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

[darth_timon]

You're not understanding (a) the point I am making or (b) statistics generally.

The "surge from the backlog" as you put it, wasn't 2%, it was more like 25%. An increase from an annual average rate of 6% of a given population getting married to 8% is a 25% increase. The rate (I assume) will drop BACK to 6% of the population, representing a 25% decrease in the rate to fall back in line with the expected national average.

This destroys your argument on two fronts.

* "The gays don't really want the right to marry anyway!" Nonsense, at absolute worst, the statistics show they want the right just as much as straight people.
* "They didn't even take advantage of the right when it was given to them!" - In actual fact, the average marriage rate amongst gay people surged by 25% ABOVE the expected normal rate.


Absolute nonsense. Wanna know how I know this?

Because when people get married, the number of times they are asked about their desire or capabilities to have kids totals precisely zero. There are precisely NO conditions placed on marriage with respect to procreation, and precisely ZERO consequence for people who DO get married, but don't have kids.

Your use of this argument is silly because
(a) Its inconsistent, you will only apply this procreation thing for gay people, and not for the rest of society.
(b) hypocritical, as it wont apply for any other part of the community. An example....

Would you agree that it would be discriminatory to deny quadriplegics/people in wheelchairs access to a nightclub? If a nightclub owner said "no wheelchairs/paras/quads allowed!" should he be prosecuted?

Will I hear you cry: "but the main purpose of a nightclub is to dance! These people cant dance, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed in nightclubs!"

what about non drinkers being allowed into pubs? Whats your thought process on barring people into the local unless the buy a beer immediately upon entry?

The marriage = procreation is an excuse to be bigoted. Its that simple.

We question the ability to have a serious discussion because thus far, there haven't been any LEGITIMATE refutations of SSM.

The best you have come up with has been "but gays cant have kids!" and "They don't want it anyway!". Both have been shown to be nonsense.

Come up with something better, and we can have a serious discussion about it.

To wrap this up, I have a question for you:

How will it affect your life, my life, ANY STRAIGHT PERSONS life if we allow gay people to marry?

I think this post should be framed and given a gold award! Excellent set of points sir!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Forward Press]

I think this post should be framed and given a gold award! Excellent set of points sir!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess you could say that the other poster is all...

sorted.

 

[roscreasl98]

You're not understanding (a) the point I am making or (b) statistics generally.

The "surge from the backlog" as you put it, wasn't 2%, it was more like 25%. An increase from an annual average rate of 6% of a given population getting married to 8% is a 25% increase. The rate (I assume) will drop BACK to 6% of the population, representing a 25% decrease in the rate to fall back in line with the expected national average.

This destroys your argument on two fronts.

* "The gays don't really want the right to marry anyway!" Nonsense, at absolute worst, the statistics show they want the right just as much as straight people.
* "They didn't even take advantage of the right when it was given to them!" - In actual fact, the average marriage rate amongst gay people surged by 25% ABOVE the expected normal rate.


Absolute nonsense. Wanna know how I know this?

Because when people get married, the number of times they are asked about their desire or capabilities to have kids totals precisely zero. There are precisely NO conditions placed on marriage with respect to procreation, and precisely ZERO consequence for people who DO get married, but don't have kids.

Your use of this argument is silly because
(a) Its inconsistent, you will only apply this procreation thing for gay people, and not for the rest of society.
(b) hypocritical, as it wont apply for any other part of the community. An example....

Would you agree that it would be discriminatory to deny quadriplegics/people in wheelchairs access to a nightclub? If a nightclub owner said "no wheelchairs/paras/quads allowed!" should he be prosecuted?

Will I hear you cry: "but the main purpose of a nightclub is to dance! These people cant dance, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed in nightclubs!"

what about non drinkers being allowed into pubs? Whats your thought process on barring people into the local unless the buy a beer immediately upon entry?

The marriage = procreation is an excuse to be bigoted. Its that simple.

We question the ability to have a serious discussion because thus far, there haven't been any LEGITIMATE refutations of SSM.

The best you have come up with has been "but gays cant have kids!" and "They don't want it anyway!". Both have been shown to be nonsense.

Come up with something better, and we can have a serious discussion about it.

To wrap this up, I have a question for you:

How will it affect your life, my life, ANY STRAIGHT PERSONS life if we allow gay people to marry?

A very long post to say not much.

I have a question for you.
What does Gay even mean?

 

[Forward Press]

A very long post to say not much.

I have a question for you.
What does Gay even mean?

Tilting at more windmils than Don Quixote.

 

[strung_out7]

Leader of Muslim group says there is 'no reason' for polygamy not to be permitted now that same-sex unions have been legalised

The leader of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy has said there is “no reason” for polygamy not to be legalised after the Italian government passed a law to recognise the union of same-sex civil unions.

In a Facebook status, Hamza Piccardo wrote: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he added.

 

[roscreasl98]

Tilting at more windmils than Don Quixote.

Didn't think you could answer a simple question.......

 

[Lethality]

Leader of Muslim group says there is 'no reason' for polygamy not to be permitted now that same-sex unions have been legalised

The leader of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy has said there is “no reason” for polygamy not to be legalised after the Italian government passed a law to recognise the union of same-sex civil unions.

In a Facebook status, Hamza Piccardo wrote: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he added.

Keyser Trad over here argued the same thing.

 

[Gough]

Leader of Muslim group says there is 'no reason' for polygamy not to be permitted now that same-sex unions have been legalised

The leader of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy has said there is “no reason” for polygamy not to be legalised after the Italian government passed a law to recognise the union of same-sex civil unions.

In a Facebook status, Hamza Piccardo wrote: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he added.

What's the problem with that? As long as all parties consent who the f*** cares?

 

[strung_out7]

I suspect a lot of the Yes campaign will be about getting people to return their survey papers as much as it will be about prosecuting the case. The s**t tone is going to come from the No side of the debate, who will then plead that they're being bullied when their bullshit is called out.
As an aside, I'm yet to speak to a gay person who is looking forward to the next few months.

Turns out the no voters may just be a little more in number than you estimated?

 

[Watchyourwaite]

A very long post to say not much.

I have a question for you.
What does Gay even mean?

Use the word "Homosexual" if you are so upset at the word "Gay" being stolen from the 1800's.

 

[Forward Press]

Didn't think you could answer a simple question.......

That's because it's a stupid question that doesn't deserve a serious answer.

If an adult wants to marry someone with the same genitals or different genitals, that's their choice. Not my place to tell them who they can put a ring on, provided both of them are legally capable of giving consent.

 

[strung_out7]

What's the problem with that? As long as all parties consent who the f*** cares?

Oh my

 

[GreyCrow]

Leader of Muslim group says there is 'no reason' for polygamy not to be permitted now that same-sex unions have been legalised

The leader of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy has said there is “no reason” for polygamy not to be legalised after the Italian government passed a law to recognise the union of same-sex civil unions.

In a Facebook status, Hamza Piccardo wrote: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he added.

Anybody who wants more than 1 mother-in-law is welcome to it

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Don't kid yourself. I know several SS couples who are for and against SSM. The ones against must be homophobic hey? Please explain that one.

Very few. I know some people who think their community will become more conservative if given the choice to marry, and don't want SSM. Of course this isn't homophobic.

The nonsense reasons offered on this board are clearly homophobic.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

More a dig at other posters. They won't give her a label as homophobic because she herself is from a marginalised minority group. Her view of no is ok. The rest of us no voters, however will still be labeled homophobic, with a bit of racist dusted on for extra sweetness

So in a debate where you want to deny others rights you have access to, you are claiming victimhood. Again.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Leader of Muslim group...

MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

 

[medusala]

What's the problem with that? As long as all parties consent who the f*** cares?

H R Nicholls agrees with you

The single best and irrefutable argument.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I understand if the legislation is passed churches will still be afforded the right not to.marry people of same sex if its at odds with their views.

Constitution protects religious freedom

 

[Maddhew]

I was talking to a gay mate at work the other day about how stupid it is to spend $100m on a vote for what is likely a foregone conclusion. He said he was having the same conversation with his friends, and they came to the conclusion that they'd rather vote for conservative govt. that manages the economy well and focuses on getting back to surplus etc... regardless of it's stance on SSM.

He said they had some concerns over legal rights when couples split, and custody of children etc... but as for recognition as a married couple etc... they couldn't really care less

It kinds of opened my eyes to not just assume that all gay people would be passionate advocates of SSM and therefore vote for liberal progressive govts.

 

[Forward Press]

I was talking to a gay mate at work the other day about how stupid it is to spend $100m on a vote for what is likely a foregone conclusion. He said he was having the same conversation with his friends, and they came to the conclusion that they'd rather vote for conservative govt. that manages the economy well and focuses on getting back to surplus etc... regardless of it's stance on SSM.

He said they had some concerns over legal rights when couples split, and custody of children etc... but as for recognition as a married couple etc... they couldn't really care less

It kinds of opened my eyes to not just assume that all gay people would be passionate advocates of SSM and therefore vote for liberal progressive govts.

So would he be voting no then?

Gay voters are voters, too. Sometimes social issues don't matter that much for a voter that prefers stable government that can manage a country regardless of where they sit on the spectrum.

But I doubt your friend would be voting no when he receives the paper in the mail.

 

[Gough]

I'm more intrigued by finding someone who still reckons the Libs are better with the economy.

 

[medusala]

I'm more intrigued by finding someone who still reckons the Libs are better with the economy.

On what basis would labor be any better? Are they still insisting on the lunacy of mining and carbon taxes?

Has Bill got any ideas other than raising taxes?

 

[roscreasl98]

That's because it's a stupid question that doesn't deserve a serious answer.

If an adult wants to marry someone with the same genitals or different genitals, that's their choice. Not my place to tell them who they can put a ring on, provided both of them are legally capable of giving consent.

And still couldn't answer it.
Why not?
Because you don't know, do you?
Just say so.....

 

[Maggie5]

And still couldn't answer it.
Why not?
Because you don't know, do you?
Just say so.....

You could have just as easily looked the word up but here it is just for you:
gay
ɡeɪ/
adjective
adjective: gay; comparative adjective: gayer; superlative adjective: gayest

1. 1.
   (of a person, especially a man) homosexual.
   • relating to or used by homosexuals.
     "a gay bar"
2. 2.
   dated
   light-hearted and carefree.
   "Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"
   synonyms: cheerful, cheery, merry, jolly, light-hearted, mirthful, jovial, glad, happy, bright, in good spirits, in high spirits, joyful, elated, exuberant, animated, lively, sprightly, vivacious, buoyant, bouncy, bubbly, perky, effervescent, playful, frolicsome; More
   informalchirpy, on top of the world, as happy as a sandboy;
   informalas happy as a clam
   "her children all looked chubby and gay"
   antonyms: gloomy
3. 3.
   dated
   brightly coloured; showy.
   "a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas"
   synonyms: bright, brightly coloured, vivid, brilliant, rich, vibrant; More
   richly coloured, many-coloured, multicoloured;
   flamboyant, gaudy
   "the windows sported gay checked curtains"
   antonyms: drab
4. 4.
   informaloffensive
   foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.
   "he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay"

noun
noun: gay; plural noun: gays
1.
a homosexual, especially a man.
synonyms: homosexual, lesbian, gay person, lesbigay; More

 

[Kurve]

What's the problem with that? As long as all parties consent who the f*** cares?

Not sure it would be considered an equal right and it generally hasn't worked out too well for women and men of lower socioeconomic status. Also, confirming slippery slope argument ...