Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Forward Press]

What? Drivel.

Marrying a child will soon be next on their agenda. We mustn't exclude anyone

 

[Ruck Machine]

The classic SSM 'slippery slope' argument.

Why not have this discussion in public in the lead up to the plebiscite?

Are you afraid that the 'No' brigade may have some solid points?

 

[Gough]

The classic SSM 'slippery slope' argument.

Why not have this discussion in public in the lead up to the plebiscite?

Are you afraid that the 'No' brigade may have some solid points?

If it leads to polygamy who the f*** cares, beyond that we start talking about issues of consent. So it's not really a slope, more a gentle incline.

 

[NSWCROW]

What did he say?

Said the Libs will reap what they sowed

 

[Lebbo73]

Said the Libs will reap what they sowed

That's his pov. It doesn't mean he is right!

 

[Admiral Byng]

The classic SSM 'slippery slope' argument.

Why not have this discussion in public in the lead up to the plebiscite?

Are you afraid that the 'No' brigade may have some solid points?

There is no slippery slope here. Defining marriage as being between two consenting adults stops the slippery slope argument dead in its tracks. It cannot go further than that. Not unless you change the wording a second time by a vote of Parliament. It cannot lead to polygamy because that involves more than two, and it cannot lead to child marriage because they are not consenting adults. Nor can it lead to bestiality because adults means specifically humans. Nor can it lead to marriage to objects like robots or motorcycles or toasters.

It is just a pathetic smear campaign starting already. This is why we don't want a plebiscite, because it will come down to "NTTAWWTters are paedos" type stuff from some parts of the NO case. There isn't a NO case that can be built outside of religion or slanderous hate.

 

[Ruck Machine]

There isn't a NO case that can be built outside of religion or slanderous hate.

Let's see if there is case. A public debate without silencing from the gay lobby/left will be great for everyone.

Personally I'm undecided. The libertarian in me says 'Yes' and anti-leftist says 'No'.

I await an argument to swing my vote.

 

[Forward Press]

There is no slippery slope here. Defining marriage as being between two consenting adults stops the slippery slope argument dead in its tracks. It cannot go further than that. Not unless you change the wording a second time by a vote of Parliament. It cannot lead to polygamy because that involves more than two, and it cannot lead to child marriage because they are not consenting adults. Nor can it lead to bestiality because adults means specifically humans. Nor can it lead to marriage to objects like robots or motorcycles or toasters.

It is just a pathetic smear campaign starting already. This is why we don't want a plebiscite, because it will come down to "NTTAWWTters are paedos" type stuff from some parts of the NO case. There isn't a NO case that can be built outside of religion or slanderous hate.

I think there are valid (although a bit tenuous) arguments that it can lead to polygamy and incest. It is easily rationalised in that marriage should be two adults to the exclusion of others for the former, and the potential abuse of power and influence in the latter. However, you can certainly bet the 'NTTAWWTters are pedos' line will be trotted out and there is a real risk taxpayer money can be used to produce flyers and ads stating that.

 

[Bazzar]

They can in bachelor/bachelorette at the end and at that Married at 1st sight of they want.

For such a serious event that same sex couples shouldnt be allowed to have, it gets the piss taken put of it often.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

No they can't, it's not legal.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Let's see if there is case. A public debate without silencing from the gay lobby/left will be great for everyone.

Personally I'm undecided. The libertarian in me says 'Yes' and anti-leftist says 'No'.

I await an argument to swing my vote.

I have not heard a valid case for the NO vote yet. Which is why I will vote YES.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think there are valid (although a bit tenuous) arguments that it can lead to polygamy and incest. It is easily rationalised in that marriage should be two adults to the exclusion of others for the former, and the potential abuse of power and influence in the latter. However, you can certainly bet the 'NTTAWWTters are pedos' line will be trotted out and there is a real risk taxpayer money can be used to produce flyers and ads stating that.

If it took this long to get even a phony plebiscite on same sex marriage, how do you think it will go changing the marriage act to allow polygamy?

 

[Lebbo73]

Ah yes, the old "I said something bad about the Libs once too, I swear" defence.

This post is the result of the ivory tower you live in. I will forgive your ignorance on this issue.

 

[Showbags]

What did he say?

Just passionately dissected the government's position on SSM and how stupid it is. Highly recommended.

 

[NSWCROW]

That's his pov. It doesn't mean he is right!

Lol i wasn't even talking to you.

Juussssssssssssssssst.couldn't.help. yourself

 

[Showbags]

Sure let's have a bubbling resentment from one side of the argument for the rest of time.

Or we can have an open debate and clear winner (which will be YES).

There may well be short term pain where a few snowflakes get their feelings hurt but this issue will finally be put to bed.

You live in fairyland if you think the Lyle Sheltons of the world are just going to quietly ride off into the sunset if a plebiscite is returned in favour of SSM. Bubbling resentment is all these people have.

Even if a plebiscite returned overwhelmingly in favour of SSM (say 80-20 or something), delusional god botherers like Shelton will still find some fault with the result (the lying rodent is still sticking by the allegations of his car being firebombed by gay lobbyists, despite the police saying this was complete horseshit).

 

[Ruck Machine]

You live in fairyland if you think the Lyle Sheltons of the world are just going to quietly ride off into the sunset if a plebiscite is returned in favour of SSM. Bubbling resentment is all these people have.

Even if a plebiscite returned overwhelmingly in favour of SSM (say 80-20 or something), delusional god botherers like Shelton will still find some fault with the result (the lying rodent is still sticking by the allegations of his car being firebombed by gay lobbyists, despite the police saying this was complete horseshit).

with a pleb you will have the classic sporting comeback "look at the scoreboard" to use against Shelton & Co.

You will also have the "don't you respect democracy" comeback.

 

[Showbags]

Let's see if there is case. A public debate without silencing from the gay lobby/left will be great for everyone.

Personally I'm undecided. The libertarian in me says 'Yes' and anti-leftist says 'No'.

I await an argument to swing my vote.

Are you that bereft of independent thought that you need a public debate on the issue to "swing your vote"?

Here's a thought. Think for yourself rather than have someone think for you.

 

[Showbags]

with a pleb you will have the classic sporting comeback "look at the scoreboard" to use against Shelton & Co.

You will also have the "don't you respect democracy" comeback.

We already have that, let me introduce you to a thing called polling data.

 

[Ruck Machine]

We already have that, let me introduce you to a thing called polling data.

Plebiscite will provide unequivocal, trust worthy and official stats that polls can't possibly provide.

Next.

 

[Ruck Machine]

Are you that bereft of independent thought that you need a public debate on the issue to "swing your vote"?

Here's a thought. Think for yourself rather than have someone think for you.

I have swung back and forth on the issue many times over the years. Truly 50/50 for me.

My mistake for wanting to understand the issue instead of being a mindless group thinker.

 

[Showbags]

Plebiscite will provide unequivocal, trust worthy and official stats that polls can't possibly provide.

Next.

What makes me laugh is that the second an opinion poll favours a right wing position, the right are the first to scream "look at the polls". Remember when that poll came back suggesting close to 50% of Australians support a Muslim immigration ban? The right came out immediately demanding that a Trump style ban be implemented as it was the will of the people (all from one ******* poll). We have had polling data for well over 5 years, from a multitude of polling organisations across the political spectrum all saying that SSM has majority support. But no, that isn't good enough, we now need "unequivocal proof" as it is such an important moral issue allowing gay people the same rights as straight people.

Why do we need unequivocal proof of the consensus opinion on this issue but not cuts to penalty rates, corporate tax cuts, cuts to health and education etc? All which never received a mandate and affect a hell of a lot more people negatively than legalising SSM will (which affects no one in a negative way whatsoever).

I have swung back and forth on the issue many times over the years. Truly 50/50 for me.

My mistake for wanting to understand the issue instead of being a mindless group thinker.

What you suggested is the very definition of group think. Having someone else do the thinking for you and you just going along with whoever is more convincing.

And please don't pretend you are "50/50" on the issue. On every other issue you have ever posted on this forum you have only ever taken the far far right position.

You are just too gutless to take a position against SSM because you realise the only arguments against are based on bigotry, not rational well thought out opinions. Be loud and proud about your bigotry. Wear it on your sleeve.

 

[spinynorman]

What makes me laugh is that the second an opinion poll favours a right wing position, the right are the first to scream "look at the polls". Remember when that poll came back suggesting close to 50% of Australians support a Muslim immigration ban? The right came out immediately demanding that a Trump style ban be implemented as it was the will of the people (all from one ******* poll). We have had polling data for well over 5 years, from a multitude of polling organisations across the political spectrum all saying that SSM has majority support. But no, that isn't good enough, we now need "unequivocal proof" as it is such an important moral issue allowing gay people the same rights as straight people.

The best is that they point to polls saying people want a plebiscite while saying we need a plebiscite to know what people really think because the (far more overwhelming) polls on same sex marriage can't be trusted.

Anyway, looks like this stupid thing's going to happen. Where do I sign up with to be a campaign volunteer?

 

[Admiral Byng]

with a pleb you will have the classic sporting comeback "look at the scoreboard" to use against Shelton & Co.

You will also have the "don't you respect democracy" comeback.

If BigFooty is anything to go by, there will always be some that blame the umpires, the MRP, the fixtures, the AFL, back luck with injuries etc.. rather than accept the result.

 

[Ruck Machine]

What you suggested is the very definition of group think. Having someone else do the thinking for you and you just going along with whoever is more convincing.

And please don't pretend you are "50/50" on the issue. On every other issue you have ever posted on this forum you have only ever taken the far far right position.

You are just too gutless to take a position against SSM because you realise the only arguments against are based on bigotry, not rational well thought out opinions. Be loud and proud about your bigotry. Wear it on your sleeve.

What I'm suggesting is the thinking of an enlightened mind. You know ... analysing arguments and weighting their merit.

I'm not sure which way to go ... have you not been truly 50/50 on an issue?

 

[Colonial]

Then let's discuss, as a nation, equal rights in an open a free manner (without the gay lobby and left screaming homophobe).

Any politician who is dumb enough to vote against his constituents will not be around for long.

Rubbish.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk