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

[00Stinger]

But if so much of the no case is based on flawed logic, and misinformation why should anybody assist in spreading it.

Obviously limiting free speach during a democratic vote.

Aren't those the two things this country is supposedly built on?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Gough]

Obviously limiting free speach during a democratic vote.

Aren't those the two things this country is supposedly built on?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Nobody is limiting free speech, some organisations are just refusing to be involved in talking rubbish, which they are perfectly permitted to do.

 

[00Stinger]

Nobody is limiting free speech, some organisations are just refusing to be involved in talking rubbish, which they are perfectly permitted to do.

I have no problems with organisations/companies ext picking a side.

I dont think councils should be allowed to. They are there to represent all members of the community, not just the ones they want to.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[BustedWing]

I think that last bit about freedom was referring to freedom of speech and political correctness limiting that freedom.

I think you misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Your speech is protected from government persecution, but not from consequence.

If i walk into my bosses office and call him a See you next Tuesday, I am free to do so, I will not have done anything illegal, but the consequence of my free speech may leave me without a job.

Political correctness in the spectrum you're referring to is simply the consequence of the majority of society disagreeing with your views. This should not be restricted, nor silenced, simply because it is YOUR view.

Or to be more simplistic - you can be an arsehole, you are "free" to be one. But others will treat you like an arsehole - that is the consequence.

But back to the point at hand:

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.

I think you answered your own question the bolded bit.

Largely the same inst identical is it. They want identical rights. Why on earth shouldn't they have them, especially when it doesn't impact on your life one little bit?

 

[Frank Bunn]

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.

You are getting very carried away with your numbers. In Ireland, during 2016, the first full year when same-sex couples could get married, only 1,056 same-sex marriages took place. It doesn't actually impact that many people.

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?

It's an important difference. A homosexual marriage can NEVER naturally produce children. Just because there are some heterosexual marriages that do not produce children is not a justification to change the definition.

 

[BustedWing]

You are getting very carried away with your numbers. In Ireland, during 2016, the first full year when same-sex couples could get married, only 1,056 same-sex marriages took place. It doesn't actually impact that many people.

Very much disagree. In order to be positively impacted by the proposed change, one does not need to immediately act upon the newly attained right.

Every single homosexual in Australia would now have gained the ability to do something they previously could not do, and that (getting married) is something many (if not all) would like the option to do at some point in their lives. That count would be in the millions.

All those single homosexuals that can now LEGITIMATELY dream of getting married. All those in a relationship that can now LEGITIMATELY start planning to propose. Imagine what that would do for their psyche. For their sense of self worth.

That's a positive change on their lives.

t's an important difference. A homosexual marriage can NEVER naturally produce children. Just because there are some heterosexual marriages that do not produce children is not a justification to change the definition.

But it does destroy the argument that people (perhaps you) use against gay marriage. The one that goes "well they can't procreate, and if they cant do that, then they shouldn't be given the right to get married".

If you hold that belief, then you must be consistent, and also refuse marriage to sterile people, to people experiencing menopause, to those that simply don't want kids. If you don't then you expose your argument as not one about procreation, but about WHO these people are, and whether they are gay or not.

That's homophobia. Pure and simple.

 

[Gough]

Which is the unfortunate truth for those who are voting no. However they try to justify or spin it, voting to deny gay people the same rights as others is an explicitly homophobic act.

 

[MAGA]

Which is the unfortunate truth for those who are voting no. However they try to justify or spin it, voting to deny gay people the same rights as others is an explicitly homophobic act.

So completely wrong, I'm voting no just to piss off leftists. Expand your mind, pretty poor for a moderator.

 

[BustedWing]

So completely wrong, I'm voting no just to piss off leftists. Expand your mind, pretty poor for a moderator.

That's a pretty shitty thing to do...

 

[Gough]

So completely wrong, I'm voting no just to piss off leftists. Expand your mind, pretty poor for a moderator.

If you want convince yourself that it's cool, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.

 

[DemonTim]

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.

That's what the marriage act has said for the last 15 or so years, it wasn't before that.

You're not actually providing a reason for why it shouldn't be allowed. You're just saying "because it's different".

 

[RupieDupie]

So completely wrong, I'm voting no just to piss off leftists. Expand your mind, pretty poor for a moderator.

Thus you have accepted the spin.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Very much disagree. In order to be positively impacted by the proposed change, one does not need to immediately act upon the newly attained right.

Every single homosexual in Australia would now have gained the ability to do something they previously could not do, and that (getting married) is something many (if not all) would like the option to do at some point in their lives. That count would be in the millions.

All those single homosexuals that can now LEGITIMATELY dream of getting married. All those in a relationship that can now LEGITIMATELY start planning to propose. Imagine what that would do for their psyche. For their sense of self worth.

That's a positive change on their lives.

All those Irish gays who dreamed for years of being able to get married. Except when they got the chance hardly any of them did.

But it does destroy the argument that people (perhaps you) use against gay marriage. The one that goes "well they can't procreate, and if they cant do that, then they shouldn't be given the right to get married".

If you hold that belief, then you must be consistent, and also refuse marriage to sterile people, to people experiencing menopause, to those that simply don't want kids. If you don't then you expose your argument as not one about procreation, but about WHO these people are, and whether they are gay or not.

Marriage is fundamentally about procreation. That's why close family members are not allowed to marry. It would be impractical to design marriage laws that excluded every category of couple that could not have children.

That's homophobia. Pure and simple.

That didn't take long. I disagree with your logic so you must be secretly gay

 

[JackOutback]

So completely wrong, I'm voting no just to piss off leftists. Expand your mind, pretty poor for a moderator.

That just makes you a mean spirited campaigner. As well as homophobic, most likely.

 

[Frank Bunn]

That's what the marriage act has said for the last 15 or so years, it wasn't before that.

That's because until very recently it wasn't even questioned that marriage was between a man and a woman. Are you aware of any same sex marriages before 2004?

 

[Gough]

That's because until very recently it wasn't even questioned that marriage was between a man and a woman. Are you aware of any same sex marriages before 2004?

It was changed in 2004 because Howard was canny enough to see which way the winds were blowing, and see the loophole in the wording of the Marriage Act so he deliberately amended it in order to prevent gay marriage. It has nowt to do with how many gay marriages there were prior to 2004.

 

[RupieDupie]

Marriage is fundamentally about procreation. That's why close family members are not allowed to marry. It would be impractical to design marriage laws that excluded every category of couple that could not have children.

Unfortunately in the bare minimum wedding vows the celebrant does not state anything about procreation (at least in my understanding). Marriage is a life-long commitment by two people. But (at least in my understanding) due to what a certain parliamentarian did in 2004, now celebrants must remind people as part of the ceremony that marriage is only between a man and a woman by Australian Law. Just in case both members of the couple has a doodle.

 

[Father Jack]

There is no mandate for a plebiscite as the Senate, as voted in by the voting public, knocked it back. If there was a mandate it would have got up. Which is why I believe that the word 'mandate' is up there with 'political correctness' as a most worthless term only good for obfuscating the real issue.

 

[RupieDupie]

Here it is;

46 Certain authorised celebrants to explain nature of marriage relationship

1. Subject to subsection (2), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion of a recognized denomination, the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses, the words: “I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law.
   
   “Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter.
   
   “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”;
   
   or words to that effect.

It is a bit like in church where people have to repeat the Dogma after the priest. "Christ be with you"

"Marriage, according to law in Australia, made unto by Howard, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others"

 

[DemonTim]

That's because until very recently it wasn't even questioned that marriage was between a man and a woman. Are you aware of any same sex marriages before 2004?

Yes. Historically there are examples.
Until the 60s age of consent wasn't an explicit condition, were you against that change? I mean until very recently ago of consent wasn't even questioned.

 

[BustedWing]

All those Irish gays who dreamed for years of being able to get married. Except when they got the chance hardly any of them did.

Im not sure of your point - there needs to be a statute of limitations put on a right to marry? Lets break down your numbers though.

Population of Ireland: 4.5m or so.
% that identify as gay: 4-8% depending on your source. Lets split the difference and go with 6%.
% of gay people older than 18: 120,000 ish.

2000 of those people got married in their VERY FIRST YEAR of legality.

By contrast there were 22,000 marriages in all of Ireland that year, meaning the "gay" ratio of 5%, which is right in line with the overall population.

Irish homosexuals want to get married in the same numbers as heterosexuals, EVEN In their very first year being free of discrimination. That's impressive.

Besides all this. Your argument is "lets not give them the right, they wont use it anyway!" is absurd. Is there a statute of limitations on your rights? Should we put an age limit perhaps on all people getting married? Perhaps you must be less than 40 years old in order to get married? If you haven't by then...too bad!

Marriage is fundamentally about procreation.

I think you will find you are horribly incorrect here. Marriage is about a lifelong commitment to one another. Again, my point still stands, if procreation is the objective, what conditions will you place on heterosexual couples looking to get married? Any at all?

That's why close family members are not allowed to marry.

Straw man argument. When there are marches in the streets for people demanding the right to marry their siblings, then we can have a discussion about its merits. Until then, its a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

It would be impractical to design marriage laws that excluded every category of couple that could not have children.

Wonderful! I agree. It would be impractical and immoral. But sexuality on the other hand you dont seem to have an issue with???

That didn't take long. I disagree with your logic so you must be secretly gay

You're right. It didn't take long for you to reveal your homophobic arguments. I dont understand the rest of your comment.

 

[skilts]

Interested so see just how many of the " IT'S SHORTENS FAULT " crowd are willing to admit they voted for the coward Abbott..................................


I'm here all day.......

And...you're still here. Go to bed, FFS.

 

[Showbags]

And Political Correctness is a logical reason to vote yes?
You haven't given any other solid reasons.....

There are economic benefits to allowing same sex weddings to take place in Australia and tourists coming to Australia to marry. Also there will be tangible mental health benefits to the LGBT community.

It is you that hasnt made an argument as to ANY benefit of keeping the current definition.

 

[BustedWing]

You are getting very carried away with your numbers. In Ireland, during 2016, the first full year when same-sex couples could get married, only 1,056 same-sex marriages took place. It doesn't actually impact that many people.



It's an important difference. A homosexual marriage can NEVER naturally produce children. Just because there are some heterosexual marriages that do not produce children is not a justification to change the definition.

I actually crunched the numbers on Irish gay marriages a bit more (I'm bored, what can I say).

Average age of marriage in Ireland: 33.

% of the population aged 27-36: depending on the source 18-22%. Let's call it 20%.

% of those that identify as "in a relationship" 60% ish.

So, the number of gay Irish people, in the average age demographic, that are in a relationship (ie, ripe marriage material) was 32k ish.

2100 got married, or about 8%.

% of straight couples in the marriage sweet spot that got married? 6.5%.

More gay people proportionately got married that year than straight people.

But yeah...not really a desire from the NTTAWWTs to get married is there...




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NSWCROW]

And...you're still here. Go to bed, FFS.

It's 11am you dillpickle.........