Some may, what has secularism got to do with empathy, understanding and common sense?
You may have things mixed up a little.
gay marriage postal vote.
- Thread starter Seeds
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Some may, what has secularism got to do with empathy, understanding and common sense?
You may have things mixed up a little.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
Nah I don't
Just need to be fair in your analysis and present both sides of the coin is what I was getting at
I'm interested in your side of the coin, if that's the case.
Do you feel you have the right to tell others, who are doing no harm to anyone, how to live?
If you were born gay, would you like to be ostracised because of something you had no say in?
I don't care for this to be a religious debate as I'm sure there are many Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc that honestly believe that all human beings should be afforded equal rights.
The problem may be though, that they're not 'allowed' to voice those opinions..........and that's a problem.
lol @ people that get offended for being called homophobic for opposing marriage equality. You don't want g&l people to have the same rights as heterosexuals do, and you're not homophobic? Pull the other one. Religious argument is nonsense, churches won't be forced to marry same sex couples. Every other argument is crap, too. Stop hiding behind them.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,077
- 34,331
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I believe in equality. Giving married couples tax benefits and other advantages (e.g. Australian citizenship to foreigners) is not fair on all the singles, divorcees and widowers.
Marriage should be a religious or ceremonial thing. It should have no basis in law, especially these days with so many marriages being dissolved at the drop of a hat.
Legalising same sex marriages is just adding to the institutionalised inequality.
Marriage should be a religious or ceremonial thing. It should have no basis in law, especially these days with so many marriages being dissolved at the drop of a hat.
Legalising same sex marriages is just adding to the institutionalised inequality.
In all seriousness, I think that once if/when this gets through, we will see a high rate of divorce among the SSM community in the years that follow, as many couples will rush into getting married just because they now can, without really being ready or suited to it. Over time it will settle down of course, and obviously it's not an argument against the yes vote, it's just what I expect to see happen.I'm voting 'yes' because if they want it, they should have it. I don't see why heterosexuals should be the only ones who are miserable. I just wonder if these people have thought it through. They've had it good for too long, in relationships where marriage isn't an issue, and if it ain't working out, you can just leave. We all know how marriage changes people. Be careful what you wish for because it may come true. I'll be waiting for the first same sex divorce, that should be interesting
Sounds like you believe in equality of outcome, not opportunity. Anyone can get married (well... after this law is passed anyway) and access these tax benefits.
What are these tax benefits BTW?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Nah
You can begrudge when people don't think for themselves or knowingly sell mistruths
Homophobic isn't a choice, people are born that way. What right do you have to tell people they can't be homophobic?
- Jul 16, 2015
- 92,372
- 157,330
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Fighting Furies
- Moderator
- #585
That's true
Same with any phobia though.. Should we outlaw closed confined spaces like lifts because some people are clauustrophobic?
You could have used closets instead of lifts for your example...
No it's not, they could choose to stop believing that homosexuality is inferior or some perversion when it's not. If they know sexuality isn't a choice then what's their *in problem? What's their excuse?
Last edited:
If it were so simple there wouldn't be an issue.
Two consenting adults who love each other should be able to get married and they don't have to get married in a church. Tell me what is complicated about that.
I'm talking about the psychology associated.
That there's a lot of stupid people out there? True.
It may be nice (and in some instances true) to just categorise people you disagree with as stupid but it's not productive and is a reductive, black and white way of seeing things that leads to nothing good.
I feel strongly for SSM but can't stand the arguments people have.
I don't always do this, it depends on the topic. Economics? It's complex, I don't have all the answers, therefore I'm suggestible to different views. SSM? Nope, where is the respectable argument against it? I'll strap myself in for that one.
Would vote yes if I was given ballot papers to do so, yet to get them in the mail.
But like I said in another thread, I'd be keen to see the reaction and melts if the no vote won.
Like the republic revolution that happens and gets people excited, but ends up going nowhere!
But like I said in another thread, I'd be keen to see the reaction and melts if the no vote won
. Like the republic revolution that happens and gets people excited, but ends up going nowhere!
- Sep 2, 2014
- 16,668
- 32,003
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
On the religious aspect of it, if "God" had mentioned not to do it a few thousands years ago doesn't that therefore mean that people would have been doing it? Therefore those that think it's a social construct and not a natural behaviour would be wrong? Or they completely disregard where humans originated from and believe in creationism so maybe that cancels out the argument?
I have friends that are voting no and not one of them has any real reason to do so other than "marriage has always been between a man and a woman". Stopping gay people getting married isn't going to stop people being gay.
I have friends that are voting no and not one of them has any real reason to do so other than "marriage has always been between a man and a woman". Stopping gay people getting married isn't going to stop people being gay.
Flameboy
Norm Smith Medallist
My point was simply that some people who vote yes are just brainwashed by the masses... which was in response to your comment about those brainwashed by religion.
I don't particularly care personally, if they want to get married I won't be stopping them.
But I think people who vote no get unfairly pigeonholed by people like you as being brainwashed and homophobic
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Why cant 3 consenting adults get married? Why let polyphobes get away with their bigotry?
Russian Demon
Premiership Player
- Mar 26, 2015
- 4,225
- 5,651
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Only my two cents...
I am generally for it for my own reasons which ive spent the time to map out for myself. But i am more invested in the process of choosing a belief based on reason and logic than what the final result is.
I actually think the no vote should win by default. As the proposition is the change to yes, the burden of proof that it is the best pathway forward lies with the affirmative camp.
Im yet to see any reasonable discussion or advancement of ideas beyond hysterical emotional appeals along the lines of "its not fair". And when called on it, they attack the questioner (regardless of position) as homophobic.
So personally, i dont think the change should occur until either a govt is elected who will do it, or the advocates of yes learn to frame an arguement that will comvince somebody with half a brain.
I am generally for it for my own reasons which ive spent the time to map out for myself. But i am more invested in the process of choosing a belief based on reason and logic than what the final result is.
I actually think the no vote should win by default. As the proposition is the change to yes, the burden of proof that it is the best pathway forward lies with the affirmative camp.
Im yet to see any reasonable discussion or advancement of ideas beyond hysterical emotional appeals along the lines of "its not fair". And when called on it, they attack the questioner (regardless of position) as homophobic.
So personally, i dont think the change should occur until either a govt is elected who will do it, or the advocates of yes learn to frame an arguement that will comvince somebody with half a brain.
I don't see it as a big complex thing to be honest. Plenty of other more important matters the government should be wasting time on.
Howard should have never bothered changing the definition and a progressive government should have given the go ahead years and years ago.
Howard should have never bothered changing the definition and a progressive government should have given the go ahead years and years ago.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This. 100 times this. It's an embarrassment this issue has been in the public sphere this long for no action. Just ******* get on with it. We're billions in debt, how about spending some time on that? How about spending $100m on shelter for the homeless or replacing the near 50 year old copper wire running to my house?
Not having a definition isn't a solution. I don't think a situation where a same sex couple trying to get married involves legal ambiguity is workable.
That being said this debate should've happened before the Marriage Act Amendment.
