Oh yes it does... 
and its very clear that I'm honestly addressing what the declaration says and you and others are not.

If you do research on the creation of the declaration you will see I'm even more right.

10/12/1948 mothra it wasn't written yesterday maybe the UN needed to do what Howard did and clarify for those too disingenuous like yourself who try to reinterpret the actual original true meaning of article 16.
Clue; It was talking about same sex marriage.

Grendel wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 1:55pm:



Grendel, nowhere does it mention "founding a family "naturally".

I shall ask you again, would that not be discriminatory to heterosexual couples who an't conceive "naturally"?

Grendel wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 1:55pm:


What about article 2?

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Not to mention article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

If homosexuals are born free and equal, which of course they are, then they attain all of the rights therein. This includes the freedoms of Article 16 without equivocation.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 11:56pm:




What devious agenda are you referring to?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2017 at 11:46am:


Which is a brilliant move from the coalition.

It creates a useful scapegoat. The Australian Electoral Commission is an independent body with a statutory obligation to transparency. Australian Post is... well, not. So if you want to limit transparency for, say, a large scale national vote on civil rights, AusPost is a great choice.

As scapegoats go, they're a wonderfully obvious one for when backbenchers like Andrew Hastie angrily insist that obviously all those anti-change ballots must have gone missing somehow and he can't possibly think of voting until there's an investigation. 

Any optional vote will have less of a turnout than a compulsory one, so only the most motivated will actually bother. And since the result will be used as a justification for the free vote in parliament which has to happen regardless, it provides plenty of cover for MPs and senators to go "well, only 38 per cent of Australians voted at all so clearly this isn't a matter the nation considers important" before voting against it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24^th, 2017 at 8:27am:

Oblivious to Safe Schools are you?

Grendel wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 7:44am: