Yowiehunters Forum

Got this link to a supposed 'Draft Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex
Marriage) Bill 201X'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_co ... hFTE0/view


... no idea where it came from or if it is legit but I hope to get time to read it over the coming days nonetheless.

Slightly off-topic, but related... not sure how many have heard of The Safe Schools Program launched by LaTrobe University?

In 1982 the Acting Director behind this initiative wrote an article called Boiled Lollies and Bandaids: Gay Men and Kids.

Some excerpts:

“First, we have three legal/social questions to win: custody rights for gay men and lesbians; the legal right of paedophiles and their young loves; and finally, the sexual rights of children as a whole.”
“And I also have a friend, a paedophile, who is working very hard on making sense out of his relations with boys. Those relations consist of, among other things, a large amount of nurture and support for these boys, a real caring for their welfare and growth.”
“How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover? From all their accounts and from many academic studies (some worse than others), that kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship.”
“The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”

With people like this starting government-funded initiatives, is it any wonder I don't trust 'the system'?

From : https://unsafeschools.org/the-australia ... niversity/

I love the banter between both of you (Scarts and Wof). Have not been this entertained in a long time, I am sorry I can't reply with the same wit.


I just basically think most people are good, trying to survive and get by in a world that gets harder and harder to live in. Yes Wolf I probably am a bit niaev.

Zed

Sorry Wolf that wasn't on purpose (Wof), I am on an iPad that covers half of what I write, and between the predictive text and accidentally swiping I am bound to slip up.

My apologies again.

Zed

I dont know whos more off putting in this debate. Both sides are talking rubbish all over the media. Im going to do what i think is right and vote yes. People shouldnt be persecuted or bullied and if its that important to the gay community then they can have my vote.

Still i dont lnow what Wolf is worried about. Theres no way the yes vote will go through.

Whats really funny is these homophobic aussie metro sexual males in their pink shirts and man perfume calling everyone fags that look different. " metro no understand. Metro smash fag".

Maybe if the bill goes through they can all marry each other and come out of the closet for good?

Wolf, that safe schools initiative excerpt by the acting director is 35 years old, and is alarming to say the least that it was ever printed ever. "The current paedophilia debate is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement.
paedophiles need our support". Wtf???????!!'!!

I think this absurd abstract is confusing a gay man displaying parental love as the same as paedophilia?? Have I interpreted it correctly? I can't even work out what part of paedophilia was being debated?

The only support a paedophile needs can be found in the prison system where they belong.

It has no relevance to this debate and is yet another irrational fear. There is no hidden paedophile agendas in the same sex marriage debate, which again, is about consenting adults who have the freedom and right to express parental love like straight couples.

Zed wrote:I love the banter between both of you (Scarts and Wof). Have not been this entertained in a long time, I am sorry I can't reply with the same wit.


I just basically think most people are good, trying to survive and get by in a world that gets harder and harder to live in. Yes Wolf I probably am a bit niaev.

Zed

Yes, I agree... the vast majority of people just want to live and let live.

The problem is the same issue that has repeated itself since humans started forming communities... Power (which by its nature attracts socio/psychopaths like attracts flies).

Throughout history said socio/psychopaths will worm their way into the power positions within society regardless of how well the system is set up to prevent such concentrations of power. No matter how utopian or fair it is for any system to work there must be some hierarchy or power structure. Someone has to have some form of deciding power over the masses, whether it is socialist, communist, capitalist, monarchial or a Constitutional Monarchy (like Australia).

(Even Libya's Jamahiriya had at minimum a 'Power figurehead' in the form of Gaddafi. Despite what the media said over the last 40 years, this was in fact the closest system I have been able to find to a truly fair political system and worked exceptionally well until the Banksters decided to destroy it. Gaddafi himself once replied to a reporter's question about when he was going to 'give' democracy' to the Libyan people "Democracy? We are far more advanced than that outmoded system" ...or words to that effect.)

The American Republic system WAS a good idea for the people. So much so the London Banksters assassinated presidents, started wars and non-stop caused all sorts of trouble for the Republic, only stopping when they finally won with the Federal Reserve Act getting signed into law in 1913. (And even after that presidents were assassinated for daring to put the power of issuing currency back into the hands of the people... JFK, assassinated two weeks after signing Executive Order 11110)

Australia's own Constitutional Monarchy WAS also a good idea (perhaps even better than America's Republic). Which is why it had to be taken down by stealth and subversion over time. One major step forward was the Names and Titles Act of 1973 which effectively REMOVED the Monarch (the Queen of the Commonwealth) and replaced him/her with the 'Queen of Australia'.

Since then the Constitution has been steadily subverted by stealth with the Constitutions of each state being by now fully replaced with new ones WITHOUT CONSULTING THE PEOPLE in referenda as required by Law.
Each State now operates under an unlawful, amended constitution (as proven by myself and others in court over and over again).

In fact, under International Law, Australia's system of governance is now completely illegal and any attempt to change it back is met with full force from the Powers That Be. As said before, the people have been removed from their positions as shareholders in the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth is technically bankrupt and under administration by an entity now known as the Australian Government. Those positions are now held by the politicians as administrators of the bankruptcy while the people have been reduced to contracted debtors for the bankruptcy.

Said bankruptcy COULD have been resolved decades ago (like Putin recently did for Russia) but it is not in the interest of the administrators to kill off their 'cash cow'

To sum up, yes Zed, you are naive. As are the vast, vast majority of citizens.
But its not your fault. To be otherwise would require many MANY long hours of research and study of things we all SHOULD be taught in school. (I personally devoted literally years of study to this topic) But by design, we are not. How many reading this have even read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia? Let alone been taught it in the Government Indoctrination System (school)?

And don't stress over the spelling, I too often use an iPad and the predictive text/spell check can be a pain in the

Well said Wolf.

The whole Middle Eastern war was IMO designed to take away people of their free rights because the middle east was seen as a hindrance to the NWO much like Russia is programed to the world to be the evil one and China among others.

We have been told lie after lie through historical events which some, if not most are manufactured through these events, then we have the media to TELL us what is happening, while the truth gets swept under.

Getting slightly back on topic I have voted No for the simple fact that I believe Religious freedom and other freedoms will be taken away from the people.

Everything that has happened yesterday, today and tomorrow is planned.

Yes, you are right Wolf, it does take alot of research, trying to find the truth in amongst all the bull .

I barely keep up with the forum, let alone the politics of the day.

Zed

Dion wrote:Well said Wolf.

The whole Middle Eastern war was IMO designed to take away people of their free rights because the middle east was seen as a hindrance to the NWO much like Russia is programed to the world to be the evil one and China among others.

We have been told lie after lie through historical events which some, if not most are manufactured through these events, then we have the media to TELL us what is happening, while the truth gets swept under.

Getting slightly back on topic I have voted No for the simple fact that I believe Religious freedom and other freedoms will be taken away from the people.

Everything that has happened yesterday, today and tomorrow is planned.

Spot on Dion.

Religious Freedom is long gone, as are most freedoms. Tragically, most were given away without a second thought or stolen in secret.

They won't be gotten back without a fight, sadly.

The argument about marriage equality is a furphy to distract the public. Far from being a Trojan Horse, it's more like a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

The outcome makes no difference to anyone who isn't directly involved. I'm more concerned about the TTP in all honesty.

We might as well be arguing about the AFL Grand Final for all the difference this will make to our lives, in my opinion.

Simon M wrote:Religious Freedom is long gone, as are most freedoms. Tragically, most were given away without a second thought or stolen in secret.

They won't be gotten back without a fight, sadly.

The argument about marriage equality is a furphy to distract the public. Far from being a Trojan Horse, it's more like a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

The outcome makes no difference to anyone who isn't directly involved. I'm more concerned about the TTP in all honesty.

We might as well be arguing about the AFL Grand Final for all the difference this will make to our lives, in my opinion.

I agree, sadly we are fast approaching the point where the Tree of Liberty requires watering.

"For freedom to persist the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (quoting from memory Jefferson, or some other revolutionary from the USA))

The SSM vote is just the tip of the iceberg, basically, a litmus test of what demands and concessions will follow. The alphabet people are backed by an aggressive, militant PC brigade (a ruse to the true identity) not just in Australia but worldwide who really couldn't care less about the issue at all. They have any amount of seditious schemes lined up in the crosshairs and in IMO at the top of the agenda is the destruction of Christianity or at the very least authoritative control of religion except for the one which they openly condone and have no control over.

The recent outburst by a group of YES campaigners at an organised Christian NO rally demanding that all Christians be crucified is an example of the vilification we are dealing with. Once their concessions are handed to them it will be the beginning of a domino effect that unless you adhere to their demands you pay.

Be careful what you agree to not just on SSM but on the many issues that will follow, once you relinquish your rights through legislation you will never get them back.

sensesonfire wrote:... once you relinquish your rights through legislation you will never get them back.

Sorry, already happened, already relinquished.

So, is it time to water the tree?

hillbilly wrote:So, is it time to water the tree?

If it's a lemon tree, the MP's in Canberra are already taking the piss so it might be in strife.

I dislike Shorten intensely because I think he's the puppet of wealthy foreign interests (like his good friend Sam Dastyari, only Bill's better at covering his tracks) but I also dislike Turnbull's condescension and 'Private School Bully Boy' persona (which has been striding to the forefront ever since the night he 'won' the election). No more leather jackets and republics for Mal, it seems...he's a complete fraud. I wonder if he still catches the train, or was that only during the election campaign?

It's pretty clear the whole thing's a feeble Dog & Pony show by now; especially given all the fuss with these numerous Federal MP's whose citizenship status is unclear (funny how Tony Abbott hasn't said a word about that particular issue despite being so vocal about a number of others...I wonder who leaked all that info to the media? Tony was born in England, after all, and must've had to ensure his citizenship status was flawless before he ran for the highest political office in the land). It's a farce. If you watch the ABC's The House, hosted by Annabel Crabb, the sheer arrogance of the MP's is jaw dropping. They don't even feel the need to hide their hubris any longer.

Most of them seem more concerned about which paintings they'll get to hang in their office, or which crockery is used in the dining room, than anything else. They can even tune out and listen to the cricket in the middle of doing their jobs. Or get blind drunk, pass out in their office, miss crucial votes, and then laugh about it on TV later.

When you see these people at 'work', and think about how many people are sleeping rough in our big cities, or how many genuinely desperate people cannot get access to social services, it's sickening.

All The House did was confirm my worst suspicions. They need a massive time-in-motion study in Parliament House. I wonder if our MP's would consider paying for all their 'expenses' on a cashless card, so there isn't any more 'confusion' about what is or isn't allowed as a work expense? Maybe a Royal Commission would make them lift their game...or maybe it's too late to fix it.

America stopped being a Republic - in any sense - and became an Empire well over a Century ago. We're a vassal state, beholden to them. I've been reading a great book - Lost City of the Monkey God by Douglas Preston - and it goes into quite a bit of detail about the destructive relationship between the U.S. and Honduras. Honduras, you see, is the original 'Banana Republic', whose government was corrupted and controlled by wealthy American businessmen (in this case, banana growers like Samuel Zemurray, who manipulated and bribed entire governments to further their own ends).

I don't like Paul Keating much either, but he was right about another thing - we could really become a 'Banana Republic' if we're not careful. We're already on the way. The only question is whether it'll be America or China growing the bananas.

Sorry. rant over (again).

I should not be getting testy about this topic, regardless, I am.

This 'conspiracy' thinking, that EVERYTHING is a front or distraction for something else is getting out of hand, and while this is the correct forum for it, please, understand this.

Forget all the other political examples that have been mentioned here and concentrate on the reason for the Same Sex Marriage (SSM) plebescite:

It's NOT got anything to do with anything, except a legal and emotional fair go.



While there are blanket de-facto laws in place, and these are what SSM folks are forced to be satisfied with, they are not equal to what the traditional male-female partnership called marriage, offers.

There are some things which are legally binding, which are already covered in legislature, but claiming SSM couples have the same rights as straight couples is BULL. They are not.

Why?

Because SSMs cannot get married legally in this country, the laws pertaining to a 'married couple' and all of the automatic benefits bestowed on a male-female union sanctioned by not just the church, but by civil union celebrants, do not apply to them.

Without this married status, blood kin have jurisdiction over many SS partners, when it comes to illness, medical treatment and the loss of a partner to death, and the subsequent Will provisions made by the deceased.

Imagine your loved one's family did not approve of your being gay/bi/trans etc.
Imagine your loved one ended up in hospital, and their disapproving family actively prevented you from visiting them, by stating to the hospital Drs that you are NOT family, and therefore, are to be escorted off the premises...
Imagine your partner had a long-standing agreement with you that they would accept a blood transfusion, as they did not want to be part of that religion that forbids it... and then they ended up in hospital, unconscious and unable to speak for themselves.
Imagine if there was a good chance medically that they would die without a blood transfusion, and that their religious family, as legal next-of-kin, actively prevented that medical transfusion treatment because of their views, actively over-riding the wishes of their relation, unable to stand up for their own life and health decisions, and ignoring yours.
Imagine, then, that your loved one died.
Imagine how you would feel if the family barred you from having anything to do with your loved one's last wishes and funeral.
Imagine if they contested the deceased's Will, and because you had no legal standing as a married spouse/widow, contested the Will and won (as they usually do).
Imagine how you would feel, feeling as if you were invisible, unable to help your SS partner have what they wanted, even in death.

THIS is the reality of EQUALITY with straight couples, and why the current system is destroying the lives of any LGBTQ folk who have had the horrific situation described above, thrust upon them.

The current laws only go so far, and cannot over-ride the wishes of blood relatives, unless those partners have the security of the legal term MARRIAGE.

Not all SS people have intolerant family who would actively go out of their way to make their SS partner's life hell, but plenty do. I know. I've seen people I know and love get put through the wringer first hand. Two of them suicided afterwards, as everything they loved and had worked for was destroyed by their partner's family.

None of these laws will change to affect straight couples who are married or want to get married.

If you believe all this c**p about how it will 'destroy the sanctimony of marriage' let me remind you that there are millions of straight married people out there who steal, abuse their wives/husbands/kids, have affairs, drive drunk, murder, indulge in paedophiia, sex trafficking, drug smuggling and a dozen other unsavoury and illegal practices, then you need to stop repeating rhetoric and educate yourselves. Being straight does not confer on you some mystical status that all you do is sanctified.

If you really believe that what happens in the confines of a same-sex relationship if marriage is allowed in this country, as it is in a plethora of other advanced and equitable countries, will affect your straight marriage... you need to wake up. Do you care what your other straight, married friends and family do in their lives? Not usually, I hope. So why should you give a toss about same-sex couples if they are allowed to legally marry? It's the same thing. Bitching about other people's lives puts you right up there with teenage schoolkids and playground bullies and bored losers who spend their time online complaining about whatever flavour of the week topic enters their spiritually and morally empty heads.

OH, and one last thing. If you yourself are married, adore your partner to the moon and back and couldn't imagine life without them... remember why you committed yourself to that life-long contract called marriage.

It's possibly because you love them.


Denying others the legal security and emotional support that you already have makes you look uncaring and callous.
Not everyone is religious and wants/needs the OK of the Church to be happy.
If you are religious, and believe in the 'God is love' thing, on a human level, this is the time to apply that learning.
And just so you know, same-sex marriages were in existence in many cultures LONG before this new-kid-on-the-block called Christianity came along, and claimed that the only true bonds were to be between a man and a woman (Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Japanese Buddhists, American First Nation peoples, Polynesian races, etc.).

Look up 'Dog in the manger' and that's what this whole 'no' vote seems to me.

If you consider yourself a good and just person, Christian or not, you need to look outside your own beliefs and experiences and see the ugly truth of the world as we know it, and not just believe what your read on Facebook, and see in the incredibly biased and politically-controlled media. Do your own homework. Talk to someone who isn't straight and SEEK answers from those directly affected.

And if at the end of the day, you still can't get off your pedestal of perfection and insist on your right to decry another's life... then you lack the understanding needed to make a fair and equitable decision.

Some facts:
The history of same-sex marriage in Australia includes its express prohibition by the Howard Government in 2004 and numerous subsequent attempts to legalise it at both federal and state/territory levels, none of which have succeeded as of 2017. Although a same-sex marriage law was passed by the Australian Capital Territory in 2013, it was struck down by the High Court on the basis of inconsistency with federal law.[1] The Court's decision closed the possibility of concurrent state or territory laws that would allow same-sex marriage where federal law did not.

As of 2017, there have been 22 unsuccessful attempts in the Federal Parliament to legalise or recognise same-sex marriage under federal law. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, supports same-sex marriage. The Turnbull Government went to the 2016 federal election with a policy to put the issue of same-sex marriage to a plebiscite, and was narrowly re-elected, though the legislation to establish the plebiscite was rejected by the Australian Senate in November 2016.

The voluntary Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey will be held to ascertain respondents' views on whether same-sex marriage should be introduced to Australian law. The final tally of votes from the postal plebiscite poll is expected to be completed by November 15, 2017. If the plebiscite is in favour of SSM, the government has said that a bill legalizing SSM will be introduced in the House in late November or early December, where it is expected to pass. (Parliamentarians are not bound by the results of the poll, but many have promised to respect the final outcome.) If the final tally is opposed, Turnbull has said no bill will proceed to a parliamentary vote.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _Australia

Historical Same Sex Marriage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... sex_unions

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of ... riage.html


End of rant.

Good rant and some well brought up points.

I have no disagreement with any and agree with them. As I mentioned, I am Not 'legally' married to my spouse as neither of us feel the need to have our love quantified by either Big Bro or any religion.

That aside, the topic which still stands and concerns me is: what's hidden?

Time and time again, 'special interests' USE people's sense of 'right and wrong' to promote a hidden agenda. I have devoted decades to following and studying geopolitics, social constructs and the various agendas of those who desire to control society. I see it happen over and over again.

An example: 'Right-thinking' people in the US wanted to instigate a fairer, more equitable health care system where even the poorest would have the 'right' to health care and medicine. How could anyone NOT want such a thing for their society?

But then when it came to the details, it became apparent the 'Affordable Health care act' (ObamaCare) was in reality written by the big Insurance Corporations to benefit themselves. Sure, some of the poorest got their health care, but the vast majority of people were practically forced into poverty by this insidious Act as their policies first doubled, then tripled, then quadrupled to all intents and purposes overnight... while the very corporations that wrote the Act experienced record profits!!!!

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Simon, that was the Tree of Liberty.
Look up "Tree of liberty" quote, Thomas Jefferson.

Wolf wrote:

sensesonfire wrote:... once you relinquish your rights through legislation you will never get them back.

Sorry, already happened, already relinquished.

You are right Wolf but if you think what we have relinquished already is the end of the story believe me that is nothing in what lies ahead.



Shazzoir commented
Denying others the legal security and emotional support that you already have makes you look uncaring and callous.
Not everyone is religious and wants/needs the OK of the Church to be happy.
If you are religious, and believe in the 'God is love' thing, on a human level, this is the time to apply that learning.
And just so you know, same-sex marriages were in existence in many cultures LONG before this new-kid-on-the-block called Christianity came along, and claimed that the only true bonds were to be between a man and a woman (Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Japanese Buddhists, American First Nation peoples, Polynesian races, etc.).


Shazzoir I'm a Christian believer but I'm not a regular church attendee and I would never project myself as a Christian Paragon of Virtue.

It is not the SSM debate that I'm concerned with as I believe everybody has free will to live their lives as they wish providing it doesn't harm others. What does seriously concerns me is the true agenda behind the erosion of other people's free will.

As you say ''And just so you know, same-sex marriages were in existence in many cultures LONG before this new-kid-on-the-block called Christianity came along, and claimed that the only true bonds were to be between a man and a woman (Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Japanese Buddhists, American First Nation peoples, Polynesian races, etc.)."

I'd also like to add so were incestuous marriages amongst these nations and how do you think that would go down if it was still a legal practice. I would suggest that our Judeo-Christian Western society and some other religions provide a stable environment ''God is love'' thing and once these boundaries are destroyed we are on an ''express elevator to hell''. I'm not an overt optimist and I believe the destruction of human rights is starting to gather pace and will only exacerbate of the next decade or less.

True, Senses, but if that were the case on every occasion, don't you think non-Christian countries would be in trouble by now?

Our and other governments have a way of manipulating issues likely to cause emotional reactions designed to polarise the public view one way or another, while using the kerfuffle as a smokescreen to sneak other issues/bills into parliament, to be voted on and passed. I have no doubt something similar is afoot in this instance, but I do not follow these things closely enough to know what might be afoot.

Shazzoir wrote:True, Senses, but if that were the case on every occasion, don't you think non-Christian countries would be in trouble by now?

Our and other governments have a way of manipulating issues likely to cause emotional reactions designed to polarise the public view one way or another, while using the kerfuffle as a smokescreen to sneak other issues/bills into parliament, to be voted on and passed. I have no doubt something similar is afoot in this instance, but I do not follow these things closely enough to know what might be afoot.

Hi Shazzoir, A lot of my thought patterns evolve around hidden agendas or what I believe are conspiracies. There are two completed major projects in the world today and from what I've seen of the videos and clues I've discovered to the true intentions honestly, scares the c**p out of me to the point I am very reluctant to talk about them publically.

Very valid points Shazzoir, I think the SSM thing "is what it is"!

You can't talk about our freedom lost, and in the same breath deny another's by not allowing them to marry. And IMO political correctness is really about excepting and treating everyone fairly, does this really equal a loss of freedom. I would like to know exactly what freedom or rights we are losing?

Zed

hillbilly wrote:Simon, that was the Tree of Liberty.
Look up "Tree of liberty" quote, Thomas Jefferson.

I know the source of the quote. I just wanted to rant about the MP's in Canberra and used the lemon tree/take the piss thing as an intro.

Whilst it makes great rhetoric, and is a well written speech pertinent to its time, the idea that warfare is somehow inevitable isn't one I agree with. Not in the modern world.

Most wars seem designed these days to water the tree of arms manufacturers.

Shazzoir, well said. It boils down to equality. The 'my son was told he could wear a dress to school' stuff is political dog-whistling of the laziest kind.

The parliamentarians can't even agree on what they actually disagree about, and they're all as bad as each other regardless of the party they're in.

I don't worry about 'conspiracy' as much as I worry about corruption and complacency. If members of parliament are going to be shepherded into creating legislation which serves the interests of well funded lobby groups, regardless of who they are, then the public are the ones who pay the price.

If we're electing people who, upon arriving in Canberra, are simply going to toe the party line or be 'instructed' on how to vote by lobbyists from special interest groups, where does it leave the ordinary person?

The whole 'Treasurer for sale' debacle a few years back was interesting. Joe Hockey won the case, but if you can't afford the thousands of dollars it costs to sit near the Federal Treasurer at an official dinner, then those who can have a louder voice than anyone else, and those who cannot are simply ignored.

I found the 'lifters and leaners' rhetoric amazing - MP's are the ones who live in the age of entitlement, in my opinion.

I honestly despair of the fact that we have a 'choice' between Turnbull and Shorten...has it really come to this? Is that the best we have? As one comedian put it, we essentially have a choice between Netflix and Stan. It's astonishing to me.

Kevin Andrews at a recent speech said something about how 'The Marxists are on the march' regarding marriage equality. It was like listening to a speech from the Menzies era. Now, in Menzies' time that was a legitimate concern...but now? Bronwyn Bishop is also frequently ranting about "Socialism" to anyone who'll actually interview her. To hear them rave on - unaware that nobody outside the 'Canberra Bubble' gives a s#@t about their internal party rivalries and taxpayer funded debating club - is jaw dropping.

We have more to fear from the politicians than anyone else. It's a pity Turnbull blamed the ALP for his one seat majority and not the fact that most people are sick of all of them.

It is a two-party system designed to give the people the illusion of choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

[flash=]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vb8Rj5xkDPk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/flash]

[flash= width560,height315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk[/flash]


Dammit, why can't I embed a video on this site?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3M4br46s7A

You can, Wolf - copy the URL of your video/photo as it is on the internet then come here, click on the URL button in the post options at the top of the 'post a reply' page, then paste the URL of your video/photo (CTRL V) so it's between the URL words in brackets, like so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

Wolf wrote:[flash= width560,height315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk[/flash]


Dammit, why can't I embed a video on this site?

You used to be able to, I admit the site (forum) has become very old and clunky. It has not had an update for numerous years even though I was pushing for one, that's out of my hands.