Same Sex Marriage Bill passes

[rrussell1962]

Hours of fun researching correlation and causation and learning a lot. Apart from that very little to be gained from this thread. Will somebody please put it out of its misery.

[multiweb (Marc)]

... running out of popcorn.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

... running out of popcorn.

.... it's ' Intermission ' ... canteens open ...get some more ...

[xelasnave]

Mikes assertion can be rebutted so very easily but I will not say a thing for there is no need...but I will say a section of the community has been recognised as being part of our society and that is a wonderful thing and irrespective of how you feel about the matter just hold that thought as it is the only one worthy of mention.
Being judgemental is so easy to do but it is a trap best avoided.
Alex

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex

but I will say a section of the community has been recognised as being part of our society

Fully agree re being recognised, but i strongly doubt they will be accepted by all.
I see the problem now is a numerically larger ( but still small ) section of society has effectively been told ( in their eyes ) that their beliefs dont matter. That groups beliefs are ( mainly ) based on religion, so no amount of telling em "its over, get over it" will change them, just as no amount of telling the gays to come up with a new word that could be legislated to cover the "legal equality" of a union would satisfy them.
Many of those who voted probably dont care.(me)
Those who voted Yes because it benefitted them will be happy
Those who voted no on belief will probably be less tolerant in future.
( Lets hope the last one doesnt come true )
Andrew

[casstony]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Those who voted no on belief will probably be less tolerant in future.
( Lets hope the last one doesnt come true )
Andrew

Fuddy duddy generation dies eventually, younger generation takes over, ideas change. It will all be a non-issue as time moves on.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by csb

That is so easy to show as pure fiction.

Government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics are against SSM.

Usually it's the No camp who have been using false facts and illogical reasoning to back their view. I suppose not all Yes people have high level of intellect

Originally Posted by csb

Mike put forward the level of intellect into the argumhent which I am sure is nonsense.

My point being that we need to use credible and verifiable evidence in debates. A waste of words to make things up or provide distorted data.

Originally Posted by LewisM

The moment Mike dropped in that "intellect required" bomb of BS is the second this whole talk became a farce. .

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Mikes assertion can be rebutted so very easily but I will not say a thing for there is no need...
Alex

Sorry if my words are annoying to you guys, no harm intended, truly but..and as there is for smoking, belief in conspiracy theories (like the moon landing, 9/11 etc) and conservative voting tendencies in general... there is indeed very credible research and data analysis to back it all up, it is not pure fiction or BS.

In the case for the recent SSM debate in Oz... Here is a one nice summary of some highly relevant data

If you can't be bothered reading it all here is the crux of the findings of the analysis:

The findings do not mean that all who intend to vote “no” in the marriage ballot have a low level of cognitive ability. Nor do they mean that all those who intend to vote “yes” have a high level.

Yet the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.

Here is another relevant paper and there are plenty more out there....it really isn't controversial at all guys

Mike

[csb (Craig)]

This thread does not breach ToS which requires members to be civil and respectful. There has been some slight tension and even immaturity but nothing that breaches the ToS.

The topic, along with politics and religion, does not breach ToS, but I wouldn't encourage starting a thread on any other volatile subjects.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Fuddy duddy generation dies eventually

Are you talking to me ....

Senior Citizen

[csb (Craig)]

Thanks Mike, that's what was needed, some data to support your argument.

However, throwing out your statement about a correlation with intellect doesn't seem to have any purpose to back your argument but seems designed to cause antagonism and upset or was issued out of frustration/annoyance. If this is not so then please continue to explain your point.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by csb

Thanks Mike, that's what was needed, some data to support your argument.

However, throwing out your statement about a correlation with intellect doesn't seem to have any purpose to back your argument but seems designed to cause antagonism and upset or was issued out of frustration/annoyance. If this is not so then please continue to explain your point.

Craig I have done the wide reading, I am quite confident that what I have asserted is based in solid psychological and sociological research. I just can't be bothered detailing it all here. Truly, if you doubt me then do your own research, find out for yourself if what I have suggested is valid or not. If you have a good level of mental action and a process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses...you will find it all and very easily

Mike

[AndrewJ]

Gday Tony

Fuddy duddy generation dies eventually,

But the basis of a religion doesnt. Just ask the romans :-)

Andrew

[xelasnave]

Mike you certainly did not annoy me its just that I can rebut your claim re intelligence but I won't cause it would cause all hell to break loose.
Alex

[Deeno]

Can't believe some the elitist, lefty garbage that is being exhibited here.
At least some are showing their true colours.

Mike, if you could have lifted something the size of your own head, you may have actually succeeded.... :qu estion::2 thumbs::rockba nd::c onfused::shi p1:: party::rundo g:: juggle::abd uct:

[casstony]

Originally Posted by FlashDrive

Are you talking to me ....

Senior Citizen

You old fuddy duddy Col. Hope I'm fortunate enough to become a fuddy duddy one day I wonder what my grandchildren will get up to for me to complain about? Probably not much, I've had the redneck beaten out of me by a lady from Sanfrancisco

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by casstony

You old fuddy duddy Col. Hope I'm fortunate enough to become a fuddy duddy one day

Stick around it'll happen ....

[csb (Craig)]

Mike, you showed the evidence for your statement and I read one of the articles - it certainly seemed credible.

Butt what is the point you were trying to make.

It certainly appears that you are just implying that people who are against SSM are a bit dim. If so then that hardly forwards a debate.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

... and conservative voting tendencies in general... there is indeed very credible research and data analysis to back it all up, it is not pure fiction or BS.

...

Here is another relevant paper and there are plenty more out there....it really isn't controversial at all guys

Mike

You do surprise me sometimes Mike! Here's an interesting article by Prof William Briggs (Cornell University) more or less rebutting Gordon Hodson's "paper": http://wmbriggs.com/post/5118/

BTW, I apologise in advance ... I have "conservative voting tendancies". Alas, that means I could only understand / pronounce every 2nd word in the articles .... I definitely don't have the intellect to google articles that support my own ideology & dogmas.

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by csb

Mike, you showed the evidence for your statement and I read one of the articles - it certainly seemed credible.

Butt what is the point you were trying to make.

It certainly appears that you are just implying that people who are against SSM are a bit dim. If so then that hardly forwards a debate.

Smart people can be incredibly dim when it comes to certain topics that they don't understand, can't understand or have been told they shouldn't understand.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

I definitely don't have the intellect to google articles that support my own ideology & dogmas.

Yes you do..you just did and good on ya, you are one of the smart ones ..unlike Deeno, at least you are thinking

I can see this going aroud in circles, missing the point and getting scrambled...tis what it tis no hard feelings. Glad the bill passed, thats the main thing

Mike