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

[sherb]

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.

I would prefer we don't go down this route though, it just opens up the floodgates for hatred.

Whilst many gay people will deal with it okay, there would be plenty of vulnerable ones who may not.

 

[RupieDupie]

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?

A) Johnny Howard was the one who put this into a legal context in Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

And then Johnny went on to say;

"We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation,'' Mr Howard told reporters.

''(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.''
(May 2004)

B) In January 2004 George Bush "In his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004, President Bush alluded to the recent court decision in Massachusetts ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages beginning in May: "Activist judges ... have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.... If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.""

<As an aside, A) followed B) but was A) also caused by B)?>

With regards to the above, we can see that when it came to the legal status of gay marriage in 2004 there was no need for a plebiscite.

 

[Gough]

I would prefer we don't go down this route though, it just opens up the floodgates for hatred.

Whilst many gay people will deal with it okay, there would be plenty of vulnerable ones who may not.

I'm just sick of the whole thing. The thought of politicians using vulnerable people as a plaything is not exactly a new concept, I'm just hoping by way of compensation for this crap, maximum, damage is inflicted on the Liberal Party.

 

[FredLeDeux]

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.

Just as a matter of interest, what other issues (present or past) do you think should be or should have been left to the public, and upon what criteria would you choose those issues?

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm just sick of the whole thing. The thought of politicians using vulnerable people as a plaything is not exactly a new concept, I'm just hoping by way of compensation for this crap, maximum, damage is inflicted on the Liberal Party.

A perfectly reasonable desire, a consummation devoutly to be wished.
So to speak.

 

[strung_out7]

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

Everything eventually spirals to something more obscene. For your information I couldn't care less if gays want to be in a union. Just call it something other than marriage. Imagine if we started using the word rape to also explain consensual sex.

 

[Colonial]

Everything eventually spirals to something more obscene. For your information I couldn't care less if gays want to be in a union. Just call it something other than marriage. Imagine if we started using the word rape to also explain consensual sex.

Actually the pagans came up with it. Im sure they arent fond of christians using the term.

So it should be handed it back.

How is SSM obscene? 2 concenting adults.

That last line really is pathetic.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[sherb]

Why the sudden obsession with keeping election promises? Indeed.....

http://junkee.com/government-mp-grillings-plebiscite/116867

 

[sherb]

Everything eventually spirals to something more obscene. For your information I couldn't care less if gays want to be in a union. Just call it something other than marriage. Imagine if we started using the word rape to also explain consensual sex.

Not without a strong societal push for it.

What "obscene" things do you think society will be advocating for?

 

[Gough]

Everything eventually spirals to something more obscene. For your information I couldn't care less if gays want to be in a union. Just call it something other than marriage. Imagine if we started using the word rape to also explain consensual sex.

You do care, I know you do, it's funny to me, and I'll mock you for it. When I was growing up it was s**t to be gay, now it's s**t to be a homophobe like you, think yourself lucky there's not a disease going round killing yer mates as well.

 

[sherb]

I'm just sick of the whole thing. The thought of politicians using vulnerable people as a plaything is not exactly a new concept, I'm just hoping by way of compensation for this crap, maximum, damage is inflicted on the Liberal Party.

I'm with you, I know the previous post of yours I quoted was largely bravado.

I really, really don't want hate groups like the ACL unleashed because of a plebiscite, that's all.

I share your wish for the Liberal party as well by the way.

 

[JackOutback]

Best comment I read; 'the day same sex marriage passes, no one will be less married and no one will be more gay.'

Stop obsessing over things that have no material effect on you.

 

[RupieDupie]

A) Johnny Howard was the one who put this into a legal context in Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

And then Johnny went on to say;

"We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation,'' Mr Howard told reporters.

''(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.''
(May 2004)

B) In January 2004 George Bush "In his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004, President Bush alluded to the recent court decision in Massachusetts ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages beginning in May: "Activist judges ... have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.... If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.""

<As an aside, A) followed B) but was A) also caused by B)?>

With regards to the above, we can see that when it came to the legal status of gay marriage in 2004 there was no need for a plebiscite.

Ah those were the good old days when we knew who our president was and who ran the country, nowadays though, even the president of the United States of America looks down on the Australian Prime Minister as 'worse than he is'.

Australia's current position is when you see a player who has been caught ball-watching on the AFL field and is standing in no-man's-land, too far away for a hand pass / help their players clear the ball, and too close and not in any position for a clearing kick. IMU, the world moved quickly away from the Bush-Blair-Howard era but we were stuck in a Rudd-Gillard-Independent fiasco, yet Abbott didn't lick his finger to see which way the wind was blowing before trying to take us back to some of the neo-conservative politics that made Bush so attractive to swamp monsters. Now we can only watch as the civilised humane world moves further and further away from Australia. Two more years of this at minimum.

 

[Gough]

I'm with you, I know the previous post of yours I quoted was largely bravado.

I really, really don't want hate groups like the ACL unleashed because of a plebiscite, that's all.

I share your wish for the Liberal party as well by the way.

Lyle Shelton was on the communist ABC this morning spouting his usual crap. I share your fears for the vulnerable, I'm lucky enough that I've now been out longer than I was in, and can just make fun of the s**t heads who oppose SSM.

 

[strung_out7]

Stop obsessing over things that have no material effect on you.

Why are homosexual couples obsessing over getting married then? Surely they don't need a marriage certificate according to your thinking ?

 

[strung_out7]

You do care, I know you do, it's funny to me, and I'll mock you for it. When I was growing up it was s**t to be gay, now it's s**t to be a homophobe like you, think yourself lucky there's not a disease going round killing yer mates as well.

How did you get to be a moderator? Diseases like HIV?

 

[JackOutback]

Why are homosexual couples obsessing over getting married then? Surely they don't need a marriage certificate according to your thinking ?

Because lacking the same rights as others materially effects them. Thought that would be pretty fecking obvious.

 

[Gough]

*points and laughs at strung_out7* This is literally what your opinion is worth mate.

 

[strung_out7]

*points and laughs at strung_out7* This is literally what your opinion is worth mate.

Back to your safe space. How dare many Australians Differ in opinion to you

 

[Forward Press]

Back to your safe space. How dare many Australians Differ in opinion to you

If you think Gough should be a second class citizen because of his sexual orientation then you deserve to be mocked.

 

[sherb]

How did you get to be a moderator? Diseases like HIV?

Aaaaand, another example of the quality of debate a plebiscite will bring out.......

 

[RupieDupie]

Why are homosexual couples obsessing over getting married then? Surely they don't need a marriage certificate according to your thinking ?

You've read this wrong I'm afraid. Say if there are two kids playing a sand pit, and one kid is allowed to play with a Tonka truck independently of the second child, yet the second child cannot play with a Tonka truck because of <an insignificant difference between the two children that has no bearing on the second child's ability to play with a Tonka truck>. Then the first child playing with a Tonka truck is all like, "no, you're not allowed to play with a Tonka truck because of your <insignificant difference between the two children that has no bearing on the second child's ability to play with a Tonka truck>", even though the first child would not be affected in any way whatsoever (will not lose their Tonka truck and a second Tonka truck will be available for the second child) by the second child playing with the Tonka truck. In Sesame Street, at this point, Big Bird would come along and talk to the children, probably sing a song, and then you will see the first child's brain tick over for a mere 0.00000001 femto seconds before the first child realises that the situation is not right, and the first child will walk over and hand the second child a Tonka truck to play with.

 

[strung_out7]

If you think Gough should be a second class citizen because of his sexual orientation then you deserve to be mocked.

How on earth is he a second class citizen? Now the personal insult makes perfect sense

 

[Forward Press]

How on earth is he a second class citizen? Now the personal insult makes perfect sense

You are saying his marriage is not the same as a marriage for a heterosexual couple.

If you cannot see this then I have no hope for you.

 

[strung_out7]

You've read this wrong I'm afraid. Say if there are two kids playing a sand pit, and one kid is allowed to play with a Tonka truck independently of the second child, yet the second child cannot play with a Tonka truck because of <an insignificant difference between the two children that has no bearing on the second child's ability to play with a Tonka truck>. Then the first child playing with a Tonka truck is all like, "no, you're not allowed to play with a Tonka truck because of your <insignificant difference between the two children that has no bearing on the second child's ability to play with a Tonka truck>", even though the first child would not be affected in any way whatsoever (will not lose their Tonka truck and a second Tonka truck will be available for the second child) by the second child playing with the Tonka truck. In Sesame Street, at this point, Big Bird would come along and talk to the children, probably sing a song, and then you will see the first child's brain tick over for a mere 0.00000001 femto seconds before the first child realises that the situation is not right, and the first child will walk over and hand the second child a Tonka truck to play with.

This is borderline insanity.