To Support Or Not To Support?

[POWERZONE]

Irrelevant is the link you are making between same sex marriage and the sacking of a Christian magistrate

 

Same sex marriage is not legal at this present moment - yet he still lost his job.

 

Therefore whether it's YES or NO is irrelevant.

 

Getting sacking for what you term as "bad words" isn't an attack on religion.

 

He was the one doing the attacking - that's why he lost his job. PC is the issue here, not SSM.

 

If we had decent IR laws in this country he wouldn't have needed to go to court to get his job back.

 

He could've gone through the arbitration process instead.

[POWERZONE]

BS yourself mate.

 

SSM hasn't even started yet and already you're blaming it for evil events.

 

What happens if it's NO? Maybe blame the tooth fairy in NZ ?

 

Or do you do what Tony Abbott does?

 

He normally uses scare tactics and conspiracy theories from his crystal bawls to predict all sorts of doom.

 

Except he managed to do something different this time. He managed to convince his right earlobe that self induced global destruction of the planet from Co2 emissions could actually be a good thing.

 

Stick a fork in him - he's done.

[POWERZONE]

Hey guess what Peter.

 

It has nothing to do with muslims either.

 

Didn't stop you dragging them into it in post 48 did it mate?

 

So yeah... one rule for one and a different one for others? Yep, that's the Abbott way.

 

I'm glad you like him. He's rapidly running out of likers.

 

Even many in his own party think he's a (to use one of your favourite words) a prikc

 

PS. I don't care about "possibilities" that could've happened after SSM.

 

"possibilities" can happen regardless of the vote - that was my point.

 

If SSM goes through it just gives NO voters another source of their grief regardless of the real cause.

 

It's not a good enough reason to stop gays getting married in my view.

[POWERZONE]

Because I'm not a quitter.

 

And I tend to call BS on conspiracy theories akin to social cataclysms, apocalypses or the boogie man.

 

Which is why I disagree about "stuff waiting for the YES bonanza to bust open". It's a scare tactic.

 

It's quite hilarious how the right cry foul about the Mediscare but are happy to dish out even worse such <span>digressions.</span>.

 

Muslims will of course be immune from criticism. That makes sense. Why should they be<i><b> </b></i>criticised ?

 

They aren't responsible for the vote or the outcome thereof.

 

They are a source for aimless hatred by the intolerant in our society but that's the haters' fault. No one elses.

[POWERZONE]

Hello.

 

I didn't say I don't deal in possibilities. That is a misquote because using just that half of my sentence makes it sound like an outright generic statement. It wasn't.

 

What I said was "I don't care about "possibilities" that could've happened after SSM" - that confines it to irrelevancies as a result of a YES vote.

 

No I don't believe a NO vote will evoke suicides. I don't believe a YES vote will either.

 

Aimed hatred by muslims towards me? Nope. Never met a muslim that hates me. And that is good.

[POWERZONE]

Hey Peter.

 

I didn't say I don't deal in possibilities. That is a misquote because using just that half of my sentence makes it sound like an outright generic statement. It wasn't.

 

What I said was "I don't care about "possibilities" that could've happened after SSM" - that confines it to irrelevancies as a result of a YES vote.

 

No Muslim is gunna cut my throat - but thanks for your concern.

 

As you say Muslims got nought to do with the vote - so no need to comment. Yeppers... all good!

[POWERZONE]

And that illustrates my viewpoint Peter.

 

Polygamy is not legal in Australia therefore it's not a possibility at this point in time.

 

If it ever does become legal it will only be because the people voted for it.

 

Why would people vote for polygamy?

 

Maybe because adultery IS legal despite it being a leading cause of marriage breakdown.

 

Now... I'm not saying polygamy is adulterous but it sure as hell has a closer connection than SSM does.

 

SSM is an extension of marriage. Adultery / polygamy is the destruction thereof.

 

Gotta go mate. Ave a good weekend

[POWERZONE]

Hey Peter.

 

You can say it as many times as you like, but it ain't compulsory for me to agree with you FFS

 

Yep. Avagoodlongweekend!

[POWERZONE]

I've been saying for a while that Tony Abbott should really leave the LNP and join the Cory Bernadi party instead. This statement from Mr Abbott seems to portray that it wouldn't be the first time he has considered doing just that.

 

 

Tony Abbott has hailed the rise of a new conservative movement prepared to fight for Western culture and religious freedom as a ­result of the same-sex marriage campaign and warned Liberals the “activated” voters will wonder “who will represent them in the years ahead”.


The former prime minister said the “nucleus of an organisation” had been created in just two months of campaigning for traditional marriage but there was no support from Malcolm Turnbull or conservative ministers.

He said the new movement, which could represent 40 per cent of Australians, could become a counter to the pro-Labor, leftist GetUp! movement which has been around for a decade and heavily funded by unions.

This week John Howard, a leading advocate for traditional marriage, also warned of the “fragmentation” of politics in Australia and is concerned about the lack of representation in the same-sex marriage debate for conservatives.

In a speech to be delivered in New York overnight to the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom group, Mr Abbott will say thousands of young people had sprung to defend marriage ­despite attracting “an instant ­social media storm and reputational death”.

“Such robust characters, once activated, are unlikely to fade away; and could continue to make their presence felt (even after marriage is no longer an issue) because they’ve had the guts to campaign for a cause they believe in,” he says.

“With the leaders of both big political parties, 60 large businesses and most of the major sporting codes all coming out on the other side — and no cabinet minister, not one, in the centre-right government prepared to campaign with them — they will understandably be wondering who and what might represent them in the years ahead.”

While he said he believed the result of the same-sex marriage postal survey could still “swing ­either way” because No voters were reluctant to answer poll questions, he said a 40 per cent vote would be a “moral victory” for marriage, demonstrating a core of conservative support in Australia.

“Win, lose, or draw, though, starting from scratch two months ago, the campaign for marriage in my country has mobilised thousands of new activists; and created a network that could be deployed to defend Western civilisation more broadly and the Judeo-Christian ethic against all that’s been undermining it,’’ he says.

“So far, the campaign to defend marriage in Australia has raised over $6 million from more than 20,000 separate donors, and fielded more than 5000 volunteers to doorknock and phone canvass.”

Mr Abbott said the political implications of the rise of a new “loose” conservative movement and the lack of conservative ministers supporting the No case was that in the short-term “the embryonic Australian Conservatives, the only national political party whose leader backed marriage as it’s ­always been” would be the beneficiary in electoral terms.

“In the medium term, these new activists are likely to mean that the long march of the left through our institutions is no longer largely unopposed,” he says and suggests there could be counter “solidarity” marches to protest marches from the left.

“If the traditional stance of the centre-right in the English-speaking tradition is to endure — to be pro-market and to be socially conservative — there has to be people prepared to stand up for beliefs; ­because if you don’t believe, you won’t fight; and if you don’t fight, you can’t win.”

Mr Abbott says “if the opinion polls are right”, the Victorian Labor government, which is preparing to give “doctors the right to kill some patients”, will be the “prototype” of the “next national government”.

“There is ... a massive job for these newly energised, potential conservative activists,” he says. “For every protest march, there must be a solidarity one. For every assertion of identity politics, there must be a defence of the social fabric. For every lobby on the counter-cultural left, there must be one on the commonsense right if even the sensible centre is to hold; for the values of centre-right party MPs can no longer be assumed and often need to be buttressed.

“Merely debating marriage has hinted at the risks facing cultural conservatives, the new dissidents in the world that their decency and tolerance has made possible.’’

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...1509568511

[POWERZONE]

Well my prediction was a bit out.

 

I said 55% YES. It scored 61%.