What do you think about this, Sup Forums?
Any information on this moron?
What do you think about this, Sup Forums?
Any information on this moron?
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtonpost.com
archive.is
advocate.com
archive.is
nytimes.com
archive.is
christiantoday.com
chaladze.com
en.wikipedia.org
journals.plos.org
livescience.com
archive.is
archive.is
nature.com
tim-taylor.com
scientificamerican.com
archive.is
hawaii.edu
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
en.wikipedia.org
sciencemag.org
archive.is
liveabout.com
nydailynews.com
archive.is
theconversation.com
archive.is
governing.com
foxnews.com
religionnews.com
archive.is
news.abs-cbn.com
archive.is
lep.co.uk
news.com.au
archive.is
prri.org
churchleaders.com
prri.org
abc.net.au
unvis.it
twitter.com
Sounds pretty shady. Should report him or something.
Already on that. Dude was most likely joking, but he's in for a bit of a shock, I'm affraid.
...
DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS
This is a wake up call dude. Voting won't fix anything.
Thanks for digging that up based Juden
i know dan nolan, hes a world class troll.. hes not serious and definitely does not work at australia post
Not with an explosion, but with a wimper
Hi guys my name is Josh and I love to watch my wife get cucked
that's just damage control
Denmark plz.
what did he mean by this
Why are Aussies so fuckin thick? Why would you share such a crime in Twitter?
liberals need to virtue signal
This. Their ideals go against nature and thus require constant assurance to be sustained.
anyone surprised he has a blue check? lel
I just want all these faggots to fuck off. I'm so fucking sick of this shit everywhere I fucking go. I can't even go to online stores to buy shit because they'll have some rainbow variant of their logo and "WE SUPPORT EQUALITY" garbage.
Here's some examples of nature:
advocate.com
nytimes.com
christiantoday.com
Straight males carry gay genes:
chaladze.com
Fecundity increases in female relatives of male homosexuals:
journals.plos.org
livescience.com
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers:
nature.com
tim-taylor.com
scientificamerican.com
hawaii.edu
Female relatives of gay men have 1.3x as many children:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Androgen receptor gene linked to XQ28
sciencemag.org
IT'S 2017
Why is marriage equality not legal in Australia?
Uncanny resemblance to the 2016 US presidential elections
explain how it is unequal?
Except the polls in Australia almost all have gay marriage picked with 60% to 70% odd which is NOT like the American election.
De-facto partnerships don't transfer if you move states or internationally. Marriages do.
if there was some inherent unfairness in your ambiguous assertion, wouldn't advocates have already made application to the human rights watchdogs?
I don't understand what your point is here.
where specifically is the unfairness in the current system?
when you really think about it, marriage equality advocates aren't the brightest bunch
(((galaxy research))) ((((polls))))))
I stated it. That being forced not to have marriage leaves you with non-transferrable partnerships that need to be legally re-established if you move or marry someone who isn't from Australia. Also there is the social prestige and dignity of being able to call yourself married. If it is so important to straight people, why wouldn't it be important to gay people?
Name a single poll that has indicated minority support for gay marriage from the last decade.
>verified blue checkmark
>announcing intent to commit a crime
This should be an open and shut case, folks. Aussies, you know what to do.
Same thing with trump primaries in ohio
You polls mean shit neighbour. They are limited samples that consist of people who don't say "Nah, not interested" when the phone rings
They won't make it a referendum because they cannot guarantee the result and all the politicians will have to hear from dick heads at both ends of this rectum spectrum
Side note, after hearing the pooftah MP on the radio tell everyone that if the votes come back no he'll just use his power to legislate for it anyway, because reasons, I'm voting No. Then if it ever comes to an actual vote on it, I'm going to vote no as well
Why is parliament not responsible for enacting laws, even if they are controversial?
because it's not 2016 anymore
This tbhon.
...with a small flashlight.
danke schlomo
seeandliberals arent THAT stupid
So you basically want to say "we're married" and that's as far as it goes
>Trusting polls
Uh huh.
Give me one reason why we shouldnt kill gay people.
>doesn't work anymore
KeK you are fast kikenigger
No it is a wide variety of issues that I listed. Being able to call yourself married is CLEARLY hugely important though to both sides of this debate, so casting that off would be folly.
Alan Turing
oh look a fag posting his faggot lies and propaganda.
I can't think of any, all fags need to hang.
thats an argument not to kill Alan Turing
he said gay people you sodomite
The benefits of gay marriage:
liveabout.com
nydailynews.com
theconversation.com
A majority (37) states had already legalized gay marriage when the Supreme Court decided to legalize it:
governing.com
foxnews.com
White Christians are now a minority. Why should a minority group get to dictate anything?
Churches in Europe blessing same sex celebrants:
religionnews.com
news.abs-cbn.com
lep.co.uk
archive.is
Church attendance is declining:
prri.org
those are benefits to faggots, of which we have clearly established that we are not in favour
We would have computers anyway. Maybe a few years later but we would have them Try again
Art, music, science, cooking, all have been impacted by gays.
I live in Ohio, we voted repeatedly to deny fags marriage. I guarantee you we still would.
Yeah and in 1861 a minority of states wanted things others didn't too.
the blue check system is really retarded to where this guy gets one and Jullian Assange doesn't
Minorities shouldnt, we should be a representative democracy. We should also correctly interpret the laws our fathers gave us that protect religious liberty as it pertains to recognizing fag marriage, and really we should prosecute homosexuals where the law still stands
>Why should a minority group get to dictate anything?
Then why should gays get to dictate anything? You're not even 5% of the population.
The federal government lacks a compelling interest to prosecute homosexuals. You are the one who needs to make the point of WHY 7% of the population ought to face systemic discrimination and the harms that imposes on them.
7% of millennials identify as gay or bisexual.
You guys are the reason why more and more people realize hitler did nothing wrong
citation needed
so, having to do paperwork is a form of discrimination?
quite an interesting and compelling argument we have here
>people actually post that shit on Twitter
Forcing some groups to have to do more work than others to obtain the same benefits uniformly is definitional discrimination, yes.
Remember to vote 'no' (and tell everyone else irl to boycott so you don't look like a conservacuck)
spread it and report him
Nothing is really going to change until our side starts getting angry and voicing that damn anger.
we have become too soft
He did work for them, there's no way he wrote no on his own ballot just to pretend.
if it's "discrimination" wouldn't advocates have already brought it before the UN human rights tribunals?
mate you're all getting gassed stop with the shilling
I don't think that is something that could affect Australian civil rights law. The UN does not have jurisdiction to upend the rights of Australia.
So like what? Is there a group of you homos constantly posting on here periodically after your drug induced child sex orgies? Or just 1 mentally ill user who just keeps posting walls of text that have already been discussed and dismantled so nobody reads?
ahah
in other words, advocates HAVE brought it to the UN and the UN has ruled not in favor of the "discrimination" argument
Half the board has sexual oriented intereaction with people of the same sex.
And a 100% of the board has found a member of the same sex sexually attractive at least once.
abc.net.au
No the UN agreed that it was discrimination but they don't have the power to force the Australian government to agree.
300% of pol posters are closeted homosexuals.
Why do you not use archive.is? Or at least use google cache then archive for sites that block archive.is
>admitting to a serious crime on twitter
>Hey public forum that has my name and face attached, check out these new shoes I just stole! Fly as fuck
>*knock knock*
>Oh shit it's the popo! How could they have ever found me?!
Literal nigger tier behavior.
> Being able to call yourself married is CLEARLY hugely important though to both sides of this debate
There is a difference between marriage as a legal status and religious marriages. The first one should be possible for whoever wants to marry (or rather: i don't really care), but the decision wether the second one should be possible or not should lay in the hand of those who actually follow said religions. You wouldn't demand to be allowed to eat bacon inside a mosque either, wouldn't you?
Today's Arts are mostly handled by a closed community of untalented hacks. Any impact on Arts is irrelevant. It's similar for music (where is your impact here? And don't come with "some person who happened to be gay did music once" shit). How is cooking even relevant?
Also keep in mind that scientists are just that: scientists. They don't discover great things because they happen to be gay, and they most certainly don't go around parading their gayness as if it was of any kind of importance for their work, just as straight scientist don't go and center their research around them being straight. That kind of sentiment is utter stupidity and has no place in actual sciences - you can keep it in pseudosciences like gender studies or (the by now equally useless) social "sciences", but leave it out of the important subjects where literally nobody cares about what what sex/gender you are, identify as- or feel attracted to.
> all have been impacted by gays.
That kind of sentence should have made you pause and think, anyway. It's the same kidn of statement that feminists do when they try to list the contributions of womyn to specific scientific fields (mostly those that they have no understanding of, meaning STEM) - just to include dozens of women who where pretty much mere run-of-the-mill workers at their working places (just as their male colleagues) who happened to wear their primary sexual organs inside of their bodies.
>if your homophobic your gay
>if your not homophobic your gay
>if your straight your actually gay
>all the great philosophers were gay
>all the GOP is gay
>all Christians are secretly gay
This is how a insane person thinks. They cling to the filmiest of assertions and repeat ad mantra over and over again. Anytime a argument is made that can't be refuted it devolves to this
>y-your actually gay!
You're insane and need to either be put in a hospital, or put down.
Nobody is arguing for gay religious marriage.
tampering with election ballots should get him a heavy penal sentance, report that subhuman
Shit like this is why we hate Australians.
Im voting no because fuck you. Why should i change something because you faggots cry about it
faggots shoudn't have ANY rights
Gay marriage doesn't go against the constitution of Romania either :^)
And in 1941 you were getting gassed you fucking freak
Bull fucking shit. At least half the shit about gay marage (other than trying to game the tax system) is as a fuck you to the Catholic church. Which they promptly give every time they get it. The news is full of "first gay marrage happens. so progressive, bigots mad, fuck you mum and dad" over the coming months.
Did Hitler have kids? Was he married? Isn't suicide a sin to Christians?
Its more a fuck you to evangelical Christians trying to restrict our rights. Catholics are overall much more accepting of gay people.
Who the fuck wants to get married anyway
>...yet :^)
will have a referendum this autum if we want to change the constitution to specifically mention that marriage is between a male and a female, effectively barring homo marriage in the future. this will send a wake-up slap to the west
I and everybody I know will vote yes for this. think about this
>Its more a fuck you to evangelical Christians trying to restrict our rights.
>muh rights
>fuck you mum and dad I do what I want >;(
>Catholics are overall much more accepting of gay people.
Literally fucking heresy.
That fucking Pic is retarded
> Green is not Islam
Wtf
>Blue the same shade as EU is used on Violet
WTF!
>Feminism isn't on a girly color
WTF!!!!!!!!!
>White Christians are now a minority. Why should a minority group get to dictate anything?
Black and hispanic christians hate you ten times as much you fucking retard.
The data indicates otherwise:
7% of millennials are gay:
prri.org
Millennials draw no distinctions between discrimination protections that should be afforded gay and lesbian people, on the one hand, and transgender people on the other. More than seven in ten (73%) millennials support legal protections against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing for gay and lesbian people. A nearly identical number (72%) of millennials say they favor these same protections for transgender people.
While no significant racial or gender differences exist on either question, there are large religious divides in support for expanding nondiscrimination legislation. Roughly eight in ten black Protestant (80%), white Catholic (82%), Hispanic Catholic (81%), religiously unaffiliated (83%), and white mainline Protestant millennials (78%) favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. About two-thirds (66%) of Hispanic Protestant millennials also favor such laws. White evangelical Protestants are closely divided on this issue, with a slim majority (51%) favoring laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination, and 47% opposing them. Among religious groups, the pattern of opinion about non-discrimination legislation protecting transgender individuals is nearly identical.
gays are born with the disease, somehow it makes it a good thing.
It is generally considered wrong to discriminate against people for parts of their nature outside of their control that do not harm others inherently.
still looking for the actual text of the decision.. but on the surface appears to be an anecdotal fallacy
Virtue signalling is meaningless if you don't tell anyone.