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

[Forward Press]

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

When you're dealing with fairly small numbers, 1.5% is not a big difference. That's about 500 people.

Considering it was the first year of legalised SSM (thus a lot of those marriages would be from outside that sweet spot range as two 60 same sex year olds for instance are finally able to legally marry), I am actually surprised it wasn't more than that. Not exactly a surge in marriages.

 

[BustedWing]

When you're dealing with fairly small numbers, 1.5% is not a big difference. That's about 500 people.

Considering it was the first year of legalised SSM (thus a lot of those marriages would be from outside that sweet spot range as two 60 same sex year olds for instance are finally able to legally marry), I am actually surprised it wasn't more than that. Not exactly a surge in marriages.

Correct. The point being that gay people want to get married just as much as straight people.

To argue that they don't really want the right, that it "isn't that big a deal to them, so why are we even having the conversation" is incorrect.

It's just as important to them, in pretty much the same ratios, as it is to straight people.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Showbags]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/thene...torate-overwhelmingly-back-sex-marriage-poll/

So Tony Abbott is going against the express wishes of his own electorate in his stance on SSM.

60%of Liberals support SSM, 88% of Labor voters and 100% of Greens voters support a change.

 

[Maggie5]

OF ALL the reasons to say “no” to gay marriage this has to be the most bizarre.
Former cabinet minister Kevin Andrews has said same-sex relationships were simply “affectionate relationships”, the kind he might have with the members of his cycling group.

In contrast, marriage was a completely different institution that should remain between a man and a woman.
“I have an affectionate relationship with my cycling mates, we go cycling on the weekend, but that’s not marriage,” he said.

“The law has a place historically, culturally, across civilisations because it’s there for the protection of the vulnerable”.

The “vulnerable” people could include children or one half of the married couple, he suggested, while the same couple wishing to be married were in it for the “gratification of individuals”.

When pressed on fellow Liberal MP Tim Wilson’s commitment to his same-sex partner, Mr Andrews again likened the relationship to a “friendly” one.

“That’s fine. I have commitments to friends; I have affectionate relationships with friends as well.

“I hope he’s his (Wilson’s) friend as well as his partner, if you know what I am.

Do I really need to add any comment to this?

 

[cartwright]

Tell me what the legal "implications" are?

You are endorsing a pop vote to determine law. One day, there'll be a vote on something that directly affects you - and your rights will be impeded. You can remember the time you voted no.

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.

You say, largely the same.
Except the rights of a homosexual couple on medical issues differs from state to state.

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.

are you married?

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.

You are free to state your opinion. The difference is, your opinion should not infringe on the rights of others. Do you understand this distinction?
If you believe in freedom, freedom of an individual to determine their own life, determine who they create a family unit, independent of the government - then people should vote yes.

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.

So, marriages pre 2004 are not valid? This is a really odd stance to take.

it is the same. It really is. You cannot give one reason why they are not the same.

 

[cartwright]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/thene...torate-overwhelmingly-back-sex-marriage-poll/

So Tony Abbott is going against the express wishes of his own electorate in his stance on SSM.

60%of Liberals support SSM, 88% of Labor voters and 100% of Greens voters support a change.

they should stop voting for the idiot. Would solve a lot of things.

 

[Gough]

I really want to know wtf Kevvy and his cycling mates get up to.

 

[Maggie5]

I really want to know wtf Kevvy and his cycling mates get up to.

Does he go cycling with Tony? Oh my eyes are hurting badly.

 

[Forward Press]

Does he go cycling with Tony? Oh my eyes are hurting badly.

Well there's a mental image I can never get rid of now.

Thanks a lot, pal.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The Coalition took the plebiscite to the last election and won it. Therefore they have a mandate for it so why are you against it being run?

What mandate? Only won lower house and barely and equally Australia did not give them a senate majority. Given that election was a double dissolution the liberals haven't got a mandate for anything the senate opposes.

 

[roscreasl98]

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?

First you hijack the word Gay.
Then you hijack rainbows, and their colours.
Now it's the Marriage Act...

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

I'm a yes supporter but I don't think darebin should be able to do this.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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

The logical reason is it a really small issue which has consumed way too much time, vote yes to get it over and done.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

So post menopausal women can't marry men then?

 

[GreyWind]

So post menopausal women can't marry men then?

Don't forget anyone who is infertile. No marriage for them.

 

[iDon]

I'm a yes supporter but I don't think darebin should be able to do this.

The councillor is also holding sporting venues over the clubs that use them who have an affiliation with gaming venues (inside or outside their council) and demanding they remove themselves from affiliations otherwise they will not be able to use the council grounds. Also in the weeks leading up to the election, a letter box drop went out stating her main rival was pro-pokies because a pub in the area, applied unsuccessfully for pokies. The same venue he has family working for, which in her eyes made him pro-pokies. No free choice in Darebin.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I'm of the opinion that there is a heavy overlap of anti ssm groups and anti muslim immigration groups.

They are talking about the importance of democracy by letting everyone vote on this issue.

As we all know, muslims are quickly taking over this country and soon they will out number non-muslims.
So, when the muslim population hits 40%, would anyone against ssm still be arguing for a postal plebiscite's to change Australian laws? Because we all know the Muslims would stick together to vote a certain way.

What about when the muslim population hits 50%? Just one 22 year old not voting could mean we introduce sharia law.
What if we hit 51%?

Also, they aren't spread out evenly across Australia, the majority are in WA (Sharia Australia as they'll rename it). So only the WA reps and senate will be muslim controlled.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Homosexual marriage is important, even if every homosexual doesn't get married in the first year.

It's important because it sends a much wider message, that we view homosexuals equal to heterosexuals in Australia society.
It's a message of support and inclusiveness, that doesn't take a single thing away from heterosexuals.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

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

The problem is it proves Abbott's ridiculous statement about political correctness and freedom of speech to be viewed as correct. I like to think we have come a long way since 'Guess who's coming to dinner', however stances like Darebin council makes allows the idiots voice to grow.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm of the opinion that there is a heavy overlap of anti ssm groups and anti muslim immigration groups.

They are talking about the importance of democracy by letting everyone vote on this issue.

As we all know, muslims are quickly taking over this country and soon they will out number non-muslims.
So, when the muslim population hits 40%, would anyone against ssm still be arguing for a postal plebiscite's to change Australian laws? Because we all know the Muslims would stick together to vote a certain way.

What about when the muslim population hits 50%? Just one 22 year old not voting could mean we introduce sharia law.
What if we hit 51%?

Also, they aren't spread out evenly across Australia, the majority are in WA (Sharia Australia as they'll rename it). So only the WA reps and senate will be muslim controlled.

Atheists and Agnostics are quickly taking over this country and will soon outnumber believers. There was some online/postal survey the ABS did last year on this.

 

[Contra Mundum]

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.

He had to act because the High Court said it was up to Parliament to regulate what constituted Marriage - it was then open to construe the concept of marriage in the Marriage Act as including SSM. It was Howard's Christian Duty to stamp that OUT. I can't wait for that ******* fossil to be out and about supporting traditional marriage FFS

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Atheists and Agnostics are quickly taking over this country and will soon outnumber believers. There was some online/postal survey the ABS did last year on this.

Not according to many anonymous posters on the internet. Apparently it's just a matter of time before we are a muslim majority country.
It's part of their reason as to why we need to limit muslim immigration.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yes. Historically there are examples.

Have you got evidence for that?

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.

The principle was consistent - that people entering marriage were of a certain age. The age of consent to have sex was generally used as the marriageable age - but the States and Territories had differing ages of consent. It made sense to standardise it across Australia.

 

[QuietB]

OF ALL the reasons to say “no” to gay marriage this has to be the most bizarre.
Former cabinet minister Kevin Andrews has said same-sex relationships were simply “affectionate relationships”, the kind he might have with the members of his cycling group.

In contrast, marriage was a completely different institution that should remain between a man and a woman.
“I have an affectionate relationship with my cycling mates, we go cycling on the weekend, but that’s not marriage,” he said.

“The law has a place historically, culturally, across civilisations because it’s there for the protection of the vulnerable”.

The “vulnerable” people could include children or one half of the married couple, he suggested, while the same couple wishing to be married were in it for the “gratification of individuals”.

When pressed on fellow Liberal MP Tim Wilson’s commitment to his same-sex partner, Mr Andrews again likened the relationship to a “friendly” one.

“That’s fine. I have commitments to friends; I have affectionate relationships with friends as well.

“I hope he’s his (Wilson’s) friend as well as his partner, if you know what I am.

Do I really need to add any comment to this?

My marriage wouldn't last very long without a certain level of "gratification"

Jeez these people have a serious superiority complex

 

[QuietB]

As we all know, muslims are quickly taking over this country and soon they will out number non-muslims.

wat