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

[Showbags]

So if it was called something else there wouldn't be the same benefits?

No you arent getting it. The fact that they are allowed to call it marriage is the huge gesture of inclusiveness that will provide the benefits and feelings of acceptance.

 

[cartwright]

No you arent getting it. The fact that they are allowed to call it marriage is the huge gesture of inclusiveness that will provide the benefits and feelings of acceptance.

That, also the point that no one owns the word marriage.
Heterosexual people can get married without a religious organisation involved.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

My exception was to the suggestion that people with certain ideas need to be shepherded off into their own special areas. It's a disturbing and hateful idea.

Also to the implication that social conscience and conservatives are in contrast.

He had just said "meoooooow I bet you're hot".

And you took exception to him being asked to go away.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I'm playing devil's advocate at this point.

No you're not. You are trying to justify why you don't want homosexual marriage to be recognised in Australia.

 

[Fryman]

No you're not. You are trying to justify why you don't want homosexual marriage to be recognised in Australia.

I already said I'll vote yes you bell end.

So I am literally playing devil's advocate.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I already said I'll vote yes you bell end.

So I am literally playing devil's advocate.

No need for insults.

You said you probably would, just to get it over with. I haven't seen a single post from you suggesting in any way that you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry in Australia.
You just question why we should let them marry, and say you don't think equality is a reasonable answer. Which is bizarre.

Why do they want it so badly though? I can't understand.
My view of marriage is: man/woman, life long commitment, monogamy, procreation and rearing of children.
What is a gay couples view of marriage? That doesn't seem that appealing to gay men especially.

I'll probably do as you point out and vote yes just to be done with the whole thing. But I at least want to understand the motivation behind this need. Equality doesn't seem a reasonable answer, because these things don't seem equal.

You're not playing Devil's advocate.

 

[Fryman]

You said you probably would, just to get it over with. I haven't seen a single post from you suggesting in any way that you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry in Australia.

Every second post in this thread is someone saying there are no good arguments against it and that only religious nutters oppose it.

I'm trying to provide a case against from a non-religious viewpoint, so you don't get blind sided if there is a strong no vote. But if you want it back to a circle jerk you can have at it.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Every second post in this thread is someone saying there are no good arguments against it and that only religious nutters oppose it.

I'm trying to provide a case against from a non-religious viewpoint, so you don't get blind sided if there is a strong no vote. But if you want it back to a circle jerk you can have at it.

I think there are plenty of posters already "playing Devil's advocate". You don't need to burden yourself.

I don't want a circle jerk thread. This thread is already bad enough.
I'm just pointing out that you aren't playing Devil's advocate. Or that you're only fooling yourself if you genuinely think you are.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Every second post in this thread is someone saying there are no good arguments against it and that only religious nutters oppose it.

I'm trying to provide a case against from a non-religious viewpoint, so you don't get blind sided if there is a strong no vote. But if you want it back to a circle jerk you can have at it.

And those people are being too preachy, but it's the same on both sides. As I said in a previous post, if you have a belief that it should remain, that isn't linked to things like child marriage or beastiality, then that is fine and you can have that opinion. The other ones are just insulting and designed to scare people more than anything, like the whole sharia law invading society or Muslims swamping us. Looking at you Pourline.

 

[Showbags]

Every second post in this thread is someone saying there are no good arguments against it and that only religious nutters oppose it.

I'm trying to provide a case against from a non-religious viewpoint, so you don't get blind sided if there is a strong no vote. But if you want it back to a circle jerk you can have at it.

Your only case against is thats the way its always been so lets keep it that way. Ive outlined that there are actual tangible mental health benefits for making the change (backed up by the AMA). Why not make the change when there are no negatives?

 

[Hoops]

So somehow he is a racist for taking a dig at a religious group/ideology?

So when you attack the Christian thought of marriage being between a woman and man, you are also racist? Is this how racism works when it suits you?

No, he is racist because he is racist

 

[Hoops]

How is religion and race linked? I'm sure a person of any race can be a member of any religion they choose

Yeah, that's like when I wanted to ban lawn bowls and bingo, SJWs were calling me ageist, and I'm like "bowls and bingo isnt an age", such derps

 

[carloss]

The AMA has pointed out the potential benefits to LGBT people as a result of the change. Just saying "thats the way its always been" is not really good enough when we actually have an opportunity to make a symbolic gesture to gay people and gay kids (with actual tangible benefits resulting from it) that they are accepted in the community.

I wonder if Kerryn Phelps had anything to do with that?

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I wonder if Kerryn Phelps had anything to do with that?

Why would that matter?

 

[RupieDupie]

I understand that this is your opinion, but I disagree. Should start a thread soon about the persecution and bullying of right-wing people and ideas in mainstream institutions. I think it's important to stick up for opposing points of view on principle, but also now to show that I, or we, wash our hands of this subjugation.

Ah yes, the postal plebishite, what was that about again? Political correctness gone wild, freedom of speech, freedom of religious values? Yes my friends, imagine if someone voted "yes", a few years down the track, and a minority group would be able to sue them for misogyny for driving a white panel wagon.

Apparently, if my sources are correct, a few conservatives are going to paint their faces blue and white and wear dresses as part of a political stunt and start shouting;

“Aye, vote no and nothing will happen. Vote yes and you’ll live — at least a while. And, dying in your beds many years from now, with your faces covered in make-up and married to your parrot, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell the lefties that they may take nothing from us, but they’ll never take our freedom!?!"

 

[Hoops]

It is actually historical that girls were married young, it was only when the Marriage Act was introduced in 1961 that people had to be over an age to marry. Also in 1961 the Marriage Act did not include the words between a man and a woman.

The marriage act has been changed 20 times by parliament, so much for the untouchable tradition of marriage

 

[Showbags]

I wonder if Kerryn Phelps had anything to do with that?

Doesn't work there anymore champ. Try again.

 

[carloss]

Why would that matter?

Former head of the AMA, prominent SSM activist. Pushing her cause.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Former head of the AMA, prominent SSM activist. Pushing her cause.

So, we should question the studies and recommendation made by the AMA about the mental health of homosexuals. Because they've got one of 'em on the inside?

Bizarre.

What do you think of the ministers that are pushing the anti-ssm stuff?

 

[Maggie5]

For those wanting to 'play' devils advocate here is an example where marriage equality may have avoided the stress that this young man experienced.

A BRITISH man whose partner died on their Australian honeymoon says he is living through a “nightmare” after authorities refused to recognise he was ever married in the first place.

As a result, all the decisions around his spouse’s death have had to be made by family members thousands of kilometres away, a situation slammed as “horrific” by critics who have urged the government to intervene.

Further compounding the heartache surrounding the death of David Bulmer-Rizzi, who suffered a fatal accident last Saturday in Adelaide, is the realisation that if he’d died in Melbourne or Sydney, the fact he was gay would barely have raised an eyebrow. But in South Australia it was enough to ensure his husband Marco Bulmer-Rizzi was shut out of almost every decision following his death.

 

[Showbags]

Former head of the AMA, prominent SSM activist. Pushing her cause.

The bolded answers your question.

Keep looking for conspiracy theories in the goat entrails if it makes you feel better mate.

 

[Mofra]

Why do they want it so badly though? I can't understand.
My view of marriage is: man/woman, life long commitment, monogamy, procreation and rearing of children.
What is a gay couples view of marriage? That doesn't seem that appealing to gay men especially.

I'll probably do as you point out and vote yes just to be done with the whole thing. But I at least want to understand the motivation behind this need. Equality doesn't seem a reasonable answer, because these things don't seem equal.

One of the major issues is that a civil union and marriage are not given equal weighting under law, that includes in relation to inheritance rights.
Ergo, same sex couples feel (in my opinion, rightly) that they are legally discriminated against under current Australian Marriage Law and wish to access the same rights as other couples.

Your points noting "monogamy, procreation and rearing of children" are not subject to the Marriage Act in Australia and I know couples who are married who would describe themselves as "ethically non-monogamous", while other couples either cannot or choose not to have children.
A childless, married couple are still married under Australian law with access to full rights.

A same-sex couple with kids may very well meet four of the five standards you've described in the second line of your post, while a male/female married couple may only fulfill one of the five. That inconsistency is an issue.

 

[carloss]

The bolded answers your question.

Keep looking for conspiracy theories in the goat entrails if it makes you feel better mate.

AMA throws its weight behind same-sex marriage, declares it a health issue

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...clares-it-a-health-issue-20170518-gw7qi8.html

Dr Brad McKay, Professor Kerryn Phelps AM, Liam Mason, Dr Joe Monteith and Ashna Basu gather in Sydney ahead of the release of the AMA's new position on same-sex marriage.

 

[phantom13]

My view of marriage is: man/woman, life long commitment, monogamy, procreation and rearing of children.

Spot on mate I reckon we also need to legislate to ban divorce because it is a lifelong commitment, have some sort of rule against consenting adults in open marriages or having sex if their spouse should pass away because monogamy, ban marriage unless the couple can prove they both can have and want children because its all about the children, where is the plebiscite on that huh!

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Former head of the AMA, prominent SSM activist. Pushing her cause.

Lethality
Go ahead and call out discrimination wherever you see it.