All Eyes on South Australia

Jun 24, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Blaze

While a federal amendment that sought to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages conducted overseas was defeated last week, a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry was introduced in South Australia, keeping marriage equality firmly placed in the political agenda.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of114
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Time for breakfast.

When you decide what we are actually talking about, instead of some vague wave about "children", let me know.

By the way, are we talking about a tropical or temperate rainforest, a pine forest, a beech copse ... or just a stand of scrub?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Drop the keyboard, people and go out and CELEBRATE standing up to oppression!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Happy ***P*R*I*D*E***

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
Time for breakfast.
When you decide what we are actually talking about, instead of some vague wave about "children", let me know.
By the way, are we talking about a tropical or temperate rainforest, a pine forest, a beech copse ... or just a stand of scrub?
I decided at the outset and left you in no doubt of what I was discussing, here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...

and again at your request, here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...

That did not fit the agenda that you and I both know you have been honing your skills at for a lifetime, so you seem to have dodged my clarification and have been difficult about it ever since.

When I sought clarification from you, here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...

before long you sought to dissipate a simple definition over a vast continuum.

I've already told you, I'm only interested in language here as the average person uses it. If those words are too elementary for you, call it 'common parlance'. Don't lecture me on some esoteric notion of linguistic discipline.

Now perhaps we can stop "talking about talking", and settle instead for plain talking.:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I decided at the outset and left you in no doubt of what I was discussing, here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...
and again at your request, here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...
That did not fit the agenda that you and I both know you have been honing your skills at for a lifetime, so you seem to have dodged my clarification and have been difficult about it ever since.
When I sought clarification from you, here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...
before long you sought to dissipate a simple definition over a vast continuum.
I've already told you, I'm only interested in language here as the average person uses it. If those words are too elementary for you, call it 'common parlance'. Don't lecture me on some esoteric notion of linguistic discipline.
Now perhaps we can stop "talking about talking", and settle instead for plain talking.:)
Look. I already said that your opening post on "conscience votes" is fine, and shared my legal theory why they are counterproductive and even damaging.

You then moved on into some other statement about "children". I was completely willing to go there with you, but you needed to clarify what you were talking about. You still do.

What age "children"? What about "children"? In relation to what? "Conscience votes"? Australia doesn't elect minors to Government, so how do "children" enter into that discussion?

"The specific is terrific".

“Ruler of Topix Australia .. ”

Since: Feb 12

the Holy City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

"might might

put it in me arse

"

"ok might, but we cant get married yknow might"

"I know might, but a gay aussie can dream right ? ooh I want one of those wild sex offender league players "

oink oink

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jun 30, 2013
 

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

voices of reason wrote:
"might might
put it in me arse
"
"ok might, but we cant get married yknow might"
"I know might, but a gay aussie can dream right ? ooh I want one of those wild sex offender league players "
oink oink
Now, now ... you look like a nice couple.

We don't need to know how you like it.
LMR

Altona, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably the most perceptive question yet. Glad you asked.
If I have any barrow to push, it is in regard to that enigmatic Parliamentary beast called a "Conscience vote".
A "conscience vote" is simply a convenient means for a party to either back-pedal from an electorally unpopular decision or to push through legislation that needs to be decided upon in order to remove it from public debate but which most politicians are too gutless to reveal their position on.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jun 30, 2013
 

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

and now counterpoint ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

First rebuttal ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

side commentary ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Look. I already said that your opening post on "conscience votes" is fine, and shared my legal theory why they are counterproductive and even damaging.
You then moved on into some other statement about "children". I was completely willing to go there with you, but you needed to clarify what you were talking about. You still do.
What age "children"? What about "children"? In relation to what? "Conscience votes"? Australia doesn't elect minors to Government, so how do "children" enter into that discussion?
"The specific is terrific".
You have not convinced me.

Where you're involved I've made the effort to research what I would be getting myself into .

You seem to be a one-trick virtuoso, long and exquisitely drilled in your specialty.

With a much wider range of interests and passions I have no intention of contesting your side of the Rainbow, becoming yet another of your many scalps, in your view if not in mine. That could waste both my time and yours to end acrimoniously.

As I saunter off merrily into the distance you can holler after me obligatory cheapshots about 'intestinal fortitude' or whatever aspersion tickles your fancy. But as I have already told you, I'm not new at this. The "Deerstalker Syndrome" was never my destiny.

Where you are concerned, "my work is done here".

Consider me the 'one that got away'.:)

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

snyper wrote:
Too late to obfuscate. I understood you correctly the first time.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

What a troll!

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LMR wrote:
<quoted text>
A "conscience vote" is simply a convenient means for a party to either back-pedal from an electorally unpopular decision or to push through legislation that needs to be decided upon in order to remove it from public debate but which most politicians are too gutless to reveal their position on.
Agree emphatically.

On TV at Parliamentary Question Time when a "conscience vote" is called the sight of over-privileged MPs scuttling across the floor in all directions like swarming cockroaches to vote is underwhelming.

The realization that that swarm is going to plant a restrictive seal onto the self-determination of some large slab of the population is nauseating.

What makes their subjective opinion any better than yours or mine?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

snyper wrote:
What a troll!
Thank you! Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you! Coming from you I take that as a compliment.
Only if one is to prefer process and fluff over substance.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

From the article:

'... Close, a Labor backbencher, opined: "... there are a great many people who, by virtue of the discriminatory nature of our current laws, are being made to feel lesser....'

This is a weak tack. The issue isn't about FEELING lesser, but about the National treating some of it's Citizens as if the ARE lesser.

It's interesting for U.S. readers to note that in Australia the criteria for marriage participation are a Federal matter. While certainly a rational approach, it appears that in exchange for greater consistency across the Nation, change and adaptation is retarded. Stability is gained at the cost of unresponsiveness.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

snyper wrote:
From the article:
'... Close, a Labor backbencher, opined: "... there are a great many people who, by virtue of the discriminatory nature of our current laws, are being made to feel lesser....'
This is a weak tack. The issue isn't about FEELING lesser, but about the National treating some of it's Citizens as if the ARE lesser.
It's interesting for U.S. readers to note that in Australia the criteria for marriage participation are a Federal matter. While certainly a rational approach, it appears that in exchange for greater consistency across the Nation, change and adaptation is retarded. Stability is gained at the cost of unresponsiveness.
That is because the U.S. is a federation of states where: 1. The states made the federal government, not the other way around. 2. The states retain a significant amount of their sovereignty.

The Commonwealth Of Australia, is officially a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The past few years there has been debate in Australia becoming a republic as the U.S. is.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of114
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••