather, it completely removes any legal definition of marriage whatsoever. Anyone could become legally joined in a civil union, and the law would make no mention of the words 'marry' or 'marriage'. You'd be free to use the word 'marriage' in any form of dictionary definition you like, but there would be no legal definition.

Yes, it's an unusual idea and there would be challenges to overcome. (If nothing else, we'd need to work out an adjectival form of 'civil union' -- we're civilly unioned!) But perhaps an outside the box idea is exactly what's needed to take the heat out of this debate and bring both sides closer together. If we need to get into the semantics of terminology to achieve a resolution, then why not. If you think that's 'beyond precious' or 'cute', then that's on you too, because you're arguing on the other side of it.

Anyhoo, I reckon I"m just about done here. If you can't understand the civil union idea, or choose not to, and have no bona fide intention of trying to bring both sides of the debate together, then that ain't my problem. I can't, however, see how it makes you any better than those in the no camp who you seek to criticise. The whole thing is moot, in any event, because the yes vote will carry and same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Australia. Then we can all find something else to disagree about. Hopefully respectfully and with an open mind.

[Shuz], I reckon the buttery popcorn is about to run out. Unless Rev wants to get going again...

PS: Mono, that's a useful Fact Check article and certainly by far the best I"ve seen in respect of that information. Gee, it's long-winded, though. And it makes the mistake of comparing same-sex de facto couples with hetero married couples. That conflates two separate issues, namely (1) the rights of de facto couples vs married couples and (2) the rights of same-sex couples vs hetero couples.

PPS: I don't buy the argument comparing the results of the postal survey to those of a general election. Elections are, by their nature, a combined vote on hundreds of issues, so it's reasonable to expect far more 'noise' and a closer vote. The postal survey is a binary vote on a singular issue, and on that basis I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a far higher majority could be achieved if the question was framed and phrased in the right way.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2524 Post by Nort » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:38 am

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm
Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
SRW wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm
My reason would be that which I and others have stated above: anything other than the same treatment under law as others is not equallty.
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm
The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other.
Equality under the law is exactly what the civil union idea seeks to do! And Llessur, your segregated bus example completely misses the point. I don't think either of you properly understand the civil union idea. It does not "allow one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name". Rather, it completely removes any legal definition of marriage whatsoever. Anyone could become legally joined in a civil union, and the law would make no mention of the words 'marry' or 'marriage'. You'd be free to use the word 'marriage' in any form of dictionary definition you like, but there would be no legal definition.

Yes, it's an unusual idea and there would be challenges to overcome. (If nothing else, we'd need to work out an adjectival form of 'civil union' -- we're civilly unioned!) But perhaps an outside the box idea is exactly what's needed to take the heat out of this debate and bring both sides closer together. If we need to get into the semantics of terminology to achieve a resolution, then why not. If you think that's 'beyond precious' or 'cute', then that's on you too, because you're arguing on the other side of it.

Anyhoo, I reckon I"m just about done here. If you can't understand the civil union idea, or choose not to, and have no bona fide intention of trying to bring both sides of the debate together, then that ain't my problem. I can't, however, see how it makes you any better than those in the no camp who you seek to criticise. The whole thing is moot, in any event, because the yes vote will carry and same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Australia. Then we can all find something else to disagree about. Hopefully respectfully and with an open mind.

[Shuz], I reckon the buttery popcorn is about to run out. Unless Rev wants to get going again...

PS: Mono, that's a useful Fact Check article and certainly by far the best I"ve seen in respect of that information. Gee, it's long-winded, though. And it makes the mistake of comparing same-sex de facto couples with hetero married couples. That conflates two separate issues, namely (1) the rights of de facto couples vs married couples and (2) the rights of same-sex couples vs hetero couples.

PPS: I don't buy the argument comparing the results of the postal survey to those of a general election. Elections are, by their nature, a combined vote on hundreds of issues, so it's reasonable to expect far more 'noise' and a closer vote. The postal survey is a binary vote on a singular issue, and on that basis I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a far higher majority could be achieved if the question was framed and phrased in the right way.
I for one can understand the civil union idea.

I don't agree with it for a variety of reasons, the primary one that secular civil marriage is already a separate thing to religious marriage, but I can understand the logic.

However the marriage equality case is fundamentally about the fact that our fellow Australians deserve the right to marry the partner they share a life and love with, and shouldn't have any different rights to those of the heterosexual population.

Right now the heterosexual population can get married, so that means marriage for them as well.

If you want to argue a case for civil secular legal marriage being renamed to civil unions then go for your life. However it's an entirely different argument from this one.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2525 Post by SRW » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 am

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm
Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
Not no; why? I and others have already stated that it ultimately doesn't matter what it's called so long as it's meeting the test of equal treatment of everyone under law. And I understand and respect the conciliatory impulse that drives you to suggest a 'compromise'. But if the end result is that everyone is going to call it marriage anyway I don't see the merits of undertaking wholesale reform over the minimal amendment of one sentence of one Act. Especially given I've seen no one convincingly argue why 'marriage' is exclusively in the hands of religion anyway. I think the 'compromise' then becomes about making religious groups feel good in false equivalence to groups seeking to end active discrimination. That doesn't seem a good way to make law to me.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2526 Post by Maximus » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:43 pm

SRW wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 am
Not no; why? ...
Nort wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:38 am
I for one can understand the civil union idea. ...
And there we go. Positive and constructive engagement with an idea. That's what good debate is all about.

We got there in the end. Thank you.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 362 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2527 Post by Llessur2002 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:23 pm

So, let me get this straight. The compromise plan is to end the legal concept of marriage completely for everyone, call all legal joinings of two people 'civil unions' and accept that religious groups can still undertake additional non-legally binding ceremonies at their discretion which they will refer to as 'marriages' whilst also accepting that colloquially everyone will refer to their unions as marriages anyway.

This means that we'll end up with everyone, gay or straight, being able to join legally with exactly the same rights as each other and that everyone will refer to their unions as marriages.

So exactly the same end result as the proposed changes to the marriage act then?

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2528 Post by rev » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:25 pm

:hilarious:

Students in public schools will need their parents permission to take part in any activity organized/held by a religious group, under new state gov. legislation.
Makes sense. Not everyone is religious, not everyone wants their kids to be exposed to it.

But, parents have no rights to prevent their children from being exposed and indoctrinated by alternative gender theories.


Tell us again how it's not an attack on white straight and/or Christians.
In todays bizaro world, Christianity = bad, sexual perversions = good.

Just ask Weinstein's victims how good the bizaro world of alternative sexual perversions are. I'm sure Terry Crews will also vouch for it, as will all the former child stars sexually abused by homosexuals and other perverts in Hollywood.

Maybe we can ask the guy in Canada whose taken it to court, to try and stop his kids from being exposed to the sexually perverted indoctrination that's in full swing there. Parent's there have been stripped of their rights.

Of course, Same Sex marriage is just about that, right. Only that.


Marijuana though is a gateway. It's the only gateway, so they tell you.
SSM wont open the door.


And like I asked, how come inter-species marriage, or civil union, isn't being fought for? According to the various Internet pop ups, interspecies relations are a big thing.
Come on, you leftist homosexuals aren't hypocrites aren't you?
You are honest, good hearted people really fighting for equality right?

Bullshit!
Last edited by rev on Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2529 Post by rev » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 pm

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm
[Shuz], I reckon the buttery popcorn is about to run out. Unless Rev wants to get going again...
Nah I think I've had my fun for now. Need a new reel
What do we have left, just under a month before voting ends? Stay tuned :banana: :lol:

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2530 Post by SRW » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:11 pm

You're brave to call others indoctrinated Rev given your post above is basically a far right playbook. Take a step back.
Keep Adelaide Weird

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2531 Post by Nort » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:57 am

rev wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:25 pm
:hilarious:

Students in public schools will need their parents permission to take part in any activity organized/held by a religious group, under new state gov. legislation.
Makes sense. Not everyone is religious, not everyone wants their kids to be exposed to it.

But, parents have no rights to prevent their children from being exposed and indoctrinated by alternative gender theories.


Tell us again how it's not an attack on white straight and/or Christians.
In todays bizaro world, Christianity = bad, sexual perversions = good.

Just ask Weinstein's victims how good the bizaro world of alternative sexual perversions are. I'm sure Terry Crews will also vouch for it, as will all the former child stars sexually abused by homosexuals and other perverts in Hollywood.

Maybe we can ask the guy in Canada whose taken it to court, to try and stop his kids from being exposed to the sexually perverted indoctrination that's in full swing there. Parent's there have been stripped of their rights.

Of course, Same Sex marriage is just about that, right. Only that.


Marijuana though is a gateway. It's the only gateway, so they tell you.
SSM wont open the door.


And like I asked, how come inter-species marriage, or civil union, isn't being fought for? According to the various Internet pop ups, interspecies relations are a big thing.
Come on, you leftist homosexuals aren't hypocrites aren't you?
You are honest, good hearted people really fighting for equality right?

Bullshit!
Please source your quotes when reposting what I can only assume is your religious Granddads facebook feed.

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2532 Post by rev » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:48 am

Ohh out comes the personalised nature, when hypocrisy is pointed out.

Come on, give us a valid reason why inter species marriage isn’t being included in your marriage campaign?

And leave people’s families out of this.


Oh and I missed it before, but nice touch on the silly comparison
with segregation on racial lines.

Lmfao is there any low not low enough.
Actually I know one, the link between homosexuals and child abuse particularly of young boys. I bet none of you want to talk about that, or the safe schools advocate who happens to be gay who suggested sex between adults and children should be taught as part of safe schools.

Different issues though huh?
All branches of the same tree. That you won’t admit because it opens up the inconvenient facts.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2533 Post by Nort » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:33 am

rev wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:48 am
Ohh out comes the personalised nature, when hypocrisy is pointed out.

Come on, give us a valid reason why inter species marriage isn’t being included in your marriage campaign?

And leave people’s families out of this.


Oh and I missed it before, but nice touch on the silly comparison
with segregation on racial lines.

Lmfao is there any low not low enough.
Actually I know one, the link between homosexuals and child abuse particularly of young boys. I bet none of you want to talk about that, or the safe schools advocate who happens to be gay who suggested sex between adults and children should be taught as part of safe schools.

Different issues though huh?
All branches of the same tree. That you won’t admit because it opens up the inconvenient facts.
Stop drinking and go to bed.

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2534 Post by rev » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:44 pm

Why has drinking been added to the list of banned things in commie utopia fantasy land along with Christianity?

How come nobody wants to answer why a gay is/or was working on safe schools and was advocating adult-child sexual relationships be taught to kids?

How come nobody wants to answer why inter-species marriage isn't on the cards to be legalized as well?
In fact, why is it banned? Because you find it disgusting? Why?

How come nobody wants to talk about why anything religion related will now need parents to sign permission slips, but perverted sexual theories about genders and adult-child sexual relations doesn't require parents to sign permission slips?
I mean, it was found that they were teaching kids about how to buy sex toys online among other perverted things.

What use does a male child have with a dildo?
Talk about indoctrination.

But hey, I've got this straight from my (deceased) grandfathers facebook feed apparently. I'm starting to wonder if some of you even see a problem with the sexualisation of children.

Wont answer because you got no answers. Then again, when Hollywood and the like set the agenda, and we all know about the sexual perversions going on in Hollywood, is it any wonder.

As you're favourite mall regulars would probably say, you sinners will all burn in seven circles of hell. :mrgreen:
Burn sinners burn :lol:

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2535 Post by [Shuz] » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:46 pm

Rev, I know you're a vocal character and I believe there are some of us who do appreciate your passion and conviction even if we do vehemently disagree with your views. But seriously mate, have you gone off your medications lately or something? Your rants lately are straight out of the nationalistic right wing alternative facts playbook.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests