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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dadadadaaaaaa said:
. Please if you don't want to see hundreds of males walking down the streets kissing and hugging, then vote no!
Click to expand...

Dude, it's O.K.....No one's making you watch to the LGBT Mardi Gras....But we understand your curiosity all the same.o_O

roscreasl98 said:
So, you can't read?

If I say I'm voting NO, I think that means I'm eligible to vote....
Click to expand...

upload_2017-8-14_21-8-27.jpeg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JackOutback said:
Because without the God factor, there's not a single logical reason to vote no.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

Some people maybe just don't like seeing two guys be affectionate and they can't ban same sex relationships so this is one way to lodge their disgust.

Opposition won't be entirely religious based.
 
Forward Press said:
I don't agree.

Some people maybe just don't like seeing two guys be affectionate and they can't ban same sex relationships so this is one way to lodge their disgust.

Opposition won't be entirely religious based.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there weren't other reasons, just not a logical one. 'Gays are icky' doesn't strike me as a good reason.
 
JackOutback said:
Because without the God factor, there's not a single logical reason to vote no.
Click to expand...

Logic. OK. Logic is a very plain thing. I thought about it logically and came up with this reason (people may disagree, that's okay, but this is MY reason, amongst others)...

Marriage purely means two different things coming together.

You don't hear Jamie Oliver on his cooking show call something "a marriage of flavours" if he's got salt and salt coming together, because those two things are the same. If there's salt and pepper mixed together, there's your marriage of flavours.



I will be voting NO.



Some people who will be voting NO are doing so because they hate gays, there is no doubting that. I find that quite sad. So I will say this to separate myself from those people (and if someone wants to say that I am still a gay-hater by the fact that I will vote NO is incorrect)... I really do like gay people, the people who are gay who I know at my work, university etc. are fantastic people. Again, there are straight people in my work place who I think are quality people, others, not so much.



I read an article and agree with these sentiments quoted from the article. I reckon it's not always easy to find an article that is 100% completely in line with your own views, but this is the closest to it I've seen:
“The same-sex marriage debate is not about equality, it is about redefinition. It is like a triangle saying it has the right to be called a square because they are both geometrical shapes. But that does not make sense, because certain basic properties are different.

“The same applies for the use of the word marriage. Same-sex couples already have equality under the law, but equality does not mean sameness.

“The solution would be for this type of committed relationship to have a different word that gives equivalency, but not sameness. That would protect traditional marriage while giving same-sex couples a word they could use with clarity, and not with the pretence of being the same as something that is different in its basic property.

“To pretend a thing is the same as another thing with different properties is the basis of political correctness. Political correctness takes away freedom from one group while changing the clear meaning of something.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/fcbe9556e3f14c19b21bec2554bd639a
 
BC9_ said:
I read an article and agree with these sentiments quoted from the article. I reckon it's not always easy to find an article that is 100% completely in line with your own views, but this is the closest to it I've seen:
“The same-sex marriage debate is not about equality, it is about redefinition. It is like a triangle saying it has the right to be called a square because they are both geometrical shapes. But that does not make sense, because certain basic properties are different.

“The same applies for the use of the word marriage. Same-sex couples already have equality under the law, but equality does not mean sameness.

“The solution would be for this type of committed relationship to have a different word that gives equivalency, but not sameness. That would protect traditional marriage while giving same-sex couples a word they could use with clarity, and not with the pretence of being the same as something that is different in its basic property.
Click to expand...
I understand your argument here, yet I am in the opposing camp.

Here we have a situation where literally millions of Australians feel excluded, disenfranchised and "less than" other members of society, purely for their sexuality, a trait that have no control over, and a trait they place an enormous amount of self identification and self worth over. A trait that for much of their lives, and for much of Australia's history, has been discriminated against and reviled.

They want to be in the club. They want to do with their lover what many others in society can freely do, and what is to many considered a rite of passage, and a significant milestone in their lives.

Currently - these people cannot partake in this rite of passage.

Your argument for continuing to prevent these people from joining this "club" is essentially "Hey, the definition is thus, The line is in the sand, and the fact the rules are thus isn't my fault, but I don't want to change it".

I ask you: WHY DON'T YOU WANT IT CHANGED?
I ask you: What impact will it have on your life, on my life, if the definition IS changed?

Speaking of me, a straight, married male, it would change my life in no way shape or form. It would not affect my marriage in a legal sense, nor a social sense, one little bit. My relationship with my wife would not be altered in the slightest, for better or for worse.

Changing the definition would not affect me in the slightest.

It would, however, positively impact the lives of millions of Australians.

For me to resist this change, for me to deny the positive impact for millions, with the consequence for me being precisely nothing at all, is incredibly selfish.

So...I vote yes.

What do you disagree with in my above synopsis?

BC9_ said:
“The solution would be for this type of committed relationship to have a different word that gives equivalency, but not sameness. That would protect traditional marriage while giving same-sex couples a word they could use with clarity, and not with the pretence of being the same as something that is different in its basic property.
Click to expand...

I would ague the ONLY difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage is the physical inability to procreate in said marriage through traditional means.

If this is your standard for whether a marriage is considered within the bounds of tradition, then what is your opinion of married heterosexual couples who use IVF? Who choose to adopt? Who choose to live their lives childless?

Are those couples not in the same social position as homosexual couples?
 
BC9_ said:
Logic. OK. Logic is a very plain thing. I thought about it logically and came up with this reason (people may disagree, that's okay, but this is MY reason, amongst others)...

Marriage purely means two different things coming together.

You don't hear Jamie Oliver on his cooking show call something "a marriage of flavours" if he's got salt and salt coming together, because those two things are the same. If there's salt and pepper mixed together, there's your marriage of flavours.
Click to expand...

So, because something is the same it's not equal. Okay.

I will be voting NO.
Click to expand...

Before you do so, consider the legal implication and precedence you are enabling.

Some people who will be voting NO are doing so because they hate gays, there is no doubting that. I find that quite sad. So I will say this to separate myself from those people (and if someone wants to say that I am still a gay-hater by the fact that I will vote NO is incorrect)... I really do like gay people, the people who are gay who I know at my work, university etc. are fantastic people. Again, there are straight people in my work place who I think are quality people, others, not so much.
Click to expand...

Yes. You like gay people so much, you're denying them their rights.

I'm sorry. You may not hate them, but you don't like them. Not enough to treat them like equals under Australian law.

I read an article and agree with these sentiments quoted from the article. I reckon it's not always easy to find an article that is 100% completely in line with your own views, but this is the closest to it I've seen:
“The same-sex marriage debate is not about equality, it is about redefinition. It is like a triangle saying it has the right to be called a square because they are both geometrical shapes. But that does not make sense, because certain basic properties are different.

“The same applies for the use of the word marriage. Same-sex couples already have equality under the law, but equality does not mean sameness.

“The solution would be for this type of committed relationship to have a different word that gives equivalency, but not sameness. That would protect traditional marriage while giving same-sex couples a word they could use with clarity, and not with the pretence of being the same as something that is different in its basic property.

“To pretend a thing is the same as another thing with different properties is the basis of political correctness. Political correctness takes away freedom from one group while changing the clear meaning of something.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/fcbe9556e3f14c19b21bec2554bd639a
Click to expand...

What a load of utter bullshit.

"Taking freedoms from one group" haha did you read that with a straight face?!

Humour me; what freedom are you losing, exactly?

Why does "traditional" marriage need protecting?

How does any of this affect your marriage?
 
Darebin Council will be blocking no campaigners from having their voice. Whether you agree or disagree with the plebiscite or agree or disagree with ssm this is just absurd and shows that the council is undemocratic and does not believe in open transparent and full debate on issues they disagree with. Not surprising in a greens run council however.
 
TimmeT said:
Darebin Council will be blocking no campaigners from having their voice. Whether you agree or disagree with the plebiscite or agree or disagree with ssm this is just absurd and shows that the council is undemocratic and does not believe in open transparent and full debate on issues they disagree with. Not surprising in a greens run council however.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify please?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BC9_ said:
Logic. OK. Logic is a very plain thing. I thought about it logically and came up with this reason (people may disagree, that's okay, but this is MY reason, amongst others)...

Marriage purely means two different things coming together.

You don't hear Jamie Oliver on his cooking show call something "a marriage of flavours" if he's got salt and salt coming together, because those two things are the same. If there's salt and pepper mixed together, there's your marriage of flavours.



I will be voting NO.



Some people who will be voting NO are doing so because they hate gays, there is no doubting that. I find that quite sad. So I will say this to separate myself from those people (and if someone wants to say that I am still a gay-hater by the fact that I will vote NO is incorrect)... I really do like gay people, the people who are gay who I know at my work, university etc. are fantastic people. Again, there are straight people in my work place who I think are quality people, others, not so much.



I read an article and agree with these sentiments quoted from the article. I reckon it's not always easy to find an article that is 100% completely in line with your own views, but this is the closest to it I've seen:
“The same-sex marriage debate is not about equality, it is about redefinition. It is like a triangle saying it has the right to be called a square because they are both geometrical shapes. But that does not make sense, because certain basic properties are different.

“The same applies for the use of the word marriage. Same-sex couples already have equality under the law, but equality does not mean sameness.

“The solution would be for this type of committed relationship to have a different word that gives equivalency, but not sameness. That would protect traditional marriage while giving same-sex couples a word they could use with clarity, and not with the pretence of being the same as something that is different in its basic property.

“To pretend a thing is the same as another thing with different properties is the basis of political correctness. Political correctness takes away freedom from one group while changing the clear meaning of something.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/fcbe9556e3f14c19b21bec2554bd639a
Click to expand...
Serious question, are you kiralee smith?

This is almost the exact logic she tried to use.
 
Also, unless you think all men are identical then your jamie Oliver analogy is stupid

More accurately it would be like mixing two spices, and saying it's a marriage of flavours. They both belong to the same "group" but are not the exact same thing
 
TimmeT said:
Darebin Council will be blocking no campaigners from having their voice. Whether you agree or disagree with the plebiscite or agree or disagree with ssm this is just absurd and shows that the council is undemocratic and does not believe in open transparent and full debate on issues they disagree with. Not surprising in a greens run council however.
Click to expand...
Ah the ultra left and their usually bullying tactics.

Treat everybody fairly and equally, unless you have a different opinion in which case * you

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Gough said:
Argue a good case against ssm that doesn't involve theism, and people will listen.
Click to expand...

Im not against same sex marriage.

Just dont think councils should be enforcing their side.

Tbf i dont even think we should have councillers but that is for another thread.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
cartwright said:
So, because something is the same it's not equal. Okay.



Before you do so, consider the legal implication and precedence you are enabling.



Yes. You like gay people so much, you're denying them their rights.

I'm sorry. You may not hate them, but you don't like them. Not enough to treat them like equals under Australian law.



What a load of utter bullshit.

"Taking freedoms from one group" haha did you read that with a straight face?!

Humour me; what freedom are you losing, exactly?

Why does "traditional" marriage need protecting?

How does any of this affect your marriage?
Click to expand...

Tell me what the legal "implications" are?

I considered in my own reasons the significant change in legal implications enabled almost a decade ago when the definition of de facto relationships changed to recognise the relationships of same sex couples living with each other on a genuine domestic basis.

This gave rise to the the rights of de facto couples (same sex de facto couples and heterosexual de facto couples) and married couples being largely the same under Australian law, so that they were treated as equals.

If you are in a de facto relationship any disputes over your children or over property will be treated by law in the same way as for a married couple.



I think that last bit about freedom was referring to freedom of speech and political correctness limiting that freedom. People with an opinion won't speak up because they are afraid to. I didn't mean to humour you with that, people voting NO don't want to speak up because they are fearful of being bullied and dismissed as being homophobic when in fact they like gay people. The freedom of married people won't be affected for that matter, and if the article meant it will I don't agree with it.

The word protecting is a bit much, because strictly speaking in my opinion it needs to be defined differently because it's not the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's what the Marriage Act says and I believe it should stay that way.
 
00Stinger said:
Im not against same sex marriage.

Just dont think councils should be enforcing their side.

Tbf i dont even think we should have councillers but that is for another thread.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But if so much of the no case is based on flawed logic, and misinformation why should anybody assist in spreading it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
DangerousD
D
Ohitsthatguy
The Coalition initiated Robodebt on the most vulnerable...
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
QuietB
Inequality is out of control in Australia
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
Saint
Saint
Ohitsthatguy
Is it cool that Stokes, Murdoch and Costello own Australian media?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
HurleyHepsHird
It is time to end the consultancy gravy train and rebuild the public service
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Demonic Ascent
Demonic Ascent
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Geoff
Geoff

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top