Marriage is totally Gay

Blame your phone provider. They sell active numbers and charge to mass send texts to them.

No-one gets the details on who own the numbers though, unless you are the Police, ATO or some other Government group who want your ■■■■ in a sling.

Think you need to actually find out what Safe Schools Program entails.

You are either ignorant or just a disgusting person.

2 Likes

People on Facebook, concerned about getting unsolicited messages? HA!! Welcome to Facebook!

And having their contact details used by a third party? HA!! Welcome to the internet!

WTAF?

People be sharing their entire lives on there, kids photos, selfies etc. Companies be buying and sharing their data, and now they get an unsolicited text and want to ■■■■■ and moan?

Boo fricken hoo.

Not even in the same ball park as having the entire population having to vote on whether your sexuality should be legally endorsed and called marriage.

HTFU people.

5 Likes

Actually you can put your mobile on the do not call register (which I have done) and so you shouldn’t get these type of things. However as I use my mobile as my contact rather than the home phone I occasionally get these things.

The message didn’t come as result of being on Facebook Mr smarty pants. I went to their Facebook page to let them know I didn’t appreciate a text to my phone from them. And got some good advice to forward the number to a spam complaint organisation. I don’t get spammed by any political party so why should I put up with this. I have already sent the form back anyway and it isn’t anyone’s business what I submitted. I just don’t understand what benefits they get if there is a yes vote that they haven’t got now. Gay people adopt children. Heterosexuals can live together without being married. What is the difference? I don’t know how they are being discriminated against and aren’t equal already.

The do not call act of 2006 does not extend to sms.

They aren’t equal under the law, that is under the Marriage Act. Obviously it matters to them otherwise you wouldn’t be messaged.

1 Like

They are being denied a right which should apply equally to everyone.

1 Like

For starters, they can’t get married.

By not being able to be married, they are not afforded the same rights as hetero couples with relation to inheritance, superannuation, or rights as a partner of a dead or dying partner. Pretty significant if you have been together for many years, built finances, have children or wishes that you want carried out once you pass.

You say it isn’t anyone’s business what you voted. Fair enough. But is it anyone’s business, yours or mine, that should allow us to ‘vote’ on the rights of others? It’s not Big Brother or Masterchef, it’s people’s lives. It’s an embarrassment and disgrace that we are even at this point. FFS Australia

12 Likes

EFA

1 Like

That explains that then.

I’m sorry, but this utter bs and a disingenuous statement from the club…
We all know, as the club does, Carlton supporters should NOT be treated equally! ■■■■ Carlton.

Agree with the rest though.

4 Likes

Really?

The clue is kind of on the form you ticked.

1 Like

A recent article in The Conversation explains the different rights between married and de facto couples:

" Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de fact couples do not?"
[the conversation.com](http://the conversation.com)

The fundamental difference is that heterosexuals can marry, same sex couples can’t. While the Family Law Act confers some rights on same sex couples, superior rights are conferred to those with marital status.
Straight lives matter more under the law.

4 Likes

Maybe you should’ve found that out before you voted?

5 Likes

Exactly.

Inside the terrifying mind of Tony Abbott

While Tony Abbott is bent on destroying Malcolm Turnbull, it pays to understand how he views the world.

Bernard Keane — Politics Editor

“I probably feel a bit threatened, as so many people do. It’s a fact of life.”— Tony Abbott, 2010

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is committed to the destruction of the man who replaced him, and is willing to use any issue (and adopt any position, no matter how hypocritical) to do it. But it’s also worth reflecting on his psychology and that of men (they’re mostly men) like him, given they are likely to play a continuing role in parliament until the Liberal and National parties decide to enter the 21st century and start resembling contemporary Australia a little more closely.

The psychological basis for climate change denial has attracted increasing academic study in recent years, as researchers try to work out why one particular demographic — older white males — tends to dominate the ranks of climate denialists (compare, say, vaccination denialism, which has a younger and more female demographic). A 2015 study that has drawn considerable attention identified that “denial is driven partly by dominant personality and low empathy, and partly by motivation to justify and promote existing social and human-nature hierarchies.” That is, climate denialists were partly motivated by concern that climate action would undermine existing hierarchies, which, as white males, they tended to dominate. And because they see the world in terms of hierarchies, the only alternative they can conceive of is a hierarchy in which they are not dominant.

As it turns out, this kind of fear — that one is being threatened with losing one’s dominant status — is applicable across a range of issues. While he later said he chose his words poorly, Abbott saying that he felt “threatened” by homosexuality accurately conveyed a similar sentiment: he sees LGBTI people as threatening — not, of course, to his physical self, but to his social status. He put it even better when he explained his “threatened” comments by saying homosexuality “challenges orthodox notions of the right order of things”, revealing how LGBTI people conflicted with his hierarchical, “right order” view of the world.

This deep-seated, hierarchy-based fear can also be seen in Abbott’s monarchism; he described any push for a republic as “the latest instalment in the green-left’s war on our way of life”. It even explains his bizarre claim, while Prime Minister, that he was a kind of fiscal fire brigade and the mere fact that he was in office was enough to address the fiscal emergency, just like the arrival of the fire brigade at a fire showed that everything was under control. This peculiar image only makes sense if you see the world as a hierarchy in which the restoration of the right people to the top of the hierarchy ensures all is well, no matter what action they might take, or even if they take no action at all.

Much has always been made of Abbott’s Catholicism, but it’s hard to see religion as playing a particular role in this worldview; Catholicism is no more hierarchical than Anglicanism, for example, or some other Christian sects. But through a prism of hierarchy, it becomes easier to understand why Abbott clings to the heterosexual, coal-fired, monarchical Australia he believes he grew up in, because that delivered him, as he sees it, to the top of the “right order of things” and anything that contradicts it must be fought as a kind of existential threat.

This is a key reason why Abbott is so adept at exploiting the politics of fear. All politicians traffic in fear, of course, but Abbott’s time in public life has been defined by it because his unparalleled genius has been to tear down or halt the achievements of others. From the republic to a carbon price and terrorism to, now, coal and marriage equality, Abbott uses fear and the belief that we are under threat to prevent change to the “right order of things”. He’s able to do so because he knows fear so well, because it’s not an artifice for him, but something he feels at the very core of his being. It’s a frightening world for Tony Abbott, and he wants you to be frightened, too.

5 Likes

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.

Seriously, all the Yes campaign has to do is demonstrably respect everyone else’s view and they will romp this in. Yet some nutters seem determined to grasp defeat from jaws of victory.

[LOL - the word I used instead of grasp was blocked by swear filter]

At least they had the decency to put the Anarchist symbol on their banner. Astro Labe, the head butter, also claimed this affiliation.

Anarchists will be Anarchists and should not be expected to consider what will be look best to mainstream. They are to polar opposite to the ultra conservative and it is no surprise they should want to be destructive to what the most conservative hold most dear. Respecting “everyone else’s view” is not on their agenda.

I think if you have a close look at it you’ll find that the actual Yes “campaign” is full of pleasant young people who are unfailingly polite. Some elements of the media want to lump taswegian DJs that call themselves Funkknuckle in with them as if the worst elements of the Yes side represent the whole.

The essential problem is that so many people on the Yes side consider the position of the No side to be that gay people do not deserve access to the public good of ‘marriage’ (specifically being able to enter into a legally recognised full partnership with the person you love) just because they are gay. This is discrimination on the basis of sexuality which our society agrees is wrong. So it’s really hard to be polite with that in mind.

1 Like