Million Aussie Bucks to say Lesbians and Gays shouldn't be equal

[Nearly Sane]

Of course



https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/sydney-anglicans-give-one-million-to-no-campaign?utm_term=.dwmmQqEBq#.tioAmp4bp

[Shaker]

Cunts.

I was trying to think of a stronger term of abuse, but nothing else does the job with such economy.

[Gordon]

Let us hope their monies are wasted, and that they back the losing side, and let us further hope that they then consider what might have been more usefully done with this money (as opposed to funding those who support the continuance of discrimination).

[Robbie]

Quite agree Gordon!
People don't realise there is a big Bible belt in Australia, lots of very traditional/fundamentalist Christians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?

[Gordon]

How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?

Maybe they are hoping people will vote on the basis of removing discrimination without needing to be 'encouraged' to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

How much did the Australian Humanists stump up?

For equality? Dunno. I note your tacit support for spending a million Aus bucks to support discrimination against same sex marriage.

[jeremyp]

Let us hope their monies are wasted, and that they back the losing side, and let us further hope that they then consider what might have been more usefully done with this money (as opposed to funding those who support the continuance of discrimination).

The opinion polls say it will be 70% in favour of marriage equality and 26% gits.

[Shaker]

The opinion polls say it will be 70% in favour of marriage equality and 26% gits.

4% can't be arsed either way?

[jeremyp]

4% can't be arsed either way?

I presumer that is 4% undecided. When it comes down to it, the percentage of people who don't bother to vote will probably be much higher.

[jeremyp]

I presumer that is 4% undecided. When it comes down to it, the percentage of people who don't bother to vote will probably be much higher.

Tell a lie: it's compulsory to vote in Australia.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe they are hoping people will vote on the basis of removing discrimination without needing to be 'encouraged' to do so.

That would certainly be cheaper.

[Shaker]

Tell a lie: it's compulsory to vote in Australia.

Whoa back: it is in general elections - does that apply to issues such as this as well?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For equality? Dunno. I note your tacit support for spending a million Aus bucks to support discrimination against same sex marriage.

You know that do you? How do you know  I'm not fishing to see how tight humanists are?

[Shaker]

Answered my own question - thanks Google:

Unlike Australian federal elections, where voting is compulsory, the postal vote is voluntary and also non-binding.

http://tinyurl.com/ybj5wbdk

[Nearly Sane]

You know that do you? How do you know  I'm not fishing to see how tight humanists are?

know it? No.   But until you express that you disagree with them?

[jeremyp]

Whoa back: it is in general elections - does that apply to issues such as this as well?

Good question. I guess we'll find out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

know it? No.   But until you express that you disagree with them?

Really? Even if I sent a donation to the equal marriage campaign?

[Nearly Sane]

Really? Even if I sent a donation to the equal marriage campaign?

Good. Then you think the Aus church was wrong spending a million bucks against it in Australia?

[Gordon]

That would certainly be cheaper.

Perhaps they take the view that if you have to spend large amounts of dosh to encourage people to support enlightened social progress then, and even if if they get the result they want, that isn't really progressive, or perhaps they suspect that most Australians will be happy to support the removal of discrimination: let us hope so.

[Shaker]

Perhaps they take the view that if you have to spend large amounts of dosh to encourage people to support enlightened social progress then, and even if if they get the result they want, that isn't really progressive, or perhaps they suspect that most Australians will be happy to support the removal of discrimination: let us hope so.

The fact that the plebiscite is in principle non-binding ought to be of concern save for the fact that few if any politicians who like being one would risk the fallout of ignoring the public will in quite such a brazen manner.

ETA: Though you'll always find a few:

... several conservative politicians have already said they'd vote against same-sex unions no matter what the postal vote says.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good. Then you think the Aus church was wrong spending a million bucks against it in Australia?

So if I sent 50 bucks what multiple would that be of the humanist total contribution? 5 x, 2 x, 10 x?

[ippy]

Of course



https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/sydney-anglicans-give-one-million-to-no-campaign?utm_term=.dwmmQqEBq#.tioAmp4bp

Regressive religionists,  oh,  oh,  what  a   s  u  r  p  r  i  s  e  !

ippy

[Rhiannon]

The Aussie Anglicans are very Evangelical to the point of being a bit fundie. At one point during the Eucharist at Sydney Cathedral the Bible was put in the altar instead of the cross.

Idolatry, anyone?

[SteveH]

I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself. Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them - but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.