woodublieve12 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?
Agreed Jimmy, those people push their agenda to the simple minded and they drink it in...
Ah yeah; the simple minded "Deplorables"
Supercilious twat
by Jimmy_041 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:26 pm
woodublieve12 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?
Agreed Jimmy, those people push their agenda to the simple minded and they drink it in...
by gossipgirl » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:18 pm
Dog_ger2 wrote:My upbringing says no.
I understand the problem here.
Call it what you want but not marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
For love and birth of children.
I like my many peers will vote no.
This is not about equality.
Equality cannot happen having children with the same sex.
It is impossible.
by bennymacca » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:07 pm
by woodublieve12 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:55 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:woodublieve12 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?
Agreed Jimmy, those people push their agenda to the simple minded and they drink it in...
Ah yeah; the simple minded "Deplorables"
Supercilious twat
by woodublieve12 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:56 pm
bennymacca wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khLEbeV400M
by Booney » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:35 am
Jimmy_041 wrote:Q. wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?
No? Same reason for the popularity of Trudeau, Macron or Corbyn? Do tell.
Correct, you obviously can't.
This is not right v left
They are in that group as well (although Corbyn didn't win)
People are sick of the oligarchy
Career politicians who get rich whilst screwing the people they are meant to serve
by Magellan » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:49 pm
by bennymacca » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:31 pm
by stan » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:00 pm
Doesnt matter, Abbott is still a no vote.bennymacca wrote:very good article. makes a lot of sense.
by Booney » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:06 pm
bennymacca wrote:very good article. makes a lot of sense.
by Magellan » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:10 pm
bennymacca wrote:very good article. makes a lot of sense.
by bennymacca » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:56 pm
Magellan wrote:bennymacca wrote:very good article. makes a lot of sense.
You get the feeling that if Abbott never had the privilege of a private school and university education, instead of being the professional headkicker in federal politics that he is today, he would've spent his time as a dickhead sitting in a pub picking fights, telling everyone about his failed boxing career, and that he 'could've been a contender.'
by MW » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:58 pm
by cracka » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:17 pm
by Q. » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:19 pm
I reckon he's full on closet gay and totally in denialMW wrote:His opinion is solely based on his religious views.
by bennymacca » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:19 pm
cracka wrote:His sister is a lesbian too
by MW » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:20 pm
Q. wrote:I reckon he's full on closet gay and totally in denialMW wrote:His opinion is solely based on his religious views.
by RB » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:54 pm
woodublieve12 wrote:Trader wrote:woodublieve12 wrote:For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?
Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.
For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.
That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.
Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.
If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.
So the gay community are relying on 90% of the population to make a decision on who they can marry, which I will say again doesn't effect 90% of the population...
Makes zero sense that this is a debate. It's a human right. And if in same way two males or females getting married offends you HTFU
by Booney » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:17 am
RB wrote:woodublieve12 wrote:Trader wrote:woodublieve12 wrote:For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?
Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.
For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.
That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.
Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.
If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.
So the gay community are relying on 90% of the population to make a decision on who they can marry, which I will say again doesn't effect 90% of the population...
Makes zero sense that this is a debate. It's a human right. And if in same way two males or females getting married offends you HTFU
Civil right, not a human right.
by bennymacca » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:48 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |