Auspol February: The NRL Really Screwed The Pooch

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol February: The NRL Really Screwed The Pooch

«‹›83 »

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Lizard Combatant posted:

So you added "effete" because dandy doesn't imply that on its own? What point were you making?

There was no point

# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 01:22

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

chyaroh posted:

I also take exception to the blanket idea that "against marriage equality = hatred/homophobia etc etc". Just because we may not agree with the change for reasons of our firmly held religious belief does not mean that we want to burn everyone else at the stake.

So anything short of supporting actual public execution of gay people means that you don't qualify as a homophobe.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:27

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Lizard Combatant posted:

You're a hard person to share a position with sometimes BB, this and the last thing you wrote were total nonsense. He's just flat out wrong about the word and instead you're making weird excuses to justify using an offensive term (which it isn't).

e: also Cartoon is right, best not to dig up old poop

I'm sorry LC, my standard method of rebuttal is to expose the internal inconsistencies of such "logic" by consistent application. I know it's rubbish in this case, because it's Negligent, and engaging with Negligent is a guaranteed losing proposition, cheapening both him and the people engaging with him.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:34

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read.

"Hey everyone I read that human being means bundle of sticks, not gay!"

Pretty clear that fop (while it obviously has many meanings) is often associated with effeminate behaviour which is often seen as a homosexual thing. I dislike MT but it really is the last word I'd use to describe him and falling in to the same patterns as people who'd write 'ditch the witch' signs about Julia isn't something to aspire to.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:18

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

Neither fop nor dandy are the right words for Malcolm Turnbull by any definition, he's just a rich rear end in a top hat. I have never seen them used to describe someone as effeminate or gay, either.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:25

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

I've never seen a scallop referred to as a potato cake

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:27

Periphery: Jul 27, 2003; ...

Malcolm Turnbullshit.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:27

Lizard Combatant: Sep 29, 2010; I have some notes.

MonoAus posted:

That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read.

"Hey everyone I read that human being means bundle of sticks, not gay!"

Language evolves, I get it, but I have never heard fop being used as anything but a synonym for self absorbed twit.

quote:

Pretty clear that fop (while it obviously has many meanings) is often associated with effeminate behaviour which is often seen as a homosexual thing. I dislike MT but it really is the last word I'd use to describe him and falling in to the same patterns as people who'd write 'ditch the witch' signs about Julia isn't something to aspire to

Just the one meaning, I thought. Do you have any examples? I'll even accept blog posts at this point.
Really it seems like people's defences are on auto pilot because it has connotations to do with personal appearance.
Guess what, men are obsessed with appearances and fashion too, always have been.

e: I don't give a poo poo about a catchy anti-Turnball slogan either

Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:29

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Guillotine the LNP Team!

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:41

fiery_valkyrie: Mar 26, 2003; I'm proud of you, Bender. Sure, you lost. You lost bad. But the important thing is I beat up someone who hurt my feelings in high school.

hooman posted:

"He told 2GB radio this morning that two�thirds of people are taking advantage of negative gearing have a taxable income less than $80,000,"

I wonder if that low, low taxable income is as a direct result of negative gearing.

Thats a pretty low income to be paying two mortgages out of otherwise.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:43

chyaroh: Aug 8, 2007

hooman posted:

What do you call someone who is against granting certain categories of people rights then?

If I don't want black people to vote because of my religion how can you possibly describe that with a word that isn't "racist".

Similarly, if people want to exclude gay people from the right of marriage how can you possibly describe that as anything but homophobic?

EDIT: I don't personally like going to church and have no interest in going to church myself, however I recognise that someone choosing to go to church doesn't hurt anybody else so I don't try to make laws that other people shouldn't be allowed to.

It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know.

I'd also like to think that in the end we would accept the ultimate will of the populace in this. I think that the plebiscite will get up. My view is that we must accept this, realising that we are to abide by the rulers put over us. What I doubt would be acceptable would be an effort to force churches to perform ceremonies that were fundamentally against the tenants of the religion. That wouldn't be acceptable.

Regardless of the change to the Marriage Act our marriages will be just as valid as ever in the eyes of the church. Idiots who seem to think that a change would invalidate their unions or sexuality really need to get a grip.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:48

chyaroh: Aug 8, 2007

Solemn Sloth posted:

So anything short of supporting actual public execution of gay people means that you don't qualify as a homophobe.

If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-)

I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:50

Knorth: Aug 19, 2014; Buglord

chyaroh posted:

If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-)

I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.

I probably misread your other post, never mind :sweatdrop:

Knorth fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:54

Smegmatron: Apr 23, 2003; I hate to advocate emptyquoting or shitposting to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

MonoAus posted:

That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read.

"Hey everyone I read that human being means bundle of sticks, not gay!"

Pretty clear that fop (while it obviously has many meanings) is often associated with effeminate behaviour which is often seen as a homosexual thing. I dislike MT but it really is the last word I'd use to describe him and falling in to the same patterns as people who'd write 'ditch the witch' signs about Julia isn't something to aspire to.

human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur. The connotation became the new denotation and its original denotation fell by the wayside a long time ago. Fop has been used to denote a self-absorbed fool who's preoccupied with airs and graces so much so that it's actually a recognised character archetype. It has centuries of use denoting someone as thoroughly vapid, and as best I can tell from a quick search from my phone on a bus, almost no record of being used to derogatorily describe homosexuality. How you read it as meaning effeminate or gay, I have no idea.

I really wish people with no idea how communication works would stop tumblring all over the English language. Seriously. Stop saying everything is a slur against somebody. A handful of words very clearly and inarguably are, regardless of context or etymology; most aren't.

Blitzkrieg's idea was extremely stupid for many reasons but semantics isn't one of them. Grow up and engage with ideas like an adult instead of dismissing everything and running to the teacher because someone said what you think is a naughty word.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:09

The Peccadillo: Mar 4, 2013; We Have Important Work To Do

chyaroh posted:

If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-)

I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.

It's your goals that are hosed up, not wether or not you'd say you're scared or angry. No body really cares how emotionally neutral you can act about homosexuals. You can feel however gentle you like, but you want fundamentally identical outcomes to that dude who wants to cover himself in poo poo because gay marriage carves a smiley face into a pussy sore

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:09

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

Lizard Combatant posted:

Language evolves, I get it, but I have never heard fop being used as anything but a synonym for self absorbed twit.

Just the one meaning, I thought. Do you have any examples? I'll even accept blog posts at this point.
Really it seems like people's defences are on auto pilot because it has connotations to do with personal appearance.
Guess what, men are obsessed with appearances and fashion too, always have been.

e: I don't give a poo poo about a catchy anti-Turnball slogan either

I don't really give a poo poo about it one way or another either.

And I'm not prepared to start googling "homosexual fop offensive slur" or whatever, over this since I don't think anybody is saying it's an up-to-date and common insult to gay people. A lot of people seem to draw the association, even in this very thread, so its kind of dumb to argue that nobody would make that connection.

It's really got nothing to do with if I think men obsessed with appearances are gay (I don't think that), more so that is what mainstream society thinks.

Anyway, I think I've said all I came to say on that, it's not worth discussing further.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:11

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

chyaroh posted:

If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-)

I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.

So if you don't fear or hate them why would you give a single gently caress if gay people get married or not.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:11

Smegmatron: Apr 23, 2003; I hate to advocate emptyquoting or shitposting to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

chyaroh posted:

If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-)

I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.

Then you should give exactly no shits about whether or not they get married.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:13

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Smegmatron posted:

human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur.

http://charlesdickenspage.com/glossary.html

Dickens and most others were still using it as a purely functional term in the 19th Century. But apart from being wrong (on the dating) I agree with you. This has been Cartoon's contribution to the stupidest discussion in Aus Pol ever.

See off the well off!

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:19

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

chyaroh posted:

I would't agree that it's an insane response. In fact, it's a distillation of exactly why most religious organisations are against changing the Marriage Act. Biblically, it says a man and a woman shall join together and become one flesh - ie, marriage is to be solely between a man and a woman. Now, of course, there wasn't supposed to be divorce either, but that came in with Moses and has flowed through ever since.

I also take exception to the blanket idea that "against marriage equality = hatred/homophobia etc etc". Just because we may not agree with the change for reasons of our firmly held religious belief does not mean that we want to burn everyone else at the stake. Well, it certainly shouldn't at any rate. I personally think that there should be a separation of the secular and religious issues here - in a secular society, which arguably we are, rather than a theocratic state or similar, I can see why there should be marriage equality. Just don't expect most religious organisations to agree, nor to be willing to enact same-sex weddings.

why are you excluding people on the basis of their sexuality

like why are you discriminating against them?

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:24

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

Smegmatron posted:

human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur. The connotation became the new denotation and its original denotation fell by the wayside a long time ago. Fop has been used to denote a self-absorbed fool who's preoccupied with airs and graces so much so that it's actually a recognised character archetype. It has centuries of use denoting someone as thoroughly vapid, and as best I can tell from a quick search from my phone on a bus, almost no record of being used to derogatorily describe homosexuality. How you read it as meaning effeminate or gay, I have no idea.

I really wish people with no idea how communication works would stop tumblring all over the English language. Seriously. Stop saying everything is a slur against somebody. A handful of words very clearly and inarguably are, regardless of context or etymology; most aren't.

Blitzkrieg's idea was extremely stupid for many reasons but semantics isn't one of them. Grow up and engage with ideas like an adult instead of dismissing everything and running to the teacher because someone said what you think is a naughty word.

Don't get too excited. Not sure why some of this is directed at me. Call people fops all you like, I won't run to the teacher.

For me, to call MT a fop, a caricature of a somebody who is "a foolish person who is excessively concerned about his clothing, luxuries, minor details, refined language and leisurely hobbies. He is generally incapable of engaging in conversations, activities or thoughts without the idealism of aesthetics or pleasures." (from that Wikipedia link someone posted before) would appear to be a call on his lack of masculinity which I didn't think was appropriate. :shrug:

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:25

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/02/morrison-negative-gearing-your-once-chance-to-build-wealth/

quote:

Tax breaks on investment properties and superannuation are costing the budget nearly $40 billion a year with almost none of the benefits going to the under 30s, who remain locked out of the game, according to new research.

The result has been described as a "double hit" on younger Australians, who are being sold a myth that the budget-busting concession regime is in place to help them get ahead. Instead, it is overwhelmingly older, it is wealthier people who access the breaks to buy and sell properties and to park income at discounted tax rates.

The findings come as Labor pledges to introduce new restrictions on the negative gearing of rental investments, limiting the ability of landlords to write-off interest payments against income for new, rather than existing homes in future. It would be accompanied with a halving of the current 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax when those properties are sold.

The government has slammed those proposals variously as raising too little money - projected at around $600 million in first 4 years - and as seriously market distorting. Yet the government, which recently retreated from a higher GST, is also considering changes to negative gearing, which could include a cap on the amount of deduction claimable, or on the number of properties able to be negatively geared.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said Labor's policy would apply only to investment dwellings purchased after 2017, and would recover some $32 billion over a decade.

"This proposal of ours will cut the taxpayer-funded concessions, which are going to the fortunate few," he said.

Exclusive analysis of the costs and take-up of negative gearing, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, and superannuation tax concessions, shows the combined revenue loss - or tax expenditure - will amount to some $50 billion annually within three years, although under 7 per cent of that benefit will flow to the under 30s.

The data-crunching has been undertaken by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling using its own database of Australian households as well as the latest information released by the Australian Tax Office.

It was commissioned by the progressive think tank, The Australia Institute.

Executive Director Ben Oquist said the findings showed conclusively that keeping the current concession regime in place is neither in the national interest nor fair.

"In total, these concessions are worth more than $37 billion, yet the young receive only $2.4 billion of their value," he said.

"The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing are particularly unfair for the young, with the under 30s taking approximately 1 per cent of the benefit of tax breaks worth $7.7 billion a year and climbing.

The NATSEM research also shows that 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount, flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

All up, it says the under 30s share of the three concessions combined is just 6.4 per cent, whereas those over 50 years of age receive 53 per cent of the benefits. That works out to $2.4 billion versus $19 billion for those over 50 - many of whom are already well-off.

Labor's plan has been criticised by the Australian Council for Social Service for being too timid. ACOSS will call for a complete removal of all negative gearing concessions in a pre-budget submission to be released on Tuesday.

Treasurer Scott Morrison will address the National Press Club on Wednesday, in a keenly awaited speech in which he is expected to give more guidance on the government's thinking in the tax reform debate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-breaks-on-rentals-and-super-unfair-to-young-20160215-gmu6rd.html#ixzz40DuLqkET
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

lol

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:28

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Oh and the ACL guy is calling for the suspension of anti-discrimination laws because otherwise the NO campaign will violate them in their campaign against the gay marriage vote. Yes this is literally an argument being made, our campaign is illegally homophobic please cease the laws in the meantime.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:29

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Well I mean if they violate existing laws I mean I guess the argument is homophobic?

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:30

MiniSune: Sep 16, 2003; Smart like Dodo!

Hey I got robopolled by Reachtel. No idea who for but I suspected Labor early on and haven't seen much to change my mind.

A) Who would get your first preference at the moment:
1 liberal
2 national
3 labor
4 green
5 pup
6 other
7 und (chose this one)

B. Who did you vote during the last election
(as above chose 6)

C. rate your local member
1 Very Good
2 Good
3 Average
4 Poor - I chose this one, for lying her arse off about the NBN.
5 Very Poor
6 Never heard

D. What Issue is most important to you
1. Local jobs
2. economic management
3. protecting penalty rate
4. education (chose this one)
5. protecting Medicare
6. Stopping a GST increase
7. Strong Leadership

E. If you had to have a local candidate, who would you chose:
1. Experienced candidate with good economic management, and influence in Canberra (ie Belinda Neale, get hosed)
2. A person who will fight for local Medicare , penalty rates, and prevent a higher GST (chose this one)
3. not sure

F. The Libs say they wont raise the GST, if they get back in how do you rate the chances of it happening now
1. Very Likely
2. Likely (Chose this one as the Business Community demands their pound of flesh and if they don't deliver straight after the election then Turnbull is hosed)
3. Not Likely
4. Very Unlikely
5. not sure

G. Mal is popular as, but the shine is going off him. What is your biggest worry about Our Mal/
1. not in touch with the common man
2. no control of his party (chose this one)
3. says one thing does another
4. wont change his mind on stuff
5. has some interesting business friends and influence
6. no worries

H. How would you scribe Scott Mo
1. competent
2. arrogant
3. intelligent
4. ruthless (chose this one due to child abuse)
5. No idea

I. What should be the focus federal election
1. security
2. Jobs (chose this one)
3. strong economy
4. limiting the influence of the wealthy

J. What is your age and gender and income bracket.

Older, Porpoise, :smug:

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:31

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

chyaroh posted:

It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know.

I'd also like to think that in the end we would accept the ultimate will of the populace in this. I think that the plebiscite will get up. My view is that we must accept this, realising that we are to abide by the rulers put over us. What I doubt would be acceptable would be an effort to force churches to perform ceremonies that were fundamentally against the tenants of the religion. That wouldn't be acceptable.

Regardless of the change to the Marriage Act our marriages will be just as valid as ever in the eyes of the church. Idiots who seem to think that a change would invalidate their unions or sexuality really need to get a grip.

Hatred and discrimination isn't all fire and brimstone and burn them at the stake. If you put forward the opinion that one group of people deserves less rights than another group of people that makes you a discriminator. It's sadly as simple as that.

You can be as nice, and pleasant and kind as you like to people but as soon as you start saying "no, no, x group doesn't deserve human rights because y", with due respect, you are a bag of poo poo who deserves to be called out on their lovely hateful views. Anyone who doesn't want gays to be able to get married, fine, they're entitled to have that lovely view, but they're not entitled whine when their view is correctly described as homophobic. "I don't hate black people I just don't want them to vote" is a synonymous view to "I don't hate gay people I just don't want them to get married". Both views are terrible and both are rightly called out as such. You don't need to be lynching blacks to be racist, you don't need to be burning gays to be homophobic.

I don't know how else I can explain to you that saying "I don't think you deserve human rights because of your sexuality" is one of the most hateful things you can do to a gay person no matter how kindly you phrase it.

Cartoon posted:

I've met the dude in a professional capacity and I don't hate him quite that vehemently*. Is there a personal incident behind the invective?

* I think he's a despicable poo poo smear (just to be clear).

Every time I've watched Parliament or senate estimates and have had the misfortune to hear him speak I've found him totally offensive. It's probably just a personal thing, but he's exactly the kind of person who grates me something loving cruel. Stupid while overly enamored with his own intelligence, arrogant and opinionated without taking the first attempts at educating himself on anything. This is the man who didn't like being kicked out of the cabinet so tried to change parties to claw his way back in. He's everything that's wrong with career politicians and I'm glad he's been forced out.

hooman fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:33

Smegmatron: Apr 23, 2003; I hate to advocate emptyquoting or shitposting to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

Lid posted:

Oh and the ACL guy is calling for the suspension of anti-discrimination laws because otherwise the NO campaign will violate them in their campaign against the gay marriage vote. Yes this is literally an argument being made, our campaign is illegally homophobic please cease the laws in the meantime.

"People have the right to be a bigot"

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:36

The Peccadillo: Mar 4, 2013; We Have Important Work To Do

The "don't expect churches to agree or enact same sex weddings" bit is something you might be disappointed with, too.

Most of them're coming along pretty okay with inter-faith and interratial marriage, and progressive denominations "enact" gay weddimgs all over the place. It'll be grossly retarded compared to every other sector of society, but they'll wise up some day

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:37

Nibbles!: Jun 26, 2008; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

make australia great again as well please

The Peccadillo posted:

Even in that case, a referendum could only give states and territories the power to pass legislation concerning local definitions of marriage, it couldn't ammend the Federal Marriage Act, because that ain't a part of the constitution. So there'd still be no gay marriage in Queensland 'til 2116

You don't need a referendum for that. The constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to legislate as to marriage, they can say we'll leave it to the states as to how they want to recognise gay marriage if they wished.

It's not a matter for a referendum anyway. The Commonwealth already has the power to legislate and removing their power would go against the reason it was included in the first place: so you don't have different versions depending on what state you are in.

chyaroh posted:

It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know.

I'd also like to think that in the end we would accept the ultimate will of the populace in this. I think that the plebiscite will get up. My view is that we must accept this, realising that we are to abide by the rulers put over us. What I doubt would be acceptable would be an effort to force churches to perform ceremonies that were fundamentally against the tenants of the religion. That wouldn't be acceptable.

Regardless of the change to the Marriage Act our marriages will be just as valid as ever in the eyes of the church. Idiots who seem to think that a change would invalidate their unions or sexuality really need to get a grip.

The assumption is that anyone against gay marriage doesn't respect the rights of others. If your opinion is bigoted you can't act too shocked if you are called out on it.

I don't really want the will of the populace dictating minority rights either.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:39

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Smegmatron posted:

"People have the right to be a bigot"

quote:

Christian lobby seeks anti-discrimination 'override' for plebiscite campaign

The leading advocates for a "no" vote on same-sex marriage are pushing the federal government to "override" anti-discrimination laws during the upcoming plebiscite campaign.

The Australian Christian Lobby are calling for the temporary change to ensure the "no" camp can speak freely during the debate to legalise same-sex marriage.

ACL managing director Lyle Shelton told Fairfax Media his organisation was very concerned about fairness during the campaign as state anti-discrimination laws in particular have "such a low threshold".

Pointing to a case in Tasmania where the Catholic Church has faced questions from the state's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner over a "Don't mess with marriage" booklet, Mr Shelton warned those who argued against same-sex marriage would be faced with the "constant threat of quasi and full-blown legal action".

As well as federal laws, all states and territories have anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality. For example, in NSW, there are laws against "any public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule", however the specifics of laws vary between jurisdictions.

The Turnbull government has been been consulting with the "yes" and "no" camps on how the plebiscite will work, and Mr Shelton said the ACL had pressed for "some sort of ... setting aside of these [anti-discrimination] laws".

Mr Shelton stressed that those in the "no" camp were not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millenia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

The Law Council of Australia said any exemptions to discriminatory behaviour when it came to marriage equality "should be construed as narrowly as is absolutely necessary".

"People cannot use their religious beliefs as an excuse for unlawful discrimination in business and the same principle would apply to public political campaigns," president-elect Fiona McLeod said.

Australian Marriage Equality said it was concerned the plebiscite was being used "as an excuse to suspend laws that protect vulnerable Australians".

"It's impractical and unnecessary to suspend anti-discrimination laws in every state and territory," national director Rodney Croome said.

Mr Croome said the "yes" and "no" camps should work out an agreement between themselves on how the debate should be conducted.

"Both sides should be mature enough to sit down and agree on the framework for a free and respectful debate, facilitated by the Human Rights Commission or some other impartial body," he said.

Concerns over free speech in the plebiscite debate come as questions are asked over what, if any, public funding should be given to the opposing sides.

Mr Shelton said he wanted to ensure funding was equal for both sides and that international funds were prohibited.

While some within the "yes" camp are against any public funding for either side - as they believe taxpayers' money should not be used for arguments that are potentially hurtful to gay people - Mr Croome said funding should be equal and "kept to the bare minimum".

He said federal funds should be "directed instead to counselling for those people whose mental health will suffer from attacks on their basic rights".

Attorney-General George Brandis was travelling overseas on Monday and could not be reached for comment.

Last week in Senate estimates, he said there had been a "great deal of stakeholder consultation" on the plebiscite and that he would take a submission to cabinet "in coming months".

Senator Brandis added the submission would also make a recommendation on public funding of the "yes" and "no" cases.

There is no date set yet for the plebiscite, which is due after the federal election.

Federal funding for bigotry! Supending bigotry laws! We are not bigots~!

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:44

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

chyaroh posted:

It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know.

guess which one you are in this comic

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:54

Gentleman Baller: Oct 13, 2013

quote:

Mr Shelton stressed that those in the "no" camp were not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millenia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

This is a good point I forgot how there was no bigotry thousands of years ago.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:59

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...cPADB8Q6AEIHzAC

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:06

asio: Nov 29, 2008; "Also Sprach Arnold Jacobs: A Developmental Guide for Brass Wind Musicians" refers to the mullet as an important tool for professional cornet playing and box smashing black and blood

Negligent posted:

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...cPADB8Q6AEIHzAC

I'm sorry for those in this thread who thought they were well-read, but are in fact as ignorant as the general populace they so often criticise.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:13

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

quote:

�If we�ve evolved from monkeys, then why haven�t those ones evolved?� Warne asked reality show contestant Bonnie Lythgoe during Monday's episode of "I�m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

on ya warnie!!

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:14

Lizard Combatant: Sep 29, 2010; I have some notes.

Negligent posted:

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...cPADB8Q6AEIHzAC

Unironically thanks for these. Though the 1st one is unconvincing, the 2nd from 2004 does establish a connection that was previously completely unknown to me.
I'd maintain as Smegmatron, rather bluntly put it, that it's common meaning has in no way been supplanted, but I am a man of my word so enjoy your plats certificate.

e: or at least, you will once the SA gift cert page stops timing out.

Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:23

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

quote:

�Look at those pyramids, Bonnie,� Warne continued. �You couldn�t do them. You couldn�t pull those ropes, huge bits of brick and make it perfectly symmetrical. Couldn�t do it. So who did it?�

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:27

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

quote:

RIMMER: No, Lister, I mean like the pyramids. How did they move such
massive pieces of stone without the aid of modern technology?

LISTER: They had massive whips, Rimmer. Massive, massive whips.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:28

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

They did it with massive social welfare programs

# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 01:22

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Skellybones posted:

They did it with massive social welfare programs

Paid the workers in beer.

Tell that to a big enough group of aussies, and we would have our own set of pyramids faster than you can say "Krakatinni"

# ? Feb 15, 2016 11:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol February: The NRL Really Screwed The Pooch

«‹›83 »