Marriage equality debate - Pt.3 - Australia votes yes

[Pessimistic]

Although the way they phrase it - remove religion from "marriage" and allow religious to have their own ceremony if that matters to them (where needs to be consistent with those religions rules, including if appropriate to those rules not permitting SSM) is really not removed from how some of the NO viewpoints were made - this version gives the word marriage to the civil union and <<insert new made up word>> for the religious one. EG matrimony.

Just had a quick and dirty review the Catholics use marriage, matrimony, wedding whereas the anglicans an civil simply use married or marriage

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Just had a quick and dirty review the Catholics use marriage, matrimony, wedding whereas the anglicans an civil simply use married or marriage

That angle seems wholly unnecessary, but I imagine no-one else would have a problem with them describing it as "holy matrimony", which is often used already.

 

[radiojake]

Add on top of that the two who voted no in Victoria have the largest Islamic communties (Bruce which takes in areas like Noble Park and Springvale and Caldwell which takes in areas such as Dallas, Coolaroo and Broadmeadows).

On the results day at work someone was going thru the results of each electorate - one of my colleagues asked about Bruce, as that is where she lives - when informed of the no majority of that area, she sighed and joked 'i probably have to move' but went on to say 'not really unexpected with the amount of evangelical chinese christian churches in the area'

But you know... you better keep bringing up muslims at every opportunity, even when completely erroneous

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

On the results day at work someone was going thru the results of each electorate - one of my colleagues asked about Bruce, as that is where she lives - when informed of the no majority of that area, she sighed and joked 'i probably have to move' but went on to say 'not really unexpected with the amount of evangelical chinese christian churches in the area'

But you know... you better keep bringing up muslims at every opportunity, even when completely erroneous

Careful, they'll be blaming Chinese for the no vote and high house prices in no time.

 

[Kurve]

On the results day at work someone was going thru the results of each electorate - one of my colleagues asked about Bruce, as that is where she lives - when informed of the no majority of that area, she sighed and joked 'i probably have to move' but went on to say 'not really unexpected with the amount of evangelical chinese christian churches in the area'

But you know... you better keep bringing up muslims at every opportunity, even when completely erroneous

You cannot say the Muslim vote in Western Sydney had no impact because that would be completely erroneous. Kayser Trad has already admitted that it did and taken credit, along with the Christian vote! Progressive Muslims from Western Sydney have stated that their community was instructed by their preachers to vote 'NO' out of 'civic duty'.

But really, who didn't see that coming anyway? How bizarre the denial is.

As I've said before, both apologists and bigots are equally as damaging in frustrating discussion.

 

[radiojake]

You cannot say the Muslim vote in Western Sydney had no impact because that would be completely erroneous. Kayser Trad has already admitted that it did and taken credit, along with the Christian vote! Progressive Muslims from Western Sydney have stated that their community was instructed by their preachers to vote 'NO' out of 'civic duty'.

But really, who didn't see that coming anyway? How bizarre the denial is.

As I've said before, both apologists and bigots are equally as damaging in frustrating discussion.

Umm why dont you actually read what i wrote instead of going off half cocked?

Where exactly was western sydney mentioned in my post or the post i responded to??

 

[Kurve]

Umm why dont you actually read what i wrote instead of going off half cocked?

Where exactly was western sydney mentioned in my post or the post i responded to??

I do apologise sincerely, for mixing my Bruce up. Same thrust applies though.

 

[radiojake]

As do i for my aggressive response

It doesn't read well on reflection

 

[TimmeT]

On the results day at work someone was going thru the results of each electorate - one of my colleagues asked about Bruce, as that is where she lives - when informed of the no majority of that area, she sighed and joked 'i probably have to move' but went on to say 'not really unexpected with the amount of evangelical chinese christian churches in the area'

But you know... you better keep bringing up muslims at every opportunity, even when completely erroneous

Actually it is not erroneous. If you're in the north of Bruce like Glen Waverley and Syndal you'll find a large Chinese christian community but if you're in the south then you'll find a larger Muslim community in the areas of Springvale, Noble Park and Dandenong.

 

[TimmeT]

Careful, they'll be blaming Chinese for the no vote and high house prices in no time.

Already been done on the Bennalong By Election post on the CFMEU facebook. Been having some commentators tell us how sick they are of rich Chinese and how something needs to be done about them. Ready for more racist campaigns from CFMEU.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Which is a stupid point in itself and ignores the requirement for public attitudes to change on other relationship types before they are included under the marriage umbrella.

It's not a stupid point. Once you make a change to the marriage laws to cater for one section of society it is harder to justify denying changes to cater for another.

Look at the kerfuffle over making a logical change to include two consenting adults of the same sex. Do you think some politician is going to come along and simply ram through under age marriage, polygamy or human/animal marriage without an almighty backlash.

Changing the marriage laws to allow SSM is not a logical change. All the arguments were sentimental waffle such as 'love is love' or 'equality'.

But you've done exactly what I've been describing - deliberating conflating arguments for polygamy and changing the marital age - with human/animal marriage - in order to dismiss the whole argument. There are significant communities in Australia that are demanding changes to the marriage laws to allow them to conform with Sharia.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Katter on SSM and croc attacks.

Katter is clearly insane. Why does he not get ridiculed more?

 

[Kurve]

Katter is clearly insane. Why does he not get ridiculed more?

Yes, well he schitzed from easy going jokey bloke to hungry man eating crocodile face in a nanosecond.

We could possibly be doing more though turning big old crocs into handbags and shoes. In a kindly way of course.

 

[Pessimistic]

All this conservative grasping for victimhood.

What a bunch of weak as piss snowflakes. They need a societal safe space.

And bake our ******* cakes, and shut up about it.

They shall henceforth be described as fruitcakes

 

[radiojake]

Actually it is not erroneous. If you're in the north of Bruce like Glen Waverley and Syndal you'll find a large Chinese christian community but if you're in the south then you'll find a larger Muslim community in the areas of Springvale, Noble Park and Dandenong.

so if you ignore the large Chinese Christian community, then the no vote was because of the Muslims? Is that it?

Do you even live in Melbourne? How do you know that area has a large Muslim population?
I have no idea about the area, hence using the anecdote of a colleague who does live there

 

[Chief]

Katter is clearly insane. Why does he not get ridiculed more?

Does he have any power?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yes, well he schitzed from easy going jokey bloke to hungry man eating crocodile face in a nanosecond.

We could possibly be doing more though turning big old crocs into handbags and shoes. In a kindly way of course.

I had a boss like that once. His face randomly switched between smiling and frowning as he was talking. It was quite trippy.

 

[NSWCROW]

Yes, well he schitzed from easy going jokey bloke to hungry man eating crocodile face in a nanosecond.

We could possibly be doing more though turning big old crocs into handbags and shoes. In a kindly way of course.

******* unhinged this quarry.


Funniest moment so far in QT this year was when he FINALLY managed to finish a question and it was met with laughter and applause form both sides for the achievement

 

[Boston tiger]

Although the way they phrase it - remove religion from "marriage" and allow religious to have their own ceremony if that matters to them (where needs to be consistent with those religions rules, including if appropriate to those rules not permitting SSM) is really not removed from how some of the NO viewpoints were made - this version gives the word marriage to the civil union and <<insert new made up word>> for the religious one. EG matrimony.

That’s brilliant. Pity we didn’t think of that earlier and we could have got the same sex couples to do the same thing. Just << insert new made up word>>and Bob’s your Aunty everyone is happy.

 

[NSWCROW]

I'm hearing Roscreasl is sooking to the mods about my sig



LoL


So so soft

 

[Showbags]

It's not a stupid point. Once you make a change to the marriage laws to cater for one section of society it is harder to justify denying changes to cater for another.



Changing the marriage laws to allow SSM is not a logical change. All the arguments were sentimental waffle such as 'love is love' or 'equality'.

But you've done exactly what I've been describing - deliberating conflating arguments for polygamy and changing the marital age - with human/animal marriage - in order to dismiss the whole argument. There are significant communities in Australia that are demanding changes to the marriage laws to allow them to conform with Sharia.

All the arguments against were "its tradition", red herrings or slippery slopes that had nothing to do with debate.

There were plenty of arguments for, you just chose to ignore them. Legal inequality between de facto and married couples, the symbolic gesture to LGBT community that you are equal to everyone else, the associated mental health and social acceptance benefits and the economic benefits of SS wedding industry.

And i refute the continued premise that the LGBT community must prove that they are worthy of equality as the No side try to frame it. It is the No side that should have the burden of proving gay people aren't worthy.

Maybe we shouldn't have extended the right to vote to women as it may allow that right to be extended to animals or trees in the future. According to your logic we make no changes to any law, no matter how beneficial, because of the faint possibility it may lead to something less desirable in the future? No, you argue the pros and cons of each law change as it comes along not some hypothetical scenario that may or may not happen in the future.

 

[Chief]

All the arguments against were "its tradition", red herrings or slippery slopes that had nothing to do with debate.

There were plenty of arguments for, you just chose to ignore them. Legal inequality between de facto and married couples, the symbolic gesture to LGBT community that you are equal to everyone else, the associated mental health and social acceptance benefits and the economic benefits of SS wedding industry.

And i refute the continued premise that the LGBT community must prove that they are worthy of equality as the No side try to frame it. It is the No side that should have the burden of proving gay people aren't worthy.

Maybe we shouldn't have extended the right to vote to women as it may allow that right to be extended to animals or trees in the future. According to your logic we make no changes to any law, no matter how beneficial, because of the faint possibility it may lead to something less desirable in the future? No, you argue the pros and cons of each law change as it comes along not some hypothetical scenario that may or may not happen in the future.

Here endeth the lesson.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TimmeT]

so if you ignore the large Chinese Christian community, then the no vote was because of the Muslims? Is that it?

Do you even live in Melbourne? How do you know that area has a large Muslim population?
I have no idea about the area, hence using the anecdote of a colleague who does live there

I live in the adjacent seat.

 

[Forward Press]

I live in the adjacent seat.

There are far more east Asians (Chinese in particular) than Muslims in Bruce. Nearly 20% are Catholic, consistent with that poster's earlier claims of a Chinese Catholic community influencing the votes although of course without more specific data it is impossible to be certain just how many are that are Chinese are also Catholic. In fact, there are more Buddhists and those with no religion than Muslims in Bruce.

Source: ABS

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/CED205

I'd genuinely like to see your response to this one TimmeT.

 

[sherb]

There are far more east Asians (Chinese in particular) than Muslims in Bruce. Nearly 20% are Catholic, consistent with that poster's earlier claims of a Chinese Catholic community influencing the votes although of course without more specific data it is impossible to be certain just how many are that are Chinese are also Catholic. In fact, there are more Buddhists and those with no religion than Muslims in Bruce.

Source: ABS

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/CED205

I'd genuinely like to see your response to this one TimmeT.

Damn those facts. Damn them!