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

[Maggie5]

What are you guys going to say to your kids, family or friends when they tell you about their same sex relationship?

Congratulations?

 

[kwikfix]

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist." Masha Gessen, Lesbian activist and author, speaking at the Sydney Writer's Festival, 2012
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lesbian-...eech-gay-marriage-fight-144222847.html?ref=gs

 

[Power Raid]

I agree. We should get rid of state sponsored marriage.

Get rid of the state whilst we are at it

Set WA free!

 

[kwikfix]

Freedom of speech and democracy can be destroyed in many ways. The Accor Hotel group has just caved in and cancelled the booked event of pro-family groups in Sydney after receiving the usual intimidation and threats by left wing fascists and gay activists.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f/news-story/d45bd0f9e9a774fc3e3d0741f176da13

A ferocious campaign against Christian groups planning to meet on same-sex marriage has forced them to cancel the event at a major hotel next week, amid claims of physical threats from marriage-equality advocates.

The Accor Hotels group confirmed late yesterday that the function had been abandoned after a social media storm triggered phone calls that “rattled” employees and left the company concerned about the safety of staff and guests.

In the first test of the “civil” debate promised for a plebiscite on gay marriage, advocates for the “yes” case were being blamed last night for the kind of “hate speech” that Bill Shorten and others have claimed would come from the “no” case.

A spokeswoman for the Mercure Sydney Airport Hotel said the campaign by marriage-equality advocates had forced the company to close the hotel’s Facebook page, sparked phone calls that disturbed hotel staff and escalated the problem to the company’s headquarters. “We’ve conducted an objective review regarding the safety and security of our hotel guests and staff,” she said. “Following this review the event will no longer take place next week.”

The four Christian groups booked the hotel conference room for Tuesday to prepare for a “no” campaign in the potential plebiscite, even though Labor and the Greens appear certain to block the “people’s vote” legislation in the Senate. About 100 people were expected to attend from the Sydney Anglicans, Sydney Catholics, the Marriage Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby.

Gay news website SameSame.com.au alerted readers to the event. Activist Pauline Pantsdown urged followers to stop the “dangerous, predatory” ACL. “Are children safe at Mercure and Accor hotels?” one post said. One follower declared it “utterly horrifying” that Accor would host the Christian groups while another accused the hotel of supporting the “hateful, deceitful and extreme” ACL.

The campaign dismayed some marriage-equality supporters. “I’m becoming a little uneasy about this kind of thing,” said one. “Will fundamentalist Christians and others start pressuring venues hosting marriage-equality functions to cancel them?”

Accor confirmed the campaign led to a number of “negative” calls to the hotel but would not confirm claims these calls included death threats. The spokeswoman would not say whether the police had been notified.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, warned that it was beneath Australians to treat supporters of traditional marriage as proponents of bigotry. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, warned of the danger to free speech from the threats that shut down the meeting.

A joint statement from the conveners said the hotel staff received “threats of violence” after the details of the private event were published on the internet. “We have chosen to reconsider our arrangements for the event next week due to our concern for the safety of the hotel staff, and our commitment to a reasonable and respectful debate,” ACL managing director Lyle Shelton said.

The Weekend Australian sought comment from Australian Marriage Equality yesterday but the group was not aware of the storm over the event.

Marriage-equality advocates hailed the cancellation of the meeting late yesterday. Pantsdown accused ACL of “playing victim” and justified the campaign against the Christian groups “due to danger they pose” to LGBTI children and families.

The bill to hold the February 11 plebiscite was introduced into parliament this week but appears headed for defeat in the Senate, with the Coalition insisting on a “people’s vote” and Bill Shorten wanting Labor to vote against it.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Ah finally someone with an answer. Those things are pretty minor though albeit they are something. They are not tax breaks and they don't influence inheritance rights. Also not sure step parents rights should be determined by marriage anyway. Granting non biological parent the same rights as a biological parent should be a seperate process from marriage that considers things on a case by case basis. For starters kids should have a say if they are old enough as well as the biological parent not involved in the marriage if they are still around.

you think having to go to court to be allowed to buried your partner is a minor issue? notice how out of everything i listed you were only able to pull a single cord about step parenting as a counter argument? You can't just dismiss the issue.

* all the extra financial burdens associated with resolving these issue because for you their minor (aka not your problem) and don't stack up to your vitally important issue opposing of gay people being married.

So please now that i've answered your questions, do me a solid and answer one simple question: what negative consequence will be brought about gay people being married? we have positive changes, what are the negatives? i'm yet to here an actual reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married other then "my feels" why should your "feeling" about what someone else does matter at all?

The social point is rubbish though. government decree won't change the way anyone views a marriage and if it does then those people are super stupid and who cares what stupid people think. I would rather the government doesn't recognize my marriage as my marriage is between my wife and I and our family members. The government should play no role in it.

absolute bullshit and you know it, If you were serious about such a position you would get legally divorced, you would end the government involvement in your marriage that you oppose. If you don't want the government involved in your marriage why the * did you register your marriage? As i said there's hundreds of people in Australia who have zero government involvement in their marriage, many of them for that very reason. But your not one of those people. you sit enjoying the status and privileges of having a legally recognised marriage, while "opposing" such matters.

just man up and admit you just don't like gay people being married. Be honest about your bigotry.

 

[Chubberson]

Bigotry works both ways. 'Intolerance of anothers opinion'. Just so we are all clear on that.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Bigotry works both ways. 'Intolerance of anothers opinion'. Just so we are all clear on that.

if believing laws and equality should not be determined by some *******s emotions makes me a bigot its a tag i'll wear with pride.

 

[JackOutback]

Bigotry works both ways. 'Intolerance of anothers opinion'. Just so we are all clear on that.

I'll admit, I'm intolerant of racists, sexists and homophobes. I'm also intolerant of campaigners. Don't think that actually makes me a bigot.

 

[kirsti]

For mine, the questions of legalising same sex marriage and what is the 'ideal' form of raising children are two completely seperate issues. One does not relate to the other since they occur in isolation of each other anyway. Any link made between them during argument is ideologically based (both for and against) and should be disregarded.

I'm happy to admit I have reservations about same-sex couples raising children but would never feel the need to stick my nose into other people's choices when nobody is clearly being harmed. There's a lot more research to be done before any conclusions about effects and differences can be drawn, and a loving home with two parents is better than none.

I'm a Christian and also used to think same-sex marriage was a bad idea. But then I realised a few key things about the 'institution of marriage' and changed my mind:
1. Marriage is legal status.
2. Same-sex defacto couple have (almost) the same status as married heterosexual couples in a legal sense already.
3. The minute someone was married in this coutry outside the Christian church, the religious argument became irrelevant.
4. Other people's marriages—regardless of their religion, lack of, or gender—has absolutely zero impact on what mine means.

I'm actually quite happy to say that almost every other Christian person I know is in favour of SSM. I think the degree of resistence from the church on this issue is a bit of a fallacy, and mostly limited to only parts of the Catholic church. The plebicite will reveal a massive majority voting for it.

Why should you or any politician have the right to vote if I can have the same human rights as everyone else? Ssm should just happen.

 

[kirsti]

I would like to ask how my same sex partner Nikki and I getting married would affect anyone else, I would be very interested to hear from those that object to SSM.

 

[coerced]

We're not Saudi Arabia, though. We permit a lot of things that go against the 'norm'.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, we don't declare homosexual relationships as 'valueless'. They just have a tangibly lesser value to humanity than heterosexual relationships. This is inarguable.

If you think laws should relate to the biological imperative then by logical extension you are also in favour of eugenics. Resorting to the 'you need a male and female to make babies' statement is a weak argument when our society doesn't weed out those who cannot propagate the human race.

You have completely misunderstood what eugenics is.

 

[paul180]

Unlike Saudi Arabia, we don't declare homosexual relationships as 'valueless'. They just have a tangibly lesser value to humanity than heterosexual relationships. This is inarguable.

You have completely misunderstood what eugenics is.

You are tangibly of lesser value! Inarguably so!



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[coerced]

You are tangibly of lesser value! Inarguably so!

Not at all. I can and have propagated.

 

[ShanDog]

Why should you or any politician have the right to vote if I can have the same human rights as everyone else? Ssm should just happen.

Because systems of law and government.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Unlike Saudi Arabia, we don't declare homosexual relationships as 'valueless'. They just have a tangibly lesser value to humanity than heterosexual relationships. This is inarguable.

You have completely misunderstood what eugenics is.

See now this argument i like, at least your being honest in opposition same sex couples being allowed to marry.
you view same sex couples as worth less then a heterosexual couple because gay couples can't propagate.

a campaignerish position to take certainly, but at least your not being coward about it.

Of course i would point out that marriage is has nothing to do with procreation within our legal framework and because of this your arguments about procreation and marriage is irrelevant.

whether or not you feel marriage should be about procreation is also irrelevant because this is not what the Australian people are being asked to decide.

I would also point out that speaking purely from a basis of propagating the species with robust genetic variation combined along with reproduction rates, that any monogamous relationship detracts from propagating species. From a purely mathematical position the species would be stronger served by humans having multiple partners of the opposite sex in order to ensure a higher rate of reproduction. Of course once again, procreation has nothing to do with Australian marriage laws, So its irrelevant.

additionally we currently do not have same sex marriage in Australia and yet currently our reproductive rate in this country is not sufficient to increase our population once we factor in death rates and our aging population (we are in fact 100% reliant on immigration to top up our numbers at this point) There is no indication that we would see a +/- shift in our reproductive rates should marriage rights be extended to same sex couples.

Your entire argument whilst both campaignerish and honest is irrelevant.

 

[kirsti]

Because systems of law and government.

Outdated laws that have no place in society in 2016.
A law that the Liberal Government amended in 2004 without a plebiscite.

 

[kirsti]

Same sex couples are not demanding special rights or laws to be in acted all we demand are to have the same rights as all others.

 

[kirsti]

Same sex couples are not demanding special rights or laws to be in acted all we demand are to have the same rights as all others.

Nikki and I want to marry in the middle of the soccer pitch where we first met the moment I saw her I fell in love.

Being married to each other is so important to both of us, we both are the best of friends who spend everyday living and working with each other. Every day with Nikki is like I imagine heaven to be.

We never wake up stressing about what our neighbours are doing, who they are marrying, who they sleep with, we are more interested if they are good people or West Coast Supporters' like us or if they like a beer and a game of backyard cricket or footy with us.

Why are so many heterosexual people so hung-up on what other people do in bed or worry about who some stranger they don't even know is marrying.

Why should I have to ask my neighbour if I can marry Nikki, really that is shameful.....

Australia get with the times we really are becoming the backward country.

 

[kirsti]

Congratulations?

I would be a very proud parent as I would if one of my daughters also told me they wanted to marry a man.

 

[kirsti]

you think having to go to court to be allowed to buried your partner is a minor issue? notice how out of everything i listed you were only able to pull a single cord about step parenting as a counter argument? You can't just dismiss the issue.

**** all the extra financial burdens associated with resolving these issue because for you their minor (aka not your problem) and don't stack up to your vitally important issue opposing of gay people being married.

So please now that i've answered your questions, do me a solid and answer one simple question: what negative consequence will be brought about gay people being married? we have positive changes, what are the negatives? i'm yet to here an actual reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married other then "my feels" why should your "feeling" about what someone else does matter at all?



absolute bullshit and you know it, If you were serious about such a position you would get legally divorced, you would end the government involvement in your marriage that you oppose. If you don't want the government involved in your marriage why the **** did you register your marriage? As i said there's hundreds of people in Australia who have zero government involvement in their marriage, many of them for that very reason. But your not one of those people. you sit enjoying the status and privileges of having a legally recognised marriage, while "opposing" such matters.

just man up and admit you just don't like gay people being married. Be honest about your bigotry.

He won't well said Sydney Blood.

 

[coerced]

See now this argument i like, at least your being honest in opposition same sex couples being allowed to marry.
you view same sex couples as worth less then a heterosexual couple because gay couples can't propagate.

a campaignerish position to take certainly, but at least your not being coward about it.

Of course i would point out that marriage is has nothing to do with procreation within our legal framework and because of this your arguments about procreation and marriage is irrelevant.

whether or not you feel marriage should be about procreation is also irrelevant because this is not what the Australian people are being asked to decide.

I would also point out that speaking purely from a basis of propagating the species with robust genetic variation combined along with reproduction rates, that any monogamous relationship detracts from propagating species. From a purely mathematical position the species would be stronger served by humans having multiple partners of the opposite sex in order to ensure a higher rate of reproduction. Of course once again, procreation has nothing to do with Australian marriage laws, So its irrelevant.

additionally we currently do not have same sex marriage in Australia and yet currently our reproductive rate in this country is not sufficient to increase our population once we factor in death rates and our aging population (we are in fact 100% reliant on immigration to top up our numbers at this point) There is no indication that we would see a +/- shift in our reproductive rates should marriage rights be extended to same sex couples.

Your entire argument whilst both campaignerish and honest is irrelevant.

You've misunderstood the argument I'm making. Societies have long ranked homosexuality lower than heterosexuality because the former does nothing for the overall fitness of the group. If both forms of sexuality were equally valid, we would see much higher rates of homosexuality.

People trying to assert that homosexual relationships are as valuable to society as heterosexual relationships are speaking falsehoods. They aren't and never will be.

 

[Gough]

So Alan Joyce, and his boyfriend make less contribution to society because they're gay, than the heterosexual Shazza from Frankston, and her four kids? I'm sure that argument sounded good in your head though.

 

[ShanDog]

Outdated laws that have no place in society in 2016.
A law that the Liberal Government amended in 2004 without a plebiscite.

I agree with the Human Right Commission who say SSM is a fundamental to the human right of equality.

Doesn't mean it should somehow be magicked into existence. You don't get to choose which laws and systems apply to you otherwise they are all pointless.

 

[Procrastinator35]

So Alan Joyce, and his boyfriend make less contribution to society because they're gay, than the heterosexual Shazza from Frankston, and her four kids? I'm sure that argument sounded good in your head though.

Hey, Penny Wong's got nufin on Rebbeca Judd.

Beccy lights up our ads, while Penny just heads the ALP Senate.

Like, where are your priorities man?

 

[Gough]

Seeing as our value to society today seems to be based on being a mythical lifter, or leaner, and that the quickest way to being a "leaner" is have kids, surely gay relationships should be valued as greater than that of the breeders.