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

[Chief]

******* bigot. Why can't an institution get married?

To a horse!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Tiger08]

Can someone who supports the Yes case explain to me why it's not ok to marry my sister?

 

[Chief]

Seems to me that the only people who are afraid of free speech, are the War-Hawks in the Pentagon.

Wat??

 

[JeffDunne]

You keep saying that without proof as if its fact when of course its not. You also ignore 1000s of years of history and multiple arguments against.

A good article from a rabbi, its not about equality its about redefining what marriage is. One of the better argued no cases.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/as-an...-not-a-vote-against-love-20170916-gyiw0s.html

What someone does in the privacy of one's own home is between them and God.

This is the fundamental flaw in the focus on the No campaign. It underscores how they are either misrepresenting the issue or don't understand the reason why most people will vote Yes.

The battle over privacy and what someone does in their own home was settled long ago. Homosexuality is now a social norm.

This is a battle over the rights of those gay couples to publicly declare & commit to their relationships in the same way non-gay couples can.

Voting No isn't going to push gay people back into the privacy of their own homes.

 

[madmug]

Not really it only been a civil matter for the last 5 minutes and clergy going through with the ceremony is part of that civil contract.

5 minutes? Or Whatever,
It IS a civil registration matter NOW.

Clergy or Celebrant, all REGISTERED under a CIVIL act, perform A ceremony & complete the forms as a matter of CIVIL law.

The 'religious' part of it if of no consequence except to the brand preference ( Rock Cake, Muslim, Hindu, Calithumpian etc etc ) of the people getting married. It don't matter when it comes to the law.

 

[JeffDunne]

Can someone who supports the Yes case explain to me why it's not ok to marry my sister?

Post a picture of her and I'll take a crack at explaining it.

 

[Benny78]

Oh man. Opened it this morning ticked yes about to go down to the post office.

Then I read this. http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

People like this boss make me want to tear it up and hope for a no result. No way should people like that get their way. Guess I'll still be posting it in response to excessive Christian interest. The whole thing is just a whole non issue. It's not like being gay is illegal, we're merely talking about a piece of paper nothing changes for them really. Shame there are many other groups who actually miss out and don't receive the amount of public attention and support that gays do.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Not really it only been a civil matter for the last 5 minutes and clergy going through with the ceremony is part of that civil contract.

About 50 years ago. The original Marriage Act of 1961. This is what the politicians will be amending.

 

[Gough]

About 50 years ago. The original Marriage Act of 1961. This is what the politicians will be amending.

If only Howard had been wise enough to see that his hero, R.G. Menzies had been able to foresee the prospect of ssm, and worded his Act accordingly. A sage old man was Ming.

 

[Chief]

Oh man. Opened it this morning ticked yes about to go down to the post office.

Then I read this. http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

People like this boss make me want to tear it up and hope for a no result. No way should people like that get their way. Guess I'll still be posting it in response to excessive Christian interest. The whole thing is just a whole non issue. It's not like being gay is illegal, we're merely talking about a piece of paper nothing changes for them really. Shame there are many other groups who actually miss out and don't receive the amount of public attention and support that gays do.

We don't know how far the employee went with their public declarations. If it really was just "it's OK to vote no" then this seems like a case of unfair dismissal and against freedom of political speech.

If it was "shut up ya bloody ****ters" then fire away.

“Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech. Voting no is homophobic. Advertising your homophobia is hate speech. As a business owner I can’t have somebody who publicly represents my business posting hate speech online.

“1. Its bad for business. 2. I don’t like s**t morals. 3. I don’t want homophobes working for me, especially in an environment with children.

“It’s not okay to vote no. It’s not okay to be homophobic. This isn’t a matter of opinion or even religion. It’s a matter of the love and livelihood of real human beings. Freedom of speech is there for a reason and so are consequences. Vote against homophobia. Vote for equality. Vote yes.”

She added that it was a “you’re voting no, you’re fired situation”.

“There were prior conversations had,” she wrote. “As a business that works with children of all kinds, we have a responsibility to working with vulnerable people and having someone who is out and proud about their beliefs (of which are statistically proven to have horrible effects on young members of the gay community) is a risk for the wellbeing of the children we work with.”

 

[Admiral Byng]

Oh man. Opened it this morning ticked yes about to go down to the post office.

Then I read this. http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

People like this boss make me want to tear it up and hope for a no result. No way should people like that get their way. Guess I'll still be posting it in response to excessive Christian interest. The whole thing is just a whole non issue. It's not like being gay is illegal, we're merely talking about a piece of paper nothing changes for them really. Shame there are many other groups who actually miss out and don't receive the amount of public attention and support that gays do.

This is why it should never have been sent to a plebiscite or postal survey in the first place, and just left for the politicians to do their job. The main argument against doing it this way is that it might turn nasty and divisive. Which is exactly what is happening. Friends are turning against each other over this, workers and bosses falling out, people splitting from their churches and all sorts of similar things.

The blame for this falls squarely on the Liberal Party for not having the guts to do their job.

 

[Showbags]

Oh man. Opened it this morning ticked yes about to go down to the post office.

Then I read this. http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd

People like this boss make me want to tear it up and hope for a no result. No way should people like that get their way. Guess I'll still be posting it in response to excessive Christian interest. The whole thing is just a whole non issue. It's not like being gay is illegal, we're merely talking about a piece of paper nothing changes for them really. Shame there are many other groups who actually miss out and don't receive the amount of public attention and support that gays do.

It happens on both sides mate. The Catholic church has stated how there will be consequences for employees exercising their possibly soon to be legal right to get married in a SS wedding.

 

[madmug]

Can someone who supports the Yes case explain to me why it's not ok to marry my sister?

If it takes the yes case to explain the genetic imperative against sibling relationships, then it shows just how little the no case knows about anything at all.

Did you go to a religious school? Did you learn anything about sex & biology at all? I know the Churches like ignorance & obedience, but that would explain a lot.

At least use a condom, for your own sake.

 

[Tiger08]

It happens on both sides mate. The Catholic church has stated how there will be consequences for employees exercising their possibly soon to be legal right to get married in a SS wedding.

So presumably you're ok with that?

The crazies on the Yes side just need to shut the hell up and the thing will pass easily. Unfortunately the desire to virtue signal and claim credit, rather than just worrying about the outcome, may be too strong.

 

[Gough]

So presumably you're ok with that?

The crazies on the Yes side just need to shut the hell up and the thing will pass easily. Unfortunately the desire to virtue signal and claim credit, rather than just worrying about the outcome, may be too strong.

Why do we need to shut up? The outcome is in no doubt whatsoever, this is just the victory lap.

 

[JeffDunne]

This is why it should never have been sent to a plebiscite or postal survey in the first place, and just left for the politicians to do their job. The main argument against doing it this way is that it might turn nasty and divisive. Which is exactly what is happening. Friends are turning against each other over this, workers and bosses falling out, people splitting from their churches and all sorts of similar things.

The blame for this falls squarely on the Liberal Party for not having the guts to do their job.

TBF, Labor squibbed it when they were in power and Tones was whipping up extremist Christian sentiment.

Labor's decade of shame and pandering to born-agains is as much to blame as the Liberal Party.

 

[Tiger08]

If it takes the yes case to explain the genetic imperative against sibling relationships, then it shows just how little the no case knows about anything at all.

Did you go to a religious school? Did you learn anything about sex & biology at all? I know the Churches like ignorance & obedience, but that would explain a lot.

At least use a condom, for your own sake.

We could adopt, not have kids or use a surrogate.

According to the Yes side, marriage is not about kids or genetics anyway. Gay couples don't have biological kids like straight ones do.

That's completely irrelevant.

 

[JeffDunne]

We could adopt, not have kids or use a surrogate.

According to the Yes side, marriage is not about kids or genetics anyway. Gay couples don't have biological kids like straight ones do.

That's completely irrelevant.

If you want to wind back laws on incest then by all means do what gays have done in lobbying for your rights.

This has nothing to do with SSM.

At least with your campaign you'll have the Bible, history & traditions on your side. However I think that says more about the Bible than it does your chances of convincing people.

 

[Tiger08]

Why do we need to shut up? The outcome is in no doubt whatsoever, this is just the victory lap.

You're probably right but you do sound like my fellow Richmond supporters this week..

 

[DemonTim]

We could adopt, not have kids or use a surrogate.

According to the Yes side, marriage is not about kids or genetics anyway. Gay couples don't have biological kids like straight ones do.

That's completely irrelevant.

1. Incest is illegal
2. A big part of it being illegal is children yes, but it also takes into account power imbalances and the coercion/force that is inherent in incest.
3. Same sex incest is illegal.

 

[Lebbo73]

Hahaha you ****wit

You have no clue who I am nor any idea on what the **** you are talking about.

And seeing that you are a Trump supporter, it's easy to work out that you are a mindless, angry homophobic small dicked idiot who has a massive chip on his shoulder because you really are frightened inside about what the real world is about and can not comprehend it because you are an intellectual pygmy.

Enjoy being frightened little boy. From this point you are not worth toying with, you are simply a piece of filth. campaigner.

Ignored.

Judging by this post it reads like you are describing yourself!

 

[Tiger08]

If you want to wind back laws on incest then by all means do what gays have done in lobbying for your rights.

This has nothing to do with SSM.

At least with your campaign you'll have the Bible, history & traditions on your side. However I think that says more about the Bible than it does your chances of convincing people.

Sorry did I mention the bible somewhere?

And it sounds like you agree the same logic that demands people agree to SSM (equal rights, consenting adults, don't judge other people's relationships etc) also suggests that we should be able to marry siblings.

I would genuinely like someone to explain why that's not the case btw.

For all the bashing of No supporters for not being logical or having reasons for being concerned.. surely there's a decent answer.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

You know he says that so you shut up, right? Secretly he cries inside that he raised a pozzed son like you who believes that age and experience is second to being young and 6 months into a liberal arts degree.

So I'm guessing you completed a politics degree or something?

 

[Admiral Byng]

TBF, Labor squibbed it when they were in power and Tones was whipping up extremist Christian sentiment.

Labor's decade of shame and pandering to born-agains is as much to blame as the Liberal Party.

It was an opportunity missed back then by the ALP but this is about the current mess, and the divisive nature of it rests with the conservatives within the Liberal party. The normal course of action on controversial matters is for politicians to have a conscience vote. Controversial things like RU486 were done this way by Howard which resulted in it being approved in the face of opposition by the then Minister for Health, a certain Mr T Abbott. The lack of a conscience vote for Liberal Party MPs on the current bill is the problem behind the current situation. There is no leadership within the party and they are held hostage to the conservative wing.

 

[Tiger08]

1. Incest is illegal
2. A big part of it being illegal is children yes, but it also takes into account power imbalances and the coercion/force that is inherent in incest.
3. Same sex incest is illegal.

1. So is SSM
2. Who are you to make that judgement? There's power imbalances in every relationship.
3. So is SSM.