THE POSTAL VOTE/POLL

Yep, changed the marriage act. And he didn't even need a plebiscite

JudgeHolden wrote: Yep, changed the marriage act. And he didn't even need a plebiscite

There will be some nasties between now and the finish of this.
I see the YES lobby forming groups to push their agenda.
----
Frightening =
Hate Tribunals Are Coming

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant.

OHHH   CHIT Tiaz...   I'm an authority on everything.     (My son married a Canadian Lady by the way but she isn't my source )

    I will teach you how to do research ...      Just go into Google and type +=     How are the deviates travelling after 10 years of pushing chit up hill .
   What I posted was a copy and paste from that .
Your not one of those are you mate?

TBV comes into its own with threads like this ! Some of the characters on here are priceless. And some not so much

Macca my cousin is gay and has looked after his brothers three kids since they were born. You really need to drop the homophobic deviate bs simply because someone else 's preference deviates from your own. We're not back in the dark ages anymore at your pathetic institution that incarcerated and "treated" gays. Gays are not pedos and should never be grouped as such. That's a simplistic, idiotic Putin concept.  

Not bad at all, oneone

I caught a bit of a news grab, the Yes vote has declined by 6%, didn't hear the details, timeline etc

ThreeBears wrote: Macca my cousin is gay and has looked after his brothers three kids since they were born. You really need to drop the homophobic deviate bs simply because someone else 's preference deviates from your own. We're not back in the dark ages anymore at your pathetic institution that incarcerated and "treated" gays. Gays are not pedos and should never be grouped as such. That's a simplistic, idiotic Putin concept.     My experience tells me most gay people couldn't give a fig about marriage. My sister in London has an older gay couple as neighbours ( 30 years together ). They both say they'd never get married even if the law changed. They are in each others wills already and are protected financially by those arrangements. Yes they'll have to pay inheritance tax unlike hetero married couples but so do the thousands of English folk who've married foreigners ( if they don't gain citizenship ).   I agree with the civil union concept.

good post, just shows what can be done when you lose your obsession with certain people

further to that, I know a gay couple living near me, have been together 40 years, I would have no problem with them looking after my kids

Whale wrote: maccamax wrote: DR> E that was a top post ---------- Some should ask themselves a question , try to be impartial. Would you allow a known homosexual to mind your children .? pity you cannot comprehend it, your homophobia is a bit of a disease. He wrote this  : Most Gays and Lesbians are perfectly normal, watch the footy, love a punt, a drink and a laugh, and don't give a gelati about SSM or climate change, or Invasion Day or a Republic ... they just want cheap electricity and affordable housing. and the answer to your question, yes I would, after conducting the same checks as I would for everyone. I would have more problem allowing a male to look after my children, dirty baxtards a lot of them

Tlazolteotl wrote: maccamax wrote: OHHH   CHIT Tiaz...   I'm an authority on everything.     (My son married a Canadian Lady by the way but she isn't my source )     I will teach you how to do research ...      Just go into Google and type +=     How are the deviates travelling after 10 years of pushing chit up hill .    What I posted was a copy and paste from that . Your not one of those are you mate? I google the subject and nothing but crackpot sites comes up- nothing even remotely close to a reputable source, thus my scepticism.

just shows what can be done when you lose your obsession with certain peopleYou're the one that has to drag yourself and your inner thoughts into everyone else's opinions Whale.  

Shame on you for being you yet again. Try reading what's actually said conman.

I read that Canada stopped keeping divorce rate stats from 2008. How very queer, if true.

maccamax wrote: [QUOTE=Whale] This guy is not gay Macca http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/police-man-raped-girl-250-times-over-5-years/ar-AArvU1Q?li=AAgfYrC

He is a deviate , he is Abnormal ,    As are Homosexuals[/QUOTE

max manewer wrote: When the new laws come in, criticizing gay marriage will become a "hate crime", and people like macca will be sentenced to supervised sessions of compulsory slide slows of gay couples kissing, cuddling, and fondling. Repeat offenders will be made to watch more explicit scenes that make them go " Ewwww...."

Huge fines in Canada if you say boo about same sex bonkers.
Freedom of speech is gone over there .   England just had a man gaoled for 12 months for writing ( we need to kill all Muslims )
Ok for Muslims to preach their intentions.

Gold when some say , "I know a gay couple ".   That doesn't make them Normal.      OR    Other Animals do it. Good for them.
   Most objections are all about re defining Marriage.    If they want to bonk a hole in a wall = go for it,    but leave traditional Marriage alone.
Deviates are deviates whatever their choice of abnormal sexual behaviour is.