Beer Garden

[crawf]

At this stage I should probably clarify that my 'year round tan' comment was about the white guy who looks a bit grubby, not the black guy. Depending on which one you've seen I might have come across a little on the bigoted side...

Oh my comment was in reference to the 'year round tan' grubby guy . The guy with an extremely ridiculous LOUD voice.

[rev]

At this stage I should probably clarify that my 'year round tan' comment was about the white guy who looks a bit grubby, not the black guy. Depending on which one you've seen I might have come across a little on the bigoted side...

Because bitching about others religious beliefs isn't bigoted, on the contrary, it's very tolerant you see.

[serca]

Say what you will about the white guy, even that he looks so grubby that he's tanned all year round or whatever, but definitely clarify with sugar that you were not implying that on the coloured gentleman because ohhhhh watch those eggs shells wouldn't dare remotely insult a minority or someone claiming to be different.

And I was going to leave it alone but meh i was enjoying our amicable differences.

You state your wife faces massive inequality yet you had nothing concrete to back it up with ? I don't believe that in this day in age men and woman are paid differently for the same role at the same company. If this does happen I certainly don't agree with it or think its fare. But to state her opinions are not taken as seriously is not an general inequality that is a perception or maybe a cultural problem at the firm. To also state she is not applicable for certain job purely based on her gender I also find hard to believe but again if true isn't good enough. Having said that there are certain roles thats males and females are both better suited too. Thats why this whole equal equality fluff has gone too far. We are simply, primitively and biologically different creatures, with equally different strength and weaknesses.

I never stated that a preschool student is faced with making a choice regarding their gender and undergoing surgery. Geeeeez relax i simply think that educating them is not required because they are not cognitively ready to absorb the information or make decision on changes. Those changes being mentally living as a different gender. Or dressing or acting , taking the name of the opposite sex , just the transition stage.

Thank the higher being that Maximus chimed with the flashing light debate. I was NEVER offended by the lights changing just perplexed that people WERE offended by it.

[Llessur2002]

Say what you will about the white guy, even that he looks so grubby that he's tanned all year round or whatever, but definitely clarify with sugar that you were not implying that on the coloured gentleman because ohhhhh watch those eggs shells wouldn't dare remotely insult a minority or someone claiming to be different.

Nope, the black guy is just as big an idiot as the grubby angry guy. I just wanted to clarify that I hadn't used the term 'year round tan' to describe someone's race.

I wasn't sure which of the two crawf had seen and whether he was aware there were two prominent preachers on the mall at the moment.

Because bitching about others religious beliefs isn't bigoted, on the contrary, it's very tolerant you see.

I'm generally only bigoted towards the more bigoted religious groups. It seems fair.

[Maximus]

I'm generally only bigoted towards the more bigoted religious groups. It seems fair.

Along with 'extreme/militant left/right', the word 'bigoted' is definitely being over-used in recent times. This employer even thinks it's tantamount to 'hate speech' to suggest people should vote no... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/f ... ey/8964558.

I'm yet to hear anyone advocating for no make that actual point. No one has said "Because our rules say no, therefore no."

Wow, that really surprises me. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been hearing is the main crux of the religious side of the debate. Although, to be fair, I've largely tuned out to the media coverage of this whole issue.

In any case, in what I have seen in the media, together with my own personal observations, it does seem to me that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people. What do you think of the idea that, rather than a Marriage Act, we should have a Civil Union (or similar) Act. Anyone can be joined legally under the Civil Union Act, but if you want to get married, you go to a church or whatever and play by their rules. I've heard this idea suggested by a number of people and it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

[crawf]

Say what you will about the white guy, even that he looks so grubby that he's tanned all year round or whatever, but definitely clarify with sugar that you were not implying that on the coloured gentleman because ohhhhh watch those eggs shells wouldn't dare remotely insult a minority or someone claiming to be different.

Nope, the black guy is just as big an idiot as the grubby angry guy. I just wanted to clarify that I hadn't used the term 'year round tan' to describe someone's race.

I wasn't sure which of the two crawf had seen and whether he was aware there were two prominent preachers on the mall at the moment.

Can I also just point out, I didn't take your comment as reference to the guy's race. He did have a dark tan complexion.

What do you think of the idea that, rather than a Marriage Act, we should have a Civil Union (or similar) Act. Anyone can be joined legally under the Civil Union Act, but if you want to get married, you go to a church or whatever and play by their rules. I've heard this idea suggested by a number of people and it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

No.

[rev]

In any case, in what I have seen in the media, together with my own personal observations, it does seem to me that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people. What do you think of the idea that, rather than a Marriage Act, we should have a Civil Union (or similar) Act. Anyone can be joined legally under the Civil Union Act, but if you want to get married, you go to a church or whatever and play by their rules. I've heard this idea suggested by a number of people and it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

That's actually a very sensible solution to this problem. The religious groups aren't forced into accepting anything, and same sex couples are legally able to be wed in civil unions.
Everyone can call it what they want, but the state will recognize it all as a civil union.
Simple.

No surprise that a militant left winger(whose gay from memory) said no lol.

A sensible solution being opposed by these people. What a surprise.
It's not about equality. That's what people need to realize. They don't want equality, what they want is to make everyone else who they perceive as having discriminated against them, to eat shit now.
What this is, is an attack on straight white Christians. The whole basis of our Judeo Christian based societies are being attacked with this ridiculous gender shit. They wont admit that though, because it exposes them.
Instead they bullshit on about equality.

Equality, by forcing something upon others against their will and their beliefs, violating their human rights.
Equality, by indoctrinating peoples children against the parents will, and passing laws preventing parents from doing anything about it.
Seems to be the trend with the left wing anyway, free speech etc, but only if you agree with them.
That's what awaits us when same sex marriage is passed. As has happened in other countries.
Because it wont be passed in a sensible, neutral way, like what you've suggested. It will be something that creates a divide and more hatred.


But special people like crawf can't see that.
It's their way or no way.

[Ben]

But special people like crawf can't see that.
It's their way or no way.

Equally as special as people like Rev.

you seem to have a lot of built up anger. Your opinion "pieces" are more like attacks. I mean the one in the thread about Uber vs Cabbies. Seriously its one thing to have an opinion and another to yell it at someone with obscenities because your argument lacks thought and detail.

[monotonehell]

That's actually a very sensible solution to this problem. The religious groups aren't forced into accepting anything, and same sex couples are legally able to be wed in civil unions.
Everyone can call it what they want, but the state will recognize it all as a civil union.
Simple.

No surprise that a militant left winger(whose gay from memory) said no lol.

A sensible solution being opposed by these people. What a surprise.
It's not about equality. That's what people need to realize. They don't want equality, what they want is to make everyone else who they perceive as having discriminated against them, to eat shit now.
What this is, is an attack on straight white Christians. The whole basis of our Judeo Christian based societies are being attacked with this ridiculous gender shit. They wont admit that though, because it exposes them.
Instead they bullshit on about equality.

Equality, by forcing something upon others against their will and their beliefs, violating their human rights.
Equality, by indoctrinating peoples children against the parents will, and passing laws preventing parents from doing anything about it.
Seems to be the trend with the left wing anyway, free speech etc, but only if you agree with them.
That's what awaits us when same sex marriage is passed. As has happened in other countries.
Because it wont be passed in a sensible, neutral way, like what you've suggested. It will be something that creates a divide and more hatred.


But special people like crawf can't see that.
It's their way or no way.

Exactly how is it not about equality?

The current situation is that, a couple who are committed to each other, can't enter into a legal agreement that is afforded other couples. Who must settle for a civil union, which is not recognised in important legal situations like hospitals, insurance and superannuation.

You can rename the act if you wish. If everyone gets the same treatment under the Law, then yay - equality. But some groups seem to want to say that only they can have "marriage".


How is it an attack? If SSM becomes Law, absolutely nothing has changed for "straight white Christians" (Do you really want to make this about skin colour?) They would still be able to carry on with their lives as they had before. The only difference would be for the couples who are currently discriminated against.


Explain exactly how these "straight white Christians" will suffer when other people's lives are made better by being afforded the same rights to loved ones under the Law?

[[Shuz]]

Have to say, this deckchair is pretty comfortable and the popcorn tastes buttery and delicious. Mmm.

Sorry, you guys were saying?

[Nathan]

In any case, in what I have seen in the media, together with my own personal observations, it does seem to me that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people. What do you think of the idea that, rather than a Marriage Act, we should have a Civil Union (or similar) Act. Anyone can be joined legally under the Civil Union Act, but if you want to get married, you go to a church or whatever and play by their rules. I've heard this idea suggested by a number of people and it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

So, change the definition of marriage then?

[mshagg]

It's not about equality. That's what people need to realize. They don't want equality, what they want is to make everyone else who they perceive as having discriminated against them, to eat shit now.
What this is, is an attack on straight white Christians. The whole basis of our Judeo Christian based societies are being attacked with this ridiculous gender shit. They wont admit that though, because it exposes them.

Respect that you're entitled to your opinion, but I feel a civic duty to point out this actually comes across as something a lunatic would say.

Holding a traditional view of marriage is one thing but to suggest the opposing view is a conspiracy against 'judeo Christian society' is straight up flat earth crazy.

[Maximus]

So, change the definition of marriage then?

Essentially, remove the fact of marriage having a legal/codified definition at all. It's just an idea -- and not mine. It sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but I'm not particularly in tune with the no camp apart from the 'equality' mantra.

Do you or ...?

No.

Care to elaborate...?

[monotonehell]

So, change the definition of marriage then?

Essentially, remove the fact of marriage having a legal/codified definition at all. It's just an idea -- and not mine. It sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but I'm not particularly in tune with the no camp apart from the 'equality' mantra.

Do you or ...?

No.

Care to elaborate...?

It's a cute idea, but opens several other cans of worms.

For example: are all the people already "married" still married?

Are all the people who weren't "married" in a church still married?

[rev]

But special people like crawf can't see that.
It's their way or no way.

Equally as special as people like Rev.

you seem to have a lot of built up anger. Your opinion "pieces" are more like attacks. I mean the one in the thread about Uber vs Cabbies. Seriously its one thing to have an opinion and another to yell it at someone with obscenities because your argument lacks thought and detail.

stick to trolling council and government websites for the latest scoop on the latest building alterations..never know when we're going to need to know about that latest gutter and down pipe addition, or when a wall is going to get a fresh coat of paint.