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

[Crankyhawk]

What about 3 gay men all marrying each other ?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/14/three...gally-recognised-polyamorous-wedding-6708801/

Are you OK with 4 men marrying each other ?

What about 3 bi sexual men and 2 bi sexual women all marrying each other ?

Do you draw a line anywhere ?

What about one straight male marrying 5 women ?

We do have rules against polygamy/polyamory. The only reason I would care is if it gets used as a tax dodge. In which case I would be against it.

 

[sherb]

Marriage is not that important to divert the entire political apparatus or to waste 200 million dollars.

What a waste of money so that the religious zealots and the right-wing nutters in the Coalition can kick the can down the road.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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

That's where the hard line is, marriage where one party cannot consent or is coerced. Would mean some current marriages should be illegal too. Eg domestic violent scum.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Shorten approved the Independent Commission that looked into wages and then whinged like a bitch for popularity purposes.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is only fair that the public get a say on such an important issue.

Penalty rates have always been there for a majority of young hospitality workers, it's only fair they get their say.

https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies I don't see it here. Why can't we vote on a policy they didn't take to the election?

I would post an eyeroll, but even that is too far beyond you.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Fake News. According to Newspoll, 46% of Australians support a plebiscite. 39% are against and 15% are undecided.

Suspect many support which ever path resolves this issue, all public figures involved are just coming across as flogs (on both sides)

 

[Garlic muncher]

We do have rules against polygamy/polyamory. The only reason I would care is if it gets used as a tax dodge. In which case I would be against it.

The same arguments will be used and to oppose it you will be labelled a bigot whether the tax issue is genuine or not.

It actually is reasonably popular among certain groups and practised.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/35f49d0c38789e22e133d00c67e55899

Need to type this ...
Centrelink ‘legalises’ multiple Muslim wives

 

[Crankyhawk]

TV ratings are the same, i used to be very keen on Footy TV ratings, still take an interest, but i don't know anyone over the journey that has had a black box for TV ratings purposes.

Off topic but our family was given the paper based survey once (record viewing for a week) pre the black box.

Yes I am old.

 

[Bradesmaen]

The same arguments will be used and to oppose it you will be labelled a bigot whether the tax issue is genuine or not.

It actually is reasonably popular among certain groups and practised.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/35f49d0c38789e22e133d00c67e55899

The fact that you subscribe to the Daily Terror says a lot about you.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The same arguments will be used and to oppose it you will be labelled a bigot whether the tax issue is genuine or not.

It actually is reasonably popular among certain groups and practised.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/35f49d0c38789e22e133d00c67e55899

Not an expert tax wise but I think currently there's no income splitting (which would be how one million dollar earner could share income with harem), and trusts are going to have new higher rates (labor proposal)- not that you need marriage to be a trust anyway.

Bottom line have no issue with social aspects of polyamory.
Would only have issue if there were financial advantage to be gained by the practice
Draw the line at marriage involving coercion or incapable of consent.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Off topic but our family was given the paper based survey once (record viewing for a week) pre the black box.

Yes I am old.

the diary method ?

I must admit quite a few years ago someone else did say their household had the black box tv ratings meter , but i cant remember the specifics, they did say that they were either big footy or big RL fans and used to push the button religiously every couple of minutes when the footy was on.

 

[Garlic muncher]

The fact that you subscribe to the Daily Terror says a lot about you.

Perhaps the fact that you you link on my links says more about you.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Not an expert tax wise but I think currently there's no income splitting (which would be how one million dollar earner could share income with harem), and trusts are going to have new higher rates (labor proposal)- not that you need marriage to be a trust anyway.

Bottom line have no issue with social aspects of polyamory.
Would only have issue if there were financial advantage to be gained by the practice
Draw the line at marriage involving coercion or incapable of consent.

I draw it a bit earlier.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Hell to the f*** no. A plebiscite will be ugly and costly.

There is zero reason and little precedent for a rubbish exercise.

Although how many sitting days of parliament how much money on focus groups, time on political strategy implications etc has been wasted and at what cost (although not now recoverable) question is will blocking the plebiscite just stall thing and waste more than the cost of plebiscite?

 

[Colonial]

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

You missed the part about 2 concenting adults.

Associating ssm with paedophiles shows exactly where those against heads are at.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[sherb]

 

[Bradesmaen]

Perhaps the fact that you you link on my links says more about you.

Sorry, I only speak English.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

What about 3 gay men all marrying each other ?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/14/three...gally-recognised-polyamorous-wedding-6708801/

Are you OK with 4 men marrying each other ?

What about 3 bi sexual men and 2 bi sexual women all marrying each other ?

Do you draw a line anywhere ?

What about one straight male marrying 5 women ?

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

Well if children are capable of determining their own gender then surely they can be allowed to marry as well.

These are good examples of why this plebiscite is a bad idea.
There are plenty more throughout the thread.

SRP is a cesspit.

 

[sherb]

These are good examples of why this plebiscite is a bad idea.
There are plenty more throughout the thread.

SRP is a cesspit.

Yup.

 

[FredLeDeux]

These are good examples of why this plebiscite is a bad idea.
There are plenty more throughout the thread.

SRP is a cesspit.

Exactly.

 

[Gough]

These are good examples of why this plebiscite is a bad idea.
There are plenty more throughout the thread.

SRP is a cesspit.

Not at all, this is tremendously entertaining. Knowing that we'll have marriage equality inside two years anyway, I'm happy to watch a bunch of tories make fools of themselves over this.

 

[strung_out7]

You missed the part about 2 concenting adults.

Associating ssm with paedophiles shows exactly where those against heads are at.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

You missed the part about marriage being a word used to describe the union of a man and a woman. If they change this, what's stopping the next minority wanting what they want?

 

[Gough]

You missed the part about marriage being a word used to describe the union of a man and a woman. If they change this, what's stopping the next minority wanting what they want?

Which minority group would that be mate, Golden Retrievers for canine marriage? Get your hand off it.

 

[Colonial]

You missed the part about marriage being a word used to describe the union of a man and a woman. If they change this, what's stopping the next minority wanting what they want?

The part that its 2 concenting adults.

And this is what we are dealing with.

People associating a legally allowed practice of same sex couples between 2 adults and the banned, outlawed practice of pedo's.


Edit. You do realise Johnny Howard changed the meaning of marriage just over 10 years ago right?


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[NSWCROW]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ut-we-can-lash-out-wildly-in-fear?CMP=soc_567

First Dog on the Moon nails it as usual

 

[FredLeDeux]

Not at all, this is tremendously entertaining. Knowing that we'll have marriage equality inside two years anyway, I'm happy to watch a bunch of tories make fools of themselves over this.

Some people are more self-secure about their sexual orientation than others.
Some, particularly younger people, can be downright fragile.
On the now off-chance that the plebiscite goes ahead, the obnoxious idiocy in this thread is a mere taste of the vilification and lies which will unleashed by the No campaigners during the lead-up.
There is a real risk of harm to some people.