Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

  1. #1
    The pessimistic optimist. BLIT2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    9,465
    Rep Power
    10

    Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    "

    Do I need to enrol?
    The postal plebiscite will use the normal electoral roll. That means that if you voted at the last election and you still live at the same address, you will automatically be enrolled to vote next month.

    If you aren’t on the roll or your details are out of date, you have until 6pm on August 24 to get on the AEC website and fix them. That’s two weeks from today.

    Around 14 per cent of young people aged between 18 and 24 are not currently enrolled, according to the latest data from the Australian Electoral Commission.

    Nationally, the percentage of Australians of all ages who are not enrolled is about five percent.

    When are we voting?
    Ballot papers will start arriving in the mail from September 12.

    You will have until November 7 to post them back.

    Is it compulsory?
    No. Unlike the original proposal - in-person plebiscite - the postal vote is not mandatory.

    Advocacy groups are already voicing concerns that voter turnout will be low, and that the results will not be representative.

    But the government says anyone who wants to vote badly enough will be able to figure out the postal system.

    “If they want to be part of the vote, they'll be part of it,” deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said.

    Some in the gay and lesbian community are calling for a boycott to delegitimise the postal vote. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby, who is himself gay, said he would not be voting, saying the process made him feel like a “second-class” citizen.

    Can I vote online instead?
    No, again.

    The vote will be done entirely through the post, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and will not have an online element.

    Labor argues that system will disadvantage young people who are less familiar with stamps and non-electronic forms of mail.

    “Why on earth are we not opening this up to the internet?” asked Labor’s Sam Dastyari.

    “Let's not kid ourselves. That is how [young Australians] participate in politics.”

    But Barnaby Joyce said he was not concerned: “I think young people are just as competent as any other person.”

    Can I vote from overseas?
    Yes. The ABS will post you your ballot as long as you are registered as an overseas voter.

    Do the results matter?
    A final result from the postal poll is expected by November 15.

    But the vote itself cannot legalise same-sex marriage.

    In the event of a 'yes' vote, the government says it will allow a private member's bill to be introduced to the house in the final sitting fortnight of 2017 (the last week of November and the first of December).

    Then members of parliament will be given a free vote, where it is expected to pass.

    Parliamentarians will not be bound by the results of the plebiscite, but many, including some conservatives, have promised to respect the decision of the people even if it goes against their personal beliefs.

    If the people vote "no" in the postal ballot, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said no bill will proceed."

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...tal-plebiscite

    You can check your enrolment here:https://check.aec.gov.au/

    You are entitled to vote if you turn 18 before November the 7th.
    I can barely see up and down and back again
    Despite what you believe I keep away from trouble
    If who I am today's a sign of where I'm going
    I'm ready to embrace


    Got 1-2 minutes ? Please do my survey :P https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8ZPYZSD
    Moderator of Macquarie University

  2. #2
    The pessimistic optimist. BLIT2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    9,465
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    High Court challenges to same-sex marriage survey a 50-50 prospect: Mark Dreyfus

    High Court challenges to the same-sex marriage postal survey have a 50-50 chance of success, according to Labor's legal affairs spokesman, Mark Dreyfus.

    And Mr Dreyfus has suggested a 50 per cent turnout would be a good result for the non-compulsory vote, while urging Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to "put a bit of his shoulder to the wheel here" and campaign for a 'yes' vote.

    Play Video
    We will speak up for you: Shorten
    Labor leader Bill Shorten has given a rousing speech in Parliament setting out his party's game plan, to get out and support the "yes" campaign for same-sex marriage.
    The High Court will consider two similar challenges - one brought by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, the other by Australian Marriage Equality - to the validity of the postal vote on September 5 and 6.

    The parties challenging the validity of the postal survey argue the Turnbull government does not have the authority to appropriate the $122 million in funds for the vote.


    They also claim the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not have the legal authority to conduct the survey.

    "They are strong arguments [brought in the High Court challenge] ... Let's say 50-50," Mr Dreyfus told Insiders.

    "The High Court is taking it seriously. There is an argument that says that there needs to be legislative authorisation before you can go out and spend $122 million of public money, and there isn't any legislative authorisation.


    "And there's an argument that this is beyond power for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, under its legislation, to carry out this kind of very unusual activity.

    "Let's hope for it to be more than 50 per cent [turnout] ... it's not going to have much worth if it's only 10 per cent or 15 per cent of people participating."

    Mr Dreyfus also said Labor would examine laws the government has proposed that would subject the campaign to the usual electoral rules, including protections against malicious publications and bribery, which do not currently apply because the ABS is conducting the survey.

    There are early indications that senior Turnbull government ministers, including the prime minister, plan to restrict their campaigning on same-sex marriage - either for a 'yes' or 'no' vote - to their own electorates, rather than using the national platform available to them.

    Cabinet minister Josh Frydenberg appeared to confirm that approach on Sky News, saying he wanted a 'yes' vote and would be encouraging people in his electorate to vote that way.

    "But when it comes to my broader position in terms of campaigning on this issue, I've got bigger fish to fry and that is energy policy and that will be my priority in the weeks and the months ahead," he said.

    In contrast, Mr Dreyfus said: "I can understand why some people are simply disgusted, particularly in the LGBTI community, disgusted about this process that has been foisted on Australians ... If we must have this process, let's make sure it's a resounding 'yes'. I'll be voting 'yes', I will be campaigning for 'yes' and my colleagues are going to be campaigning for 'yes'".

    City of Sydney City Liberal councillor Christine Forster, a vocal campaigner for a 'yes' vote and sister of former prime minister Tony Abbott, told Sky News that Australia's "culture of compulsory voting" would lead to a good turnout despite it being voluntary - but a close result would mean questions remained about legitimacy of the vote.

    "There are sections of the Labor Party that are staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage. And it would open a real can of worms for the Labor Party if there was a resounding 'no' vote," she said.

    "If there were, I think the Labor Party's position would be extraordinarily difficult in pursuing their commitment to pass legislation ... that is my worst nightmare."

    Labor has, however, promised it will legalise same-sex marriage when it is next in office - regardless of the postal survey result.

    The key dates for the plebiscite are September 12, when the ABS begins posting out ballots; November 7, when responses have to be received and November 15, when the result will be announced.

    Australians have until August 24 to enrol or update their details with the Australian Electoral Commission.

    Source:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...12-gxv11r.html
    I can barely see up and down and back again
    Despite what you believe I keep away from trouble
    If who I am today's a sign of where I'm going
    I'm ready to embrace


    Got 1-2 minutes ? Please do my survey :P https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8ZPYZSD
    Moderator of Macquarie University

  3. #3
    Moderator enoilgam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    HSC
    2010
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    11,863
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    It's complete nonsense - Im not familiar with the legalities but I wouldn't be surprised if the liberals instituted the postal vote because they know it wont survive a court challenge. Plebiscite, postal plebiscite or nothing, these are just stalling tactics. Even if the no vote prevails, this issue wont go away. Gay marriage is inevitable - if I were the "No" lobby, Id try to get the law passed on friendlier terms because a Labour Government instituting this policy wont care for religious protections.
    Moderator: Modern History, Legal Studies, Studies of Religion (SOR), Commerce/Business and The University of Notre Dame Australia

    Essay Guides:
    - Modern History
    - Legal Studies
    -
    Ex-HSC Student (2010) ****
    Advanced English l Maths 2U l Economics l Legal Studies l Modern History l Studies of Religion I

  4. #4
    Executive Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    HSC
    2017
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    SYD
    Posts
    1,683
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    What's the point? It's not even legally binding. Just a waste of taxpayers money.

  5. #5
    Moderator enoilgam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    HSC
    2010
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    11,863
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by si2136 View Post
    What's the point? It's not even legally binding. Just a waste of taxpayers money.
    It's just to satisfy the conservative/religious wing of the Liberal Party, nothing more. The No campaign really doesnt have much justification for their views beyond "I dont agree with it". Gay marriage isnt being forced upon people so I dont see the issue. I dont like Green Tea, but I wouldnt support a law banning it (unless I was being forced to drink it).
    30june2016 likes this.
    Moderator: Modern History, Legal Studies, Studies of Religion (SOR), Commerce/Business and The University of Notre Dame Australia

    Essay Guides:
    - Modern History
    - Legal Studies
    -
    Ex-HSC Student (2010) ****
    Advanced English l Maths 2U l Economics l Legal Studies l Modern History l Studies of Religion I

  6. #6
    The pessimistic optimist. BLIT2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    9,465
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Voting register closes tomorrow, sign up now if you haven't already!
    I can barely see up and down and back again
    Despite what you believe I keep away from trouble
    If who I am today's a sign of where I'm going
    I'm ready to embrace


    Got 1-2 minutes ? Please do my survey :P https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8ZPYZSD
    Moderator of Macquarie University

  7. #7
    Kosovo is Serbian RenegadeMx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    HSC
    2013
    Uni Grad
    2017
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,290
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    gonna be like trump and brexit No will win
    enoilgam likes this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowdude View Post
    other bos-ers have a penis pic sharing club and i'm debating whether i want in on it or not


    ~just so i belong~
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowdude View Post
    who cares about your timetable - you should be going into uni every day to study and do whatever regardless

  8. #8
    Moderator enoilgam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    HSC
    2010
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    11,863
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by RenegadeMx View Post
    gonna be like trump and brexit No will win
    I agree, however, I do think irrespective of the outcome, gay marriage is inevitable. Ultimately, I think success for the No campaign could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. If gay marriage is enacted now, the No campaign could push for religious protections. However, the churches (who ultimately are the main drivers of the no campaign) are slowly losing their influence and if it take to long, they may lack the political capital needed to push for religious protections when SSM becomes law in the future.

    I really do think that the churches are making a mistake backing the No campaign. Beyond the theological issues with the churches stance on gay marriage (the bible is far from clear cut), the churches risk further damaging their reputation. Most churches in Australia are in decline and it is most evident amongst young people (who are the strongest SSM supporters). By standing in the way of SSM, the church is really impeding its ability to reach out to this demographic, because it largely reinforces the belief amongst young people that religion is backwards and archaic. Add that to all the sex abuse controversy, it really does spell trouble for their ability to grow and develop. As Frank Underwood says, "Dont fight wars you cant win and never raise a flag for an asinine cause". Honestly, the best stance for the churches would be to say "Personally, we dont agree, but we welcome all people and hope that our members vote with their conscience".
    Moderator: Modern History, Legal Studies, Studies of Religion (SOR), Commerce/Business and The University of Notre Dame Australia

    Essay Guides:
    - Modern History
    - Legal Studies
    -
    Ex-HSC Student (2010) ****
    Advanced English l Maths 2U l Economics l Legal Studies l Modern History l Studies of Religion I

  9. #9
    Administrator Trebla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    HSC
    2006
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,052
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    In b4 mail votes get intercepted
    Queenroot likes this.

  10. #10
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    crossing those hills
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    send me cheques for $50 instead of this if youre going to the post office

  11. #11
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by enoilgam View Post
    The No campaign really doesnt have much justification for their views beyond "I dont agree with it". Gay marriage isnt being forced upon people so I dont see the issue.
    Maybe it is because they don't speak up, because as soon as they do - no-one will listen or there is presumptions of bigotry, homophobia or hate speech. Accusations and assertions made, often with emotional stories and political rhetoric on both sides - this definition debate (which is really all that it is), is incredibly ugly on both sides. If the debate was more civil from both sides, of the argument, I would agree with the bold statement.

    Common points raising for sticking with marriage (as currently defined):
    - Concerns raising about flow-on efforts of legalising same-sex marriage into pushing radical sexual ideaologies or gender ideaology (e.g. Safe schools)
    (Watch for some very unfortunately off slopes though here).


    - Concerns about children, in terms of best practice, with regards to societal structure for socialisation of children; recognising biological needs (e.g. one father and mother needed to produce child, as well as different role models). This isn't a comment so much on parenting nor on parental love, but on children's natural needs and the natural production of children, as opposed to ultimately state-based wards.

    - Concerns about freedoms of speech or freedoms of religion/religious practice and problems of conscience (other countries can be used as a case study). The way that change has been argued for, is highly problematic for libertarians who hold strongly to freedom of speech, and may reject the agenda of the LGBT lobby on these grounds.

    - Marriage is by definition contains diversity of genders (I've actually mentioned/talked about this in other thread somewhere). Some argue, that the change seen as unnecessary (rights can be established without redefinition, and some even argue that the rights have already been granted, or can be granted without same-sex marriage). The key point of whether same-sex marriage is a right or not, is a key issue in this.

    Reading over the legislation proposed in 2016, it is interesting that the marriage act removes all gender-specific references, suggesting no differences between male and female genders in marriage. However biologically, psyologically this is not the case.


    Common arguments raised for supporting SSM:
    - Marriage "equality". Equal love means equal rights, and equal rights means that marriage should not be discriminated on basis of sexual orientation.
    (and various strains/variants of this argument often quite emotionaly/passionately)
    - Stop forcing religious belief/outdated views on people.
    - Personal/emotional examples
    - Will promote LGBTIQ acceptance and lessen bullying.
    - Injustice by religious authorities in the past. (Kind of balancing scales argument)
    I personally have issue with a majority of the major arguments, but especially with the "Yes" case, where I find that the definitions are presumed. Buzz words like "equality" and "rights" have different meanings to different people groups, as does "marriage", that is not acknowledged in this debate.

    Common misconceptions/myths:
    - John Howard changed the definition of marriage in 2004.
    Actually, they only put into writing, what was bi-partisan supported, the common understanding (non-complicated, non-sensical, best structured) of marriage. Marriage has never commented on people's sexual orientation or whether the people love each other or are sexually involved with each other.

    "Ruddock and other Liberals argued that the bill was necessary to protect the institution of marriage, by ensuring that marriage was a union of a man
    and a woman and this definition would be beyond legal challenge through the application of common law. The Labor shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said that the Labor would not oppose the amendment, arguing that the amendment did not affect the legal situation of same-sex relationships, merely putting into statute law what was already common law."

    - Marriage is only a religious thing - Clearly not, otherwise why is the state involved. It isn't distinctively owned by Christians, in fact most religious groups support the notion of one-man, one-woman marriage, and those that differ, don't dispute (usually on biological, and the straight-forwardness)
    - Christians have always opposed "no-fault divorce".

    But the main message of Christians isn't on marriage or homosexuality, it is actually on Jesus and the Gospel, and how Jesus comes to bring broken people back to God & real life (I get a bit annoyed with the ACL only focusing on marriage for instance, and making statements like "this is the fight of our lives" - news flash, it isn't!, and I say that as someone who holds firmly to a belief in Jesus and the Bible)


    Some articles/videos that might be a useful starter:
    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...15/4718836.htm
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuLqc87rUeE

    Things to avoid in this debate, as a manner of respect:
    - comparisons between ssm/LGBTI people, and slavery; or even children of LGBTIQ as "stolen generation". Both are tenuous links, to draw emotional links, not very helpful.
    - talking about marriage as being about property in the past; even if it is true, it is not super relevant.
    - using suicide as a wedge; yes it is real issue but complicated, so to blame others is naive to the issues at hand.
    - boycotting companies over their views; like one person leaving will affect their business views. Seriously though, businesses probably shouldn't be making divisive political statements anyways.


    Just my 2 cents. (more like $2 though)
    =====
    Last edited by dan964; 24 Aug 2017 at 2:17 PM.
    Oobi likes this.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  12. #12
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by enoilgam View Post
    I really do think that the churches are making a mistake backing the No campaign. Beyond the theological issues with the churches stance on gay marriage (the bible is far from clear cut), the churches risk further damaging their reputation. Most churches in Australia are in decline and it is most evident amongst young people (who are the strongest SSM supporters). By standing in the way of SSM, the church is really impeding its ability to reach out to this demographic, because it largely reinforces the belief amongst young people that religion is backwards and archaic. Add that to all the sex abuse controversy, it really does spell trouble for their ability to grow and develop. As Frank Underwood says, "Dont fight wars you cant win and never raise a flag for an asinine cause". Honestly, the best stance for the churches would be to say "Personally, we dont agree, but we welcome all people and hope that our members vote with their conscience".
    The article posted by the Conversation and reposted by the ABC, from Trinity college in Melbourne is hardly accurate, and is just trying to jump fences in my opinion. I wouldn't think it is reliable in its interpretation of the Bible (reading ideas of convenience and weird argumental logic and assertions about past culture that are misleading)

    The church itself and its influence, is often seen as a bad thing anyways - hey you stupid Christian stop forcing my beliefs on you.

    As I mentioned above, my main issue, is not with the views of say the church, but maybe to church leaders and ACL, stop giving marriage all of your air time, and maybe focus on the Gospel a bit more.

    I don't churches, theologically speaking, are trying to be super attractive (except maybe Gosford Anglican and some others like it) by being like the rest of the world. Christians will always stand out on their views, but their main message is absolutely scandal & crazy - of a crucified king who then is raised from the dead, but that is the message I believe.

    Many Christians my age, generally tend to have a range of opinions on this topic, most I know would agree with a clear definition of one man-one woman, but some still vote yes. But many I know, don't particularly want to make this their central message of Jesus and salvation in Jesus (alone).

    Dan
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  13. #13
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Also an interesting read, snapshots from the 1984 Sex act, which is really well said, that kind of is helpfully to remember in this.
    (Avoids a lot of issues, and also nullifies a lots of objections from both the "yes" camp to current practice, and "no" camp to proposed changes/pushes)


    7B Indirect discrimination: reasonableness test
    (1) A person does not discriminate against another person by imposing, or proposing to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the disadvantaging effect mentioned in subsection 5(2), 5A(2), 5B(2), 5C(2), 6(2), 7(2) or 7AA(2) if the condition, requirement or practice is reasonable in the circumstances.
    (2) The matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a condition, requirement or practice is reasonable in the circumstances include:
    (a) the nature and extent of the disadvantage resulting from the imposition, or proposed imposition, of the condition, requirement or practice; and
    (b) the feasibility of overcoming or mitigating the disadvantage; and
    (c) whether the disadvantage is proportionate to the result sought by the person who imposes, or proposes to impose, the condition, requirement or practice.

    and

    Section 4: Exemptions
    30 Certain discrimination on ground of sex not unlawful
    (1) Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b), 15(1)(a) or (b) or 16(b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person’s sex, in connection with a position as an employee, commission agent or contract worker, being a position in relation to which it is a genuine occupational qualification to be a person of a different sex from the sex of the other person.
    (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), it is a genuine occupational qualification, in relation to a particular position, to be a person of a particular sex (in this subsection referred to as the relevant sex) if:
    (a) the duties of the position can be performed only by a person having particular physical attributes (other than attributes of strength or stamina) that are not possessed by persons of a different sex from the relevant sex;
    (b) the duties of the position involve performing in a dramatic performance or other entertainment in a role that, for reasons of authenticity, aesthetics or tradition, is required to be performed by a person of the relevant sex;
    (c) the duties of the position need to be performed by a person of the relevant sex to preserve decency or privacy because they involve the fitting of clothing for persons of that sex;
    (d) the duties of the position include the conduct of searches of the clothing or bodies of persons of the relevant sex;
    (e) the occupant of the position is required to enter a lavatory ordinarily used by persons of the relevant sex while the lavatory is in use by persons of that sex;
    (f) the occupant of the position is required to live on premises provided by the employer or principal of the occupant of the position and:
    (i) the premises are not equipped with separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for persons of each sex;
    (ii) the premises are already occupied by a person or persons of the relevant sex and are not occupied by any person of a different sex from the relevant sex; and
    (iii) it is not reasonable to expect the employer or principal to provide separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for persons of each sex;
    (g) the occupant of the position is required to enter areas ordinarily used only by persons of the relevant sex while those persons are in a state of undress; or
    (h) the position is declared, by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to be a position in relation to which it is a genuine occupational qualification to be a person of a particular sex.


    38 Educational institutions established for religious purposes
    (1) Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b) or 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first‑mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.
    (2) Nothing in paragraph 16(b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with a position as a contract worker that involves the doing of work in an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first‑mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.
    (3) Nothing in section 21 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with the provision of education or training by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first‑mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.




    40 Acts done under statutory authority

    (2A) Nothing in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, affects anything done by a person in direct compliance with the Marriage Act 1961.


    42 Sport
    (1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sex, gender identity or intersex status by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the exclusion of persons from participation in:
    (a) the coaching of persons engaged in any sporting activity;
    (b) the umpiring or refereeing of any sporting activity;
    (c) the administration of any sporting activity;
    (d) any prescribed sporting activity; or
    (e) sporting activities by children who have not yet attained the age of 12 years.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  14. #14
    Moderator enoilgam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    HSC
    2010
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    11,863
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Common points raising for sticking with marriage (as currently defined):
    - Concerns raising about flow-on efforts of legalising same-sex marriage into pushing radical sexual ideaologies or gender ideaology (e.g. Safe schools)
    (Watch for some very unfortunately off slopes though here).


    - Concerns about children, in terms of best practice, with regards to societal structure for socialisation of children; recognising biological needs (e.g. one father and mother needed to produce child, as well as different role models). This isn't a comment so much on parenting nor on parental love, but on children's natural needs and the natural production of children, as opposed to ultimately state-based wards.

    - Concerns about freedoms of speech or freedoms of religion/religious practice and problems of conscience (other countries can be used as a case study). The way that change has been argued for, is highly problematic for libertarians who hold strongly to freedom of speech, and may reject the agenda of the LGBT lobby on these grounds.

    - Marriage is by definition contains diversity of genders (I've actually mentioned/talked about this in other thread somewhere). Some argue, that the change seen as unnecessary (rights can be established without redefinition, and some even argue that the rights have already been granted, or can be granted without same-sex marriage). The key point of whether same-sex marriage is a right or not, is a key issue in this.
    a) This is drawing a tenuous link between one thing and another
    b) Gay marriage and adoption are seperate issues - at present, gay couples can and do adopt children. So the argument is moot.
    c) I dont really see how free speech or practice is going to be affected. Churches wont have to marry gay couples, so why would this be a problem.
    d) Religions dont own marriage and by extension the definition

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    The article posted by the Conversation and reposted by the ABC, from Trinity college in Melbourne is hardly accurate, and is just trying to jump fences in my opinion. I wouldn't think it is reliable in its interpretation of the Bible (reading ideas of convenience and weird argumental logic and assertions about past culture that are misleading)
    If 16 years of Catholic education (primary, high school and uni) taught me anything, it's that the bible is far from clear cut on anything. Hence why there are a million Christian denominations claiming to have all the answers. The way I always read it, I never really saw the whole argument against either homosexuality or gay marriage. I also didnt read the ABC article you mention, but it would probably prove my point on the whole, open to intepretation since even scholars cant agree.
    Moderator: Modern History, Legal Studies, Studies of Religion (SOR), Commerce/Business and The University of Notre Dame Australia

    Essay Guides:
    - Modern History
    - Legal Studies
    -
    Ex-HSC Student (2010) ****
    Advanced English l Maths 2U l Economics l Legal Studies l Modern History l Studies of Religion I

  15. #15
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    a) This is drawing a tenuous link between one thing and another

    Hardly, look at the US & Canada, even the UK. There are some things about the way that this is pushed using the exact same rhetoric and line of reasoning. While those who are of the "don't give a jatz cracker" camp when it comes to same-sex marriage, and will probably vote "yes" or in some places "no" (depends on a bunch of factors), realising that removing the distinction between genders, removes one critical barrier when it comes to pushing for "transgender" rights, which itself is a tricky issue to navigate and potential dangers in simply rolling through the next logical step after same-sex marriage.

    b) Gay marriage and adoption are seperate issues - at present, gay couples can and do adopt children. So the argument is moot.

    Yeah as if that somehow reduces the implication of same-sex marriage? You are right to say a certificate of paper won't affect adoption etc. But this is more broad, and looks at actually how children are brought into the world, and the children benefit best in a stable relationship, with 2 complimentary role models. After all, it is the main reason why the state gets involved in marriage. The state doesn't care about your private sexual lives, and even the church doesn't try to comment for those who aren't of the faith (and leaves that to God), so the government never sought to recognise marriage simply because of one man/one woman ; or two people (depending on your position)'s sexual love for one another.

    No, it is a related issue, because for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, marriage has a meaning/purpose other than just "lovey-dubby" sexual unions of adults, but consequentially the raising of children. Not saying that every married couple bears children, but naturally it is natural ends/consequence of man-woman marriage (that doesn't exist in same-sex marriage which relies on adoption and surrogancy and other methods, some of which are ethically grey areas or even problematic). It is because many who are for same-sex marriage,

    I am also fairly certain, adoption laws favour married couples over de facto relationships, because the former is considered more stable, but also because of the presence of two complimentary role models.

    Generally, you will find that at the same time as people who wish to preserve traditional marriage, also wish to favour those stable marriages (not talking about abusive ones here), over other relationships when it comes to adoption. The flow on effect of this change, will it happen?

    c) I dont really see how free speech or practice is going to be affected. Churches wont have to marry gay couples, so why would this be a problem.

    You yourself mentioned that church-protections aren't even guaranteed, a couple of replies earlier. Maybe at first
    Maybe worth examining Canada and the US. Even already, if you don't agree, and you speak up respectfully you are named bigot, homophobic and even delusional, hardly a respectful way. This is just the tip, already cases of litigation of religious schools, bakeries in the UK, Canada, even parents who conscientiously object to a LGBTIQ narrative (and similar problems have been had with Safe Schools).

    I am sure you are respectful but unfortunately there is a lot of presumptions and mud-slinging in this debate which isn't helpful.

    But to answer your question, consider this senate enquiry. It has a range of opinions, which is the reality. Linked at end of reply.

    But many, even those who support same-sex marriage, look at the way it is being argued, and frankly it is not very good for their ends.
    When LGBTIQ activists go after those who oppose them, inciting/encouraging threatening action, it should be concerning. (And this is without SSM actually being legislated yet).

    Another very important consideration, if same-sex marriage is passed, the next logical step is not beastiality or pedophilia or even polygamy, but a radical redefinition of gender, and we already see that in the classroom/society.


    d) Religions dont own marriage and by extension the definition
    I did mention that in passing, although most religious, and neither does the ME activist. The common law and the statute law which are currently in agreement, is what is applied consistently and fairly. The Sex Discrimination Act makes it clear than this is not an unreasonable case of discrimination.

    But yet even the non-religious, some, still hold to a more traditional/conservative view of marriage. The church never owned it, marriage is an organic union, that grew out of the natural, biological and sexual differences between male & female, the evolutionary benefits of reproduction, and as mentioned earlier, until recently, procreation was seen as part of the purposes in marriage by design at least.

    The heart of the debate, is on the definition. Misunderstanding why the definition is at is currently, and has been since Federation, and before, is probably a big reason why those who wish to preserve are not being well understood. That is why children are raised.

    The problem with the way it is being argued for change, is sometimes, but instead poor arguments:
    - labelling everyone who disagrees as bigots/homophobes
    - pressuring religious/independent schools to accept and teach LGBTIQ theory, which amongst scholars is highly and rightly contested.
    - pressuring bakeries and other wedding-related, to go against conscience, under threat of closing business.
    - the Magaret Court incident and the immaturity of both sides, but notably the
    - presuming that marriage equality has a majority (which it may do), but then arguing the reason against the plebiscite is "if the 'no' camp'
    - accusing those who disagree of inciting and increasing LGBTIQ suicide, which is misleading.

    If 16 years of Catholic education (primary, high school and uni) taught me anything, it's that the bible is far from clear cut on anything. Hence why there are a million Christian denominations claiming to have all the answers.
    No, the reason there a million of denominations is because of the following reasons
    - different churches associated with different regions of the world e.g. Anglican = English, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox etc.
    - different teachings on minor matters, often things that aren't mentioned much in the Bible.
    - different authorities (some groups reject the Bible)

    I have been a Christian for 15 years, and Jesus is fairly clear cut on marriage and a lot of other things. There are other things where it isn't as clear. but when it comes to salvation for instance, the Bible couldn't be clearer. But that is probably better suited for the "Does God exist thread".

    I reject Roman Catholicism for a variety of reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised that both Catholic and liberal teaching, does muddy the waters, in an attempt to interpret teachings to suit themselves (the latter particularly to a post-modernist reading); and that is a reason for me, to reject their teachings.
    The way I always read it, I never really saw the whole argument against either homosexuality or gay marriage.
    Fair enough. Although the argument should never be on homosexuality, as the government has no right to legislate for the bedroom, not to mention that the main emphasis on the current definition of marriage doesn't really comment on sexual orientation directly.

    The argument for a Christian with marriage, theologically speaking (so not really relevant as an argument against in secular law btw, but people still can exercise with their feet), is primarily based on 2 things:

    - God's design in creation, male & female, and then the creation of marriage, to spread God's blessing to the nations through physical descendants,
    (which is only biologically possible between one man and one woman). Ethics on sexuality come out of God's design for sex to be exclusively in this union.
    - But more importantly, when Jesus came in Matthew 19/Mark 10, he affirmed this understanding of marriage, but a shift is less on marriage, but more on spreading God's blessing to the nations, in the proclaiming of forgiveness and reconciliation found in Jesus, that is the Gospel.
    - And so marriage becomes a picture of the complimentary relationship between Christ and his bride, the church; where Christ radically lays down his life for his bride and the bride humbly follows Christ's leadership (Ephesians 5). (It also points to relationships within God). I am currently studying Revelation, alongside my uni studies, and there is a picture of this heavenly marriage in Revelation 19. Hence emphasis on two genders not just two of the same partaking in the marriage.

    I also didnt read the ABC article you mention, but it would probably prove my point on the whole, open to intepretation since even scholars cant agree.
    Nah it doesn't. Any one can read the Bible, like people read Shakespeare, a feminist reading, a post-modernist reading; doesn't make it actually true to what the text is actually saying in its historical context (think of it as literature). The problem is when people read modern ideas into the text, because they want it to say something, when it is clearly saying something else.

    Yeah we will probably have to agree to disagree though. As mentioned above, the heart of the debate is what marriage is.
    for many I suspect it is just a way to be validated or seen as the pinnacle expression of love. However I think it involves a lot more than that, and the implications of changing one part, does have a flow on effect.

    ====
    http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...tte/report.pdf

    Some items of interest, pasted for easy reading, although best to read the full report. I think in Australia, we are striving to have more protections than other nations.

    2.45 Item 6 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 proposes to insert new section 47A into the
    Marriage Act, to provide marriage celebrants with a right to refuse to solemnise
    same-sex marriages:
    (1) A marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to
    solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:
    (a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a
    woman; and
    (b) the marriage celebrant's conscientious or religious beliefs do not
    allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.

    2.46 However, some submitters and witnesses contended that the two classes of
    'marriage celebrants' are distinct from one another and should not be treated
    identically. In particular, some argued that civil celebrants should not be provided
    with an exemption, allowing them to opt out of solemnising same-sex marriages.

    Section 3
    3.5 Australia is the signatory to several international instruments on human rights
    relating to marriage and familial relationships, some of which have been ratified
    • Internationally, the right to marry is enshrined in Article 23 of the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    • The right to non-discrimination and equality is enshrined in the Articles
    2 and 26 of the ICCPR.
    • Freedom of religion, including the freedom to publically manifest one’s
    religious beliefs is enshrined in Article 18(1) of the ICCPR, described as
    'freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public
    or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
    practice and teaching.'


    3.6 The UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) has only considered the issue
    of same-sex marriage once, in the case of Joslin v New Zealand (Joslin) in 1999. The
    UN HRC found that:
    In light of the scope of the right to marry under article 23, paragraph 2,
    of the Covenant, the Committee cannot find that by mere refusal to provide
    for marriage between homosexual couples, the State party has violated the
    rights of the authors under articles 16, 17, 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, or 26 of
    the Covenant.

    3.7 In recent cases, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has similarly
    concluded that a comparative provision in the European Convention on Human Rights
    does not require Contracting States to afford access to same-sex marriage. In the 2014
    case, Hämäläinen v Finland, the ECHR ruled that Article 12 and Article 8 of the
    European Convention on Human Rights:
    [Did] not impose an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex
    couples access to marriage. Nor could Article 8, a provision of more
    general purpose and scope, be interpreted as imposing such an obligation.

    3.8 Despite these rulings, the ECHR has recognised that this is an evolving
    question, and in recent cases has moved towards encouraging states to offer protection in law to same-sex couples that is equivalent to marriage.

    3.9 A further affirmation of this position was the 2015 case of Oliari and Others v
    Italy, where the ECHR identified the relevant criteria for determining claims of
    equality as:
    …the extent to which same-sex couples are 'in a relevantly similar situation
    to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and
    protection of their relationship'.
    On the Right to Marry

    3.12 Article 23 of the ICCPR protects 'the right of men and women of marriageable
    age to marry and to found a family'.10 In 1999, the UN HRC considered whether this right encompasses same-sex marriage, ultimately finding that it does not. Further, a State Party is not obliged by Article 23 of the ICCPR to introduce same-sex
    marriage.

    3.29 The question of whether different treatment under the law always amounts to
    discrimination has arisen in international jurisprudence on the issue of same sex
    marriage. The UN HCR General Comment 18 on Article 26 of the ICCPR is clear that
    under certain circumstances it does not:
    [T]he Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will
    constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are
    reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
    legitimate under the Covenant.
    3.30 The question of whether different treatment under the law always amounts to
    discrimination is a fundamental question in the same-sex marriage debate. The UN
    HCR General Comment 18 on Article 26 of the ICCPR is clear that under certain
    circumstances it does not:
    [T]he Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will
    constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are
    reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
    legitimate under the Covenant.

    3.31 The ICCPR's traveaux préparatoires is similarly clear when discussing "All
    persons are equal before the law" in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
    Rights:
    The provision was intended to ensure equality, not identity, of treatment,
    and would not preclude reasonable differentiations between individuals or
    groups of individuals


    ====
    And pretty much all of reasons given for/against marriage come down to that statement, whether we should "differentiate", or whether it does make a difference.

    (And of course, and I cannot be bothered editing them, i have incompleted sentences and bad grammar)
    Last edited by dan964; 24 Aug 2017 at 9:21 PM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  16. #16
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    crossing those hills
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    wow this is a throwback to 2004 internet

  17. #17
    The pessimistic optimist. BLIT2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    9,465
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    https://www.theguardian.com/australi...quality-survey


    Exclusive: Lord mayor Clover Moore calls extraordinary meeting to present plan to back campaign with financial support
    I can barely see up and down and back again
    Despite what you believe I keep away from trouble
    If who I am today's a sign of where I'm going
    I'm ready to embrace


    Got 1-2 minutes ? Please do my survey :P https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8ZPYZSD
    Moderator of Macquarie University

  18. #18
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    crossing those hills
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    more clover

  19. #19
    Junior Member Red_of_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite


  20. #20
    Junior Member Red_of_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    172
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    c) I dont really see how free speech or practice is going to be affected. Churches wont have to marry gay couples, so why would this be a problem.

    You yourself mentioned that church-protections aren't even guaranteed, a couple of replies earlier. Maybe at first
    Maybe worth examining Canada and the US. Even already, if you don't agree, and you speak up respectfully you are named bigot, homophobic and even delusional, hardly a respectful way.
    Could you provide any cases in countries with legalised gay marriage where churches were forced to marry gay couples?

  21. #21
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    crossing those hills
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    i was forced

  22. #22
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,772
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...c06b1ba846e806

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_of_Head View Post
    Could you provide any cases in countries with legalised gay marriage where churches were forced to marry gay couples?
    No, but that would be very extreme and people wouldn't support SSM if that was an obvious effect.

    But religious schools are an easier target...
    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Britis...-issues-498177

    And religious individuals, especially in the US, being sued over politely refusing to provide services to a gay wedding that causes injury/offence to religious beliefs.
    (For some it is akin/equivalent to forcing a muslim to eat non-halal food etc.) While the church may be more protected, at this point. But there are definitely concerns raised for those who are not clergy.

    Was near a rally, and was interesting how they generalise all those who disagree with SSM, as the same people who opposed indigenious peoples etc (quite a strawman) may I add.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download). Purchase a downloadable/printable copy on SELLFY here + Year 10 notes
    Maths Notes - Free Sample
    Chemistry Notes Sample + Buy (soon)

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/ (2017 papers uploaded)

  23. #23
    Moderator enoilgam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    HSC
    2010
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Mare Crisium
    Posts
    11,863
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    And religious individuals, especially in the US, being sued over politely refusing to provide services to a gay wedding that causes injury/offence to religious beliefs.
    (For some it is akin/equivalent to forcing a muslim to eat non-halal food etc.)
    The law will contain religious protections from my understanding (which I do fully agree with). That being said, serving gays is like eating pork for Muslims - really. I guess Jesus only surrounded himself with people who held the highest moral standards of his time, like the pharisees - he certainly didnt cavort with tax collectors and prostitutes. To me, turning people away is not a very Christian thing to do, especially if you believe they are "sinners".

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Was near a rally, and was interesting how they generalise all those who disagree with SSM, as the same people who opposed indigenious peoples etc (quite a strawman) may I add.
    In their view, they lack full equality before the law, much like many oppressed people from the past. For many gay people, this is about more than marriage, it's about undoing the last piece following years of societal oppression and being told how evil and bad they are.
    Moderator: Modern History, Legal Studies, Studies of Religion (SOR), Commerce/Business and The University of Notre Dame Australia

    Essay Guides:
    - Modern History
    - Legal Studies
    -
    Ex-HSC Student (2010) ****
    Advanced English l Maths 2U l Economics l Legal Studies l Modern History l Studies of Religion I

  24. #24
    The pessimistic optimist. BLIT2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    9,465
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    ABS releases survey form as mass mail-out begins
    I can barely see up and down and back again
    Despite what you believe I keep away from trouble
    If who I am today's a sign of where I'm going
    I'm ready to embrace


    Got 1-2 minutes ? Please do my survey :P https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8ZPYZSD
    Moderator of Macquarie University

  25. #25
    Administrator Trebla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    HSC
    2006
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,052
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Individuals have till August 24th to sign up to vote in the postal plebiscite

    In b4 census-like fail

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •