Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal= Yes, it certainly is. The Earth's climate has changed from a snowball to a hothouse and back again several times, depending on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. A high concentration of CO2 can bake it, and a low concentration of CO2 can freeze it. I don't know how this reassures us, however.
labor was never elected, the parliment was hung. the labor party sold their souls to the greens and independents and therefore backflipped on many election promises. by the meare fact that the libs didn't sign with these party's indicates their loyalty to the australian voter to not backflip on election promises. that is why, through sheer morality, the liberal party is a better choice of government.
@MrFunxy Again, yes she was. While it may be difficult to accept, she was voted in as Prime Minister. Or rather, her party as government. The ALP was the party which gathered the most seats to its name. The fact that they were independents changes nothing. At the end of the day, we can only blame ourselves for this veritable train wreck.
Must say, however, I don't see many better choices out there. Sadly, gone are the days of genuine differences between the ALP and Liberal/nationals.
Hung election, then both leaders completely whored themselves for the independants. ALP is certainly a better choice of govt than the Lib, but in reality, no one is ever good enough.
Sodom and Gomorrah, leader of Aus are atheists / fags and lesbians and we wonder why the country is in trouble , bad decisions around every corner , recon labor will be defeated by the sex party next election, fu&$ you Labor stop making changes for the worse. If we allow same sex marriage whats next allow pedophile's to have sex with children cos all love is the same as one of the labor mongrels suggested.
You or i can say whatever we like the fact or absolute truth is the God ordained marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman however distastful that is to you ,so that actually ends the arguement even if we continue to post what WE think
@NDMHUNTER1 Marriage is defined as X. Why? Because marriage is defined as X. CIRCULAR argument! No substance, no reason! Just because same-sex couples have been excluded from marriage, doesn't mean it's right or should continue. There's no substance to your empty argument, which is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question.
same rights but just withholding the word "married" from them is ok isn't it? marriage is a religious concept really (which is what they're trying to preserve from tradition) - alot of straight couples don't even want to do it because it means nothing for THEM either. if the rights are the same, it shouldn't matter. but maybe an equivalent non-religious formal recognition of a de facto relationship should start up, just to keep everything separate from ancient 'backward' traditions
Civil marriage (not civil union, which is a different idea) is different from religious marriage. The law type of marriage (civil marriage) isn't religious (if it were, I doubt atheists would be able to marry), so it's not a religious concept. Methinks most gay people are trying to get the civil type, not the religious type. The word matters because not using the word marriage implies we aren't on an equal status to be able to use it.
She's missing the point. Making little provisions in existing laws, doesn't constitute equality. If both sides were truly equal, then there would be no need for these tedious changes! EQUALITY for our fellow human beings is more important that fucking religion!
you talk about equalizing! it is discriminatory to allow some people a chance at marriage and happiness but not others. how is that equal!!? what is wrong with you!!? what part of "LOVE" sounds WRONG TO YOU!?
SOUTH AFRICA! has gay marriage! they are more progressive than us! image what an impact equalising marriage would do to suicide and bullying rates, GLOBALLY! if USA,UK and AUS and other western countries passed it nationally not just state by state IT WOULD MAKE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES
@Nicecommonkid and further you said ... I spent years trying to change and wished I was like everyone else, every night for years I waited for the day I woke up normal. I'm open now but would like your honest opinion, because I certainly didn't chose this
@Nicecommonkid you said @ironcross66106 I have not suffered any such form of trauma as you say, so why do you think I'm gay? I thought when I was younger it was a phase, it didn't pass. I even watched a lot of heterosexual pornography to somehow retrain my brain to be attracted to the opposite sex....
She's gutless and she will go down in history as one of Australia's most ineffective prime ministers (but I am glad she's in charge rather than that unprogressive, narrow-minded arseclown Tony Abbott). She talks about Australia moving forward. We are. But only at an imperceptible pace. She could do so much more for this country! She could legalise gay marriage, send our troops home from a futile war, and decriminalize drug use, and then she would have left an indelible mark on this country.
julia guillard you need to get iver yourself....it isnt about what you believe or what the labour aprty belives its about what the community beleive...sart listening to the people, its our country tooo you closed minded old hag!!!!
Can she please give us a reason for discriminating against us other than "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "the party thinks the marriage act should stay the same"
Wow you are precious aren't you. Being gay is not the same as being a pedofile or into beastiality. When will poeple like yourself realise we are normal people (i've been with my partner for 7 years - is that long enough yet?).
Get another defense (one that's at least coherent! you r.o.c.k a.p.e (rock ape!)
@ice444 No, no, no!!!! I am 100% FOR gay rights and will support gay marriage until it is legal. That comment came about because someone argued that if gays can marry, then he should be able to marry his dog!
I admit, the way I wrote it is a little ambiguous, but please don't misunderstand, I am NOT against gays. I want everyone to be able to marry who they love, including my own brother and yourself.
"my answers going to disappoint some people and... there are a variety of views...."blahlah....SHE SAID THE EXACT THING ON Q&A!! omg..original much geee whizz lol
Gillard opposes amending the Marriage Act because doing so would piss off the Christian base of Western Sydney and QLD, effectively tossing Labor out of government. It stuns me that an atheist could openly state her religious beliefs, and then pander to the very people she most likely pissed off with the statement; I'd prefer she stay in the closet about her atheism and 'come out' (pardon the pun) for same-sex marriage.
what a rubbish, fluffy answer that means nothing. it's like she doesn't even know why she's against gay marriage. australia is such a progressive country, it's shameful they haven't legalised gay marriage yet.
@beaniehead4 I disagree, there is a "reason" and that reason is that its not what the majority of people want. This is a democracy we live in and politicians dont have to believe in what they are doing, in fact, quite the opposite- they should be doing what the MAJORITY of there demographic tells them to, not what every VOCAL MINORITY complains about.
WTF, she's an atheist, so what the Hell is stopping her from wanting to legalize gay marriage? There's no religeous backing, which is what sends all the bigots belly-up about homosexuality, due to all of the "biblical evidence" against it (which is just shitty translation). So what the Hell is stopping her from changing that definition and legalizing it?
@ThisHaloFan i agree! she aint even religioius (neither am i)! wtf is she on about?? why the hell is she against it? shes probably a closeted lesbian. that slut.
@ThisHaloFan I have trouble believing that she is an atheist. Her actions, not just this one but many others, continually seem like those of somebody who has superstitious beliefs.
Usually secularists can distinguish clear truths from convoluted garbage.
It truly depresses me that Gillard's leadership is indefinetly bipolar. She follows up on suggestions of the Green Party, yet bows consistently to the right-wing of her party.
We claim to have a clear differentiation between parties, when all we are offered in the form of major parties is a left-right tension and a congregation of far-right bigots and cretins.
@ThisHaloFan You obviously know nothing about the treatment of homosexuals in communist countries or are ignorant to it. Having no religion does not instantly make you love gays, in fact from a logical and biological point of view they are a mistake in nature and you'll find many christian's tolerant of gays more than atheists
@MrNoobophile This is despite the fact a greater percentage of non-religious Australians approve of gay marriage than those that are religious.
You also seem to neglect the fact that Marxist doctrines demand no religion in their states to promote a political sysytem. The fact that most Communist countries are extremely socially conservative is the problem in those cases, not atheism.
But aside from that, Julia Gillard is binded by none of those doctrines.
@MrNoobophile I draw hatred of homosexuals more down to prejudice and fundamentalism than contemporary Christianity. I'm also aware that not all atheists are tolerant of homosexuality. And those individuals can quite conspicuously be stupider than gay-hating Chritsians, because they have even less reasoning.
However, in Australia, a greater percentage of non-religious people approve of gay marriage than those that are religious. Most of them aren't Communists.
@MrNoobophile The treatment of homosexuals in Communist countries can be seen to be a product of the extreme social conservatism seen in those nations, not atheism. Which is quite apt to many, considering you don't hate people based on their sexual orientation because you don't follow a particular doctrine, considering that makes very little, if any, sense. Atheism doesn't promote intolerance or hatred of gays, nor does it promote tolerance or love.
@ThisHaloFan Well actually it does, most Atheist's I know hate religion so there is some hate promoting right there, and hey, when Atheist's are not hating on religion they are being tolerant of it. Just because you don't have a doctrine doesn't mean you are not going to hate people, you seem so shocked that an Atheist could hate anyone when Atheist's have been responsible for the greatest oppression and deaths in history, just avoid been so shocked next time
@MrNoobophile I meant hatred of gays, and I suspect you know that. And it shouldn't really come as a surprise that many hate religion, should it?
"Just because you don't have a doctrine doesn't mean you aren't going to hate people?" When did I say you wouldn't because of that? I said they lack doctrines specific to particular things, not hate in general.
"You seemed so shocked"? Believe me, I'm not. You seem to be pulling ideas right out of your ass.
@MrNoobophile Christians have also been responsible for some of the most oppressive acts of all time.
Difference is they did it in the name of their doctrines, those few atheists didn't do what they did in the name of no doctrines, mainly because that makes no logical sense.
@ThisHaloFan Having no doctrine effects the choices you make. Christian's never did anything as bad as Atheist's have because they HAVE doctrines. As it stands I'd much, MUCH rather live in a Christian country than any Atheist one, and I don't get where you get few from, there are slightly more than a "few" atheists in communist countries and they caused slightly "more" oppression and death than Christians ever have. (Maybe not as much as Muslims)
@ThisHaloFan Or do you only care that someone has a logical reason to kill lots of people?!? not that they are actually killing people. When why are you fighting for gay people? logically they are mistake of nature. If every tiger tomorrow became gay what would biologists say? "We need to find a cure for this disease, we need to make these tigers normal, something is wrong with them" Logically they should be happy we tolerate them at all because they are abominations of nature, no?
@MrNoobophile Because I don't think anyone is an abomination, especially not based on a completely harmless, healthy supposed "mutation" of the genes. I fight for equality and tolerance of all, and against bigotry.
And although the oppression you mentioned often involved killing, which is generally not very logical at all, was motivated not by atheism, but political doctrines. Are you seeing the point?
@ThisHaloFan You not seeing homosexuality as natures abomination is illogical. If every animal had this healthy mutation what would happen to them? The only reason it is tolerable is because there are not so many but if it was wide spread scientists would be working hard to find a cure for it. The crusades were also motivated by political means and England was not a "Christianity" it was a Monarchy. Christian reason: "We are the superior religion" Atheist reason: "We are the superior genes"
@ThisHaloFan Result: Well so far Atheist's have sucked WAY more than Christians have and I care more about substance than how someone sugar coats it for the masses. Thank god you don't live in an Atheist country is all I can say.
@ThisHaloFan religion has nothing to do with it. atheists have values as well. the majority of people recognise gay couples, but dont want you having the title "marriage" which is reserved for straight couples.
@patrickwright1 not you again cunt. why call anyone who discriminates against gays a homophobe? that means fear of the same, im not scared of faggots. so what a ridiculous assertion.
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. I do not know of any substantive difference between a homophobe and a racist.
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. There is no real difference between a homophobe or a racist- they both hold hatred for and discriminate against a person because of the way they were born.
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. There is no real difference between a homophobe or a racist- they both hold hatred for and discriminate against a person because of the way they were born.
@patrickwright1 patrickwright are you seriously that brain fucked? we've already had this discussion before and you're mentioning it again. A phobia does not equate to a hatred. you're a very poor man's journalist, a pothead's art student, and a typical left wing cultural marxist. the best thing you can do is kill yourself, seriously. so what will you do now? come back complaining about political correctness and use amateur journo terms like 'ad hominem' to sound intellectual? lol u suck
I don't think I have said I am a journalist, or a cultural Marxist. It pains me to tell you this, but the people who write dictionaries decide what a formal definition of a word is. It is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". or in Collins as " intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" You have hatred (aversion) and you discriminate against gay people. You are homophobic.
So, as I have demonstrated that the dictionary includes hatred in it's definition of homophobia (aversion, discrimination against homosexuality, and most specifically, intense hatred as listed in the Collins dictionary), I would suggest bowing to the authority of dictionary writers rather than trying to make sense of big, long words. :) You are wrong. By the way, knowing that technical terms like 'ad hominem' rile your insecurities, how about you stop the puerile personal attacks.
@patrickwright1 what did i say? predicted you spot on. get over yourself, talk about being ostentatious.
your pretentious condition is laughable. you have a lot in common with the labor party, you're both super fake, and you drivel shit to impress but lack any substance let alone any form of patriotism. you're a unit in the bureaucratic chain of pointless bullshit. you're like a robot going over your leftist rhetoric and lame point scoring, hence why i insult your dumbarse.
For all your insults and rhetoric, you were wrong about the word 'homophobia', -according to two dictionaries. I have no interest in justifying myself or explaining big words to you, or acting as if you are not intellectually feeble for the sake of politeness. You are unwilling to have an intelligent discussion- you reply to disagreeable questions by making personal insults rather than actually making a worthy point. Why the hell do you look up videos with gay and spout homophobia on them?
@patrickwright1 i dont look up faggot videos, it's under politics. im not interested in having a discussion with you because you're a boring wanker who repeats the same shit over and over. fucking kill yourself
@Soundgarden8497 But you were wrong weren't you? You do know don't you- those who hate gay people most have a strange tendency to be suffering from internalised homophobia...
@Soundgarden8497 How are you right when the Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries state that homophobia includes 'intense hate' towards, and 'aversion to or discrimination against' gay people? You also seem to comment exclusively on gay videos, I just performed a Google search of your username- so why are you so obsessed with everything gay?
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't the earth planet cooling and warming perfectly normal= Yes, it certainly is. The Earth's climate has changed from a snowball to a hothouse and back again several times, depending on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. A high concentration of CO2 can bake it, and a low concentration of CO2 can freeze it. I don't know how this reassures us, however.
flowerpoweryou 1 month ago
lol australian accents
mitxelus 1 month ago
@mitxelus We don't all talk like Julia Gillard!! Lol = )
TGIAustin911 1 month ago
@TGIAustin911 You should, she's sexy :), too bad she has this stance on marriage though.
mitxelus 1 month ago
What a close minded bitch!! Why does she get to marry but not gays what died they ever do to her!?!
adstanator 1 month ago
@Wozzup1223 @MrFunxy
labor was never elected, the parliment was hung. the labor party sold their souls to the greens and independents and therefore backflipped on many election promises. by the meare fact that the libs didn't sign with these party's indicates their loyalty to the australian voter to not backflip on election promises. that is why, through sheer morality, the liberal party is a better choice of government.
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
Marriage should be between two parties who LOVE EACHOTHER! Damn right I'm disappointed!
MrFunxy 2 months ago
Im against discrimination towards women, but this one is a true and verified pig
joshthe8th 2 months ago
OMG.. she is soo fucking annoying.. why was this backstabber even elected PM??
mpscats360 2 months ago
@mpscats360
She wasn't elected. Never was =/
MrFunxy 2 months ago
@MrFunxy Well, yeh, she was.
Wozzup1223 2 months ago
@Wozzup1223
As in, she was never voted in.
MrFunxy 2 months ago
@MrFunxy Again, yes she was. While it may be difficult to accept, she was voted in as Prime Minister. Or rather, her party as government. The ALP was the party which gathered the most seats to its name. The fact that they were independents changes nothing. At the end of the day, we can only blame ourselves for this veritable train wreck.
Must say, however, I don't see many better choices out there. Sadly, gone are the days of genuine differences between the ALP and Liberal/nationals.
Wozzup1223 2 months ago
@Wozzup1223
Hung election, then both leaders completely whored themselves for the independants. ALP is certainly a better choice of govt than the Lib, but in reality, no one is ever good enough.
MrFunxy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sodom and Gomorrah, leader of Aus are atheists / fags and lesbians and we wonder why the country is in trouble , bad decisions around every corner , recon labor will be defeated by the sex party next election, fu&$ you Labor stop making changes for the worse. If we allow same sex marriage whats next allow pedophile's to have sex with children cos all love is the same as one of the labor mongrels suggested.
lehong1963 2 months ago
A true Atheist wouldn't oppose same sex marriage! she is a joke!!!
guerratronz 2 months ago
I hate that fucking look on her face, it's like she's not taking it serious at all.
curryonyaface 2 months ago
She repeats the same answer each time the question is asked... She is just so fake, like all politics.
katebrdfrd 2 months ago
You or i can say whatever we like the fact or absolute truth is the God ordained marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman however distastful that is to you ,so that actually ends the arguement even if we continue to post what WE think
NDMHUNTER1 3 months ago
I dont care if they want to call it a civil union ,just not marriage ,my last comment explains why
NDMHUNTER1 3 months ago
No such thing as marriage between gay people,marriage by defenition is between a man and a woman ,end of arguement!
NDMHUNTER1 4 months ago
@NDMHUNTER1 Using the original definition:
- a mouse is a mammal, not something you use to move a cursor around
- web is a spider's home
- chatting is what you do face to face
- gay means happy
The world moves forward, word meanings change. Why not change the meaning of "marriage" to something like:
"a legal bind between two or more consenting adults"?
elmohead 3 months ago 5
@NDMHUNTER1 Marriage is defined as X. Why? Because marriage is defined as X. CIRCULAR argument! No substance, no reason! Just because same-sex couples have been excluded from marriage, doesn't mean it's right or should continue. There's no substance to your empty argument, which is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question.
ShiyinCsris 3 months ago
same rights but just withholding the word "married" from them is ok isn't it? marriage is a religious concept really (which is what they're trying to preserve from tradition) - alot of straight couples don't even want to do it because it means nothing for THEM either. if the rights are the same, it shouldn't matter. but maybe an equivalent non-religious formal recognition of a de facto relationship should start up, just to keep everything separate from ancient 'backward' traditions
nishihs 4 months ago
@nishihs
Civil marriage (not civil union, which is a different idea) is different from religious marriage. The law type of marriage (civil marriage) isn't religious (if it were, I doubt atheists would be able to marry), so it's not a religious concept. Methinks most gay people are trying to get the civil type, not the religious type. The word matters because not using the word marriage implies we aren't on an equal status to be able to use it.
Kadiezi 3 months ago 3
She's missing the point. Making little provisions in existing laws, doesn't constitute equality. If both sides were truly equal, then there would be no need for these tedious changes! EQUALITY for our fellow human beings is more important that fucking religion!
otters72 4 months ago
you talk about equalizing! it is discriminatory to allow some people a chance at marriage and happiness but not others. how is that equal!!? what is wrong with you!!? what part of "LOVE" sounds WRONG TO YOU!?
MaximumRainbow69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximumRainbow69 definition of marriage is between a man and woman. get over it.
fuckcroatsandalbania 3 months ago
SOUTH AFRICA! has gay marriage! they are more progressive than us! image what an impact equalising marriage would do to suicide and bullying rates, GLOBALLY! if USA,UK and AUS and other western countries passed it nationally not just state by state IT WOULD MAKE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES
TVfanaticRAMY 4 months ago
I imagine she's against gay marriage because she needs more votes/support, which starts to show why democracy is a horrible system:
It relies on an educated, rational, non-indoctrinated public.
k2kraze 4 months ago
@Nicecommonkid i don't admit things which aren't true.
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nicecommonkid so the fact you're calling me a fag means that you should commit suicide
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
@Nicecommonkid and further you said ... I spent years trying to change and wished I was like everyone else, every night for years I waited for the day I woke up normal. I'm open now but would like your honest opinion, because I certainly didn't chose this
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
@Nicecommonkid you said @ironcross66106 I have not suffered any such form of trauma as you say, so why do you think I'm gay? I thought when I was younger it was a phase, it didn't pass. I even watched a lot of heterosexual pornography to somehow retrain my brain to be attracted to the opposite sex....
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
@Nicecommonkid that's good coming from you who made this comment:
Nicecommonkid commented on Obama on homosexuality (17 minutes ago)
"@ironcross66106
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
She's gutless and she will go down in history as one of Australia's most ineffective prime ministers (but I am glad she's in charge rather than that unprogressive, narrow-minded arseclown Tony Abbott). She talks about Australia moving forward. We are. But only at an imperceptible pace. She could do so much more for this country! She could legalise gay marriage, send our troops home from a futile war, and decriminalize drug use, and then she would have left an indelible mark on this country.
sarahblasko3121 6 months ago
Fuck you Julia
You say gay and lesbian couples can have the same rights as straight couples but then you say that they can't get married
I now hate you even more
fishydude23 7 months ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
@fishydude23 man you are dumb
Mastertj987 3 months ago
julia guillard you need to get iver yourself....it isnt about what you believe or what the labour aprty belives its about what the community beleive...sart listening to the people, its our country tooo you closed minded old hag!!!!
mejcpp101 10 months ago 17
@mejcpp101 bhahahah
Mastertj987 3 months ago
TAKING AWAY HOMOSEXUAL DISCRIMMINATION MY ASS! DDDD: <
o0iateyourmom0o 11 months ago 2
Can she please give us a reason for discriminating against us other than "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "the party thinks the marriage act should stay the same"
WHY??
sorryranga1 11 months ago
and yet its legal for a gay couple in NSW and ACT to adopt…odd?
OldNewsThinker 11 months ago
The variety of views lawl
ThatFineLine 1 year ago
I got NOTHING wrong. Homosexuals and people who take advantage of defenceless animals do NOT have the same rights to have sex.
If they did, then the laws about both would be the same. They are clearly not.
Homosexuals can have sex in 50 states in the US. Bestialists can only do it in 17.
I can have sex in California with a man, but if you have sex with a dog in the same state, you will be arrested, no?
You DO not have the same rights. And with good reason.
Tiges999 1 year ago
@Tiges999
Wow you are precious aren't you. Being gay is not the same as being a pedofile or into beastiality. When will poeple like yourself realise we are normal people (i've been with my partner for 7 years - is that long enough yet?).
Get another defense (one that's at least coherent! you r.o.c.k a.p.e (rock ape!)
ice444 11 months ago 2
@ice444 No, no, no!!!! I am 100% FOR gay rights and will support gay marriage until it is legal. That comment came about because someone argued that if gays can marry, then he should be able to marry his dog!
I admit, the way I wrote it is a little ambiguous, but please don't misunderstand, I am NOT against gays. I want everyone to be able to marry who they love, including my own brother and yourself.
No rockape here. I'm with you all the way :)
Tiges999 10 months ago
@Tiges999
Sorry Tiges - I'm very passionate (who wouldn't be!) and will not back down!
ice444 10 months ago
@ice444 Nor should you back down. Neither will I. We live in a country where equality apparently comes with a list of conditions.
Tiges999 10 months ago
How's this guys?
In the ACT, gay marriage is not legal. But bestiality still is.
So if a woman wants to marry her girlfriend, she can't.
But if a man wants to have sex with a horse? No problem.
Animal rapists have more rights than gays in this 'progressive' country.
Care to dig your way out of that one, Julia?
Tiges999 1 year ago
"my answers going to disappoint some people and... there are a variety of views...."blahlah....SHE SAID THE EXACT THING ON Q&A!! omg..original much geee whizz lol
sweetlollypoplips 1 year ago
Gillard opposes amending the Marriage Act because doing so would piss off the Christian base of Western Sydney and QLD, effectively tossing Labor out of government. It stuns me that an atheist could openly state her religious beliefs, and then pander to the very people she most likely pissed off with the statement; I'd prefer she stay in the closet about her atheism and 'come out' (pardon the pun) for same-sex marriage.
IowanCheesecake 1 year ago
Julia Gillard, you make me very sad.
lykeomgz1987 1 year ago 21
what a rubbish, fluffy answer that means nothing. it's like she doesn't even know why she's against gay marriage. australia is such a progressive country, it's shameful they haven't legalised gay marriage yet.
but yay! charlie pickering :)
bubble992 1 year ago
Good on ya Julia !
What next? Gay couples can adopt children?
BAH HUMBUG!
ilovevampires555 1 year ago
This responce is verbatim the same as QandA. VERBATIM. Boo Hiss.
firebouy 1 year ago
She says the same bullshit all the time and never says WHY she opposes it!!! Because there is no valid reason to!!
beaniehead4 1 year ago
@beaniehead4 I disagree, there is a "reason" and that reason is that its not what the majority of people want. This is a democracy we live in and politicians dont have to believe in what they are doing, in fact, quite the opposite- they should be doing what the MAJORITY of there demographic tells them to, not what every VOCAL MINORITY complains about.
GRIEF80 1 year ago
He asked WHY and she says the same thing she says whenever she's asked that question.
xmuffmuncherx 1 year ago
WTF, she's an atheist, so what the Hell is stopping her from wanting to legalize gay marriage? There's no religeous backing, which is what sends all the bigots belly-up about homosexuality, due to all of the "biblical evidence" against it (which is just shitty translation). So what the Hell is stopping her from changing that definition and legalizing it?
(I'm not gay, BTW, but I am an atheist).
ThisHaloFan 1 year ago 36
Comment removed
BerryJoy 1 year ago
@ThisHaloFan its not about religion its about votes
GRIEF80 1 year ago 2
@ThisHaloFan i agree! she aint even religioius (neither am i)! wtf is she on about?? why the hell is she against it? shes probably a closeted lesbian. that slut.
vicked914 1 year ago
@ThisHaloFan I have trouble believing that she is an atheist. Her actions, not just this one but many others, continually seem like those of somebody who has superstitious beliefs.
Gerrrry 5 months ago
@Gerrrry I have to concur.
Usually secularists can distinguish clear truths from convoluted garbage.
It truly depresses me that Gillard's leadership is indefinetly bipolar. She follows up on suggestions of the Green Party, yet bows consistently to the right-wing of her party.
We claim to have a clear differentiation between parties, when all we are offered in the form of major parties is a left-right tension and a congregation of far-right bigots and cretins.
We're fucked on both accounts.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan You obviously know nothing about the treatment of homosexuals in communist countries or are ignorant to it. Having no religion does not instantly make you love gays, in fact from a logical and biological point of view they are a mistake in nature and you'll find many christian's tolerant of gays more than atheists
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile This is despite the fact a greater percentage of non-religious Australians approve of gay marriage than those that are religious.
You also seem to neglect the fact that Marxist doctrines demand no religion in their states to promote a political sysytem. The fact that most Communist countries are extremely socially conservative is the problem in those cases, not atheism.
But aside from that, Julia Gillard is binded by none of those doctrines.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile I draw hatred of homosexuals more down to prejudice and fundamentalism than contemporary Christianity. I'm also aware that not all atheists are tolerant of homosexuality. And those individuals can quite conspicuously be stupider than gay-hating Chritsians, because they have even less reasoning.
However, in Australia, a greater percentage of non-religious people approve of gay marriage than those that are religious. Most of them aren't Communists.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile The treatment of homosexuals in Communist countries can be seen to be a product of the extreme social conservatism seen in those nations, not atheism. Which is quite apt to many, considering you don't hate people based on their sexual orientation because you don't follow a particular doctrine, considering that makes very little, if any, sense. Atheism doesn't promote intolerance or hatred of gays, nor does it promote tolerance or love.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan Well actually it does, most Atheist's I know hate religion so there is some hate promoting right there, and hey, when Atheist's are not hating on religion they are being tolerant of it. Just because you don't have a doctrine doesn't mean you are not going to hate people, you seem so shocked that an Atheist could hate anyone when Atheist's have been responsible for the greatest oppression and deaths in history, just avoid been so shocked next time
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile I meant hatred of gays, and I suspect you know that. And it shouldn't really come as a surprise that many hate religion, should it?
"Just because you don't have a doctrine doesn't mean you aren't going to hate people?" When did I say you wouldn't because of that? I said they lack doctrines specific to particular things, not hate in general.
"You seemed so shocked"? Believe me, I'm not. You seem to be pulling ideas right out of your ass.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile Christians have also been responsible for some of the most oppressive acts of all time.
Difference is they did it in the name of their doctrines, those few atheists didn't do what they did in the name of no doctrines, mainly because that makes no logical sense.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan Having no doctrine effects the choices you make. Christian's never did anything as bad as Atheist's have because they HAVE doctrines. As it stands I'd much, MUCH rather live in a Christian country than any Atheist one, and I don't get where you get few from, there are slightly more than a "few" atheists in communist countries and they caused slightly "more" oppression and death than Christians ever have. (Maybe not as much as Muslims)
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan Or do you only care that someone has a logical reason to kill lots of people?!? not that they are actually killing people. When why are you fighting for gay people? logically they are mistake of nature. If every tiger tomorrow became gay what would biologists say? "We need to find a cure for this disease, we need to make these tigers normal, something is wrong with them" Logically they should be happy we tolerate them at all because they are abominations of nature, no?
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@MrNoobophile Because I don't think anyone is an abomination, especially not based on a completely harmless, healthy supposed "mutation" of the genes. I fight for equality and tolerance of all, and against bigotry.
And although the oppression you mentioned often involved killing, which is generally not very logical at all, was motivated not by atheism, but political doctrines. Are you seeing the point?
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan You not seeing homosexuality as natures abomination is illogical. If every animal had this healthy mutation what would happen to them? The only reason it is tolerable is because there are not so many but if it was wide spread scientists would be working hard to find a cure for it. The crusades were also motivated by political means and England was not a "Christianity" it was a Monarchy. Christian reason: "We are the superior religion" Atheist reason: "We are the superior genes"
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan Result: Well so far Atheist's have sucked WAY more than Christians have and I care more about substance than how someone sugar coats it for the masses. Thank god you don't live in an Atheist country is all I can say.
MrNoobophile 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan religion has nothing to do with it. atheists have values as well. the majority of people recognise gay couples, but dont want you having the title "marriage" which is reserved for straight couples.
deal with it
Soundgarden8497 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan you ARE gay
Soundgarden8497 5 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 Explain how such causes me to be gay?
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan well for a start... halo fan.
Soundgarden8497 5 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 Oh how very mature you are sir.
If you want to make accusations, at least ensure they're valid and bear a semblence of intelligence.
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan closet fag
Soundgarden8497 5 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 Oh dear, you ARE a cretin.
What does sexuality matter whatsoever?
ThisHaloFan 5 months ago
@ThisHaloFan CLOSET
Soundgarden8497 5 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 Homophobe. Why discriminate based on the way somebody is born?
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 not you again cunt. why call anyone who discriminates against gays a homophobe? that means fear of the same, im not scared of faggots. so what a ridiculous assertion.
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. I do not know of any substantive difference between a homophobe and a racist.
patrickwright1 4 months ago
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. There is no real difference between a homophobe or a racist- they both hold hatred for and discriminate against a person because of the way they were born.
patrickwright1 4 months ago
Because the definition of homophobia also refers to people who have an extreme or irrational hatred of homosexuals. As your hatred for homosexuals is extreme and irrational because you haven't reasonably or intelligibly explained why you hate them, you are a homophobe. There is no real difference between a homophobe or a racist- they both hold hatred for and discriminate against a person because of the way they were born.
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 patrickwright are you seriously that brain fucked? we've already had this discussion before and you're mentioning it again. A phobia does not equate to a hatred. you're a very poor man's journalist, a pothead's art student, and a typical left wing cultural marxist. the best thing you can do is kill yourself, seriously. so what will you do now? come back complaining about political correctness and use amateur journo terms like 'ad hominem' to sound intellectual? lol u suck
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 4 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 4 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 4 months ago
Comment removed
patrickwright1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think I have said I am a journalist, or a cultural Marxist. It pains me to tell you this, but the people who write dictionaries decide what a formal definition of a word is. It is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". or in Collins as " intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" You have hatred (aversion) and you discriminate against gay people. You are homophobic.
patrickwright1 4 months ago
So, as I have demonstrated that the dictionary includes hatred in it's definition of homophobia (aversion, discrimination against homosexuality, and most specifically, intense hatred as listed in the Collins dictionary), I would suggest bowing to the authority of dictionary writers rather than trying to make sense of big, long words. :) You are wrong. By the way, knowing that technical terms like 'ad hominem' rile your insecurities, how about you stop the puerile personal attacks.
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 what did i say? predicted you spot on. get over yourself, talk about being ostentatious.
your pretentious condition is laughable. you have a lot in common with the labor party, you're both super fake, and you drivel shit to impress but lack any substance let alone any form of patriotism. you're a unit in the bureaucratic chain of pointless bullshit. you're like a robot going over your leftist rhetoric and lame point scoring, hence why i insult your dumbarse.
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
For all your insults and rhetoric, you were wrong about the word 'homophobia', -according to two dictionaries. I have no interest in justifying myself or explaining big words to you, or acting as if you are not intellectually feeble for the sake of politeness. You are unwilling to have an intelligent discussion- you reply to disagreeable questions by making personal insults rather than actually making a worthy point. Why the hell do you look up videos with gay and spout homophobia on them?
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 i dont look up faggot videos, it's under politics. im not interested in having a discussion with you because you're a boring wanker who repeats the same shit over and over. fucking kill yourself
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 But you were wrong weren't you? You do know don't you- those who hate gay people most have a strange tendency to be suffering from internalised homophobia...
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 i'm right. and you're a fag. and you need to kill yourself because you're a boring troll
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago
@Soundgarden8497 How are you right when the Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries state that homophobia includes 'intense hate' towards, and 'aversion to or discrimination against' gay people? You also seem to comment exclusively on gay videos, I just performed a Google search of your username- so why are you so obsessed with everything gay?
patrickwright1 4 months ago
@patrickwright1 dude, just kill yourself. it's the best thing for Australia... kill yourself now
Soundgarden8497 4 months ago