Marriage equality

[Skoob]

What I really dislike is this multiple genders stuff that's apparently being taught in school. I have lost count the amount of 'genders' someone could be but it is ridiculous and a waste of teaching resources but that is for another discussion.

Educating and teaching tolerance is never a "waste".
There is a lot of misinformation regarding what is being taught in schools, and too many jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation without getting the facts straight or looking at the whys & where fors.

 

[Hollow Knight]

In my teaching career I've never encountered anything close to this "Safe Schools" thing I read about in the hysterical press. I'm almost cynical enough to believe that it is a front organisation set up by the radical right to give them a windmill to tilt at and which justified their silly slippery slope arguments.

Like Skoob said, in reality, teaching kids to be tolerant and not treat others like shit for being different is basically the order of the day in schools. It pretty much applies to everything... social class, religion, race, sexuality, disability, and yes, gender.

Whether you agree with current gender theories or not, can't we all agree that kids who struggle emotionally, physically and psychologically with the traditional social expectations of gender probably don't need to be picked on and vilified while they come to grips with themselves?

 

[spotthedog1]

Well you've assumed wrong from the outset. Off to a flyer.

As for the rest, get over yourself, it's not all about you. I didn't even quote you and it's pretty obvious my post was about the various angles I've seen the NO side take. How you decided it was all directly about you is beyond me.

My entire comments about Christianity stand btw. You can shove your "what you remembered from primary school" condescension up your arse.

I was raised Catholic and have many religious family members and see the hypocrisy all the time. Not sure where I have claimed to have "authority over the predominant views of all the major theistic religions". Seriously, where did you pull that from? Lol.

We've had the debate before, we aren't going to change each other's minds.

And we can quibble over technicalities and interpretations of biblical verses all day long. Ultimately, in the same way that I imagine that you don't believe that the words within the Quran or Hubbard's Dianetics are divine truth, I'm sure you can equally understand that I see the Bible in the same way.

Letting public policy in a secular society be in any way influenced by "sacred texts" is obscene and completely irrational at the best of times. Using it to deny rights to people who may not even hold such religious views is a new magnitude of bullshit and oppression.

Yep, I did assume wrong. I apologise for that. I did incorrectly tag that to you, and I'll also admit that I assumed it was you having a bit of a power trip and moving posts that didn't agree with your view. I was wrong, and I apologise.

I didn't assume that your post was all about me, however you did dumb down the majority of the debate to single sentences and then dismiss them out of hand. There's plenty of nuance here, and I don't think you showed any. So yes, as a person who represents the 'no' viewpoint, I responded to your points.

In my view, you claimed authority over the predominant views of all major theistic religions when you said "People are just using their religion as a smokescreen to justify their existing problems with homosexuals". You clearly don't think that there is any religious argument against same sex marriage, except that borne from pre-existing bias. I know that there are people who use religion to cover racism and sexism and all sorts of bigotry, and yes, homophobia. But I also know plenty of Christians, and a few Muslims, and the vast majority of them are genuinely seeking to live their lives striving to serve their god in whatever way they can. The suggestion that anyone who reads the Bible differently to you is just using it to serve their own prejudice is insulting and offensive.

And for the record, I never suggested that public policy should be set by my sacred texts or any other. In my view, when religion and government overlap, it generally leads to abuses of power, and fails to assist the religion or the people. However, if I am given a question that says "do you think that same sex people should be allowed to marry?", my answer will be no, because that is what I believe. I have many other thoughts surrounding that, and I'm happy to engage in respectful debate, and if (or likely when) the postal survey returns a 'yes' vote, I will accept it and move on. I won't protest or make outlandish claims about it affecting my marriage or anything else like that.

 

[winged1]

Like Skoob said, in reality, teaching kids to be tolerant and not treat others like shit for being different is basically the order of the day in schools. It pretty much applies to everything... social class, religion, race, sexuality, disability, and yes, gender.

Except for Collingwood supporters, you can kick the shit out of them.

It's ying and yang.

 

[briztoon]

I'm not good with debates. I'm certainly not as learned or smart as some of the people contributing here.

spotthedog1 what was your view on this?

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2017-05-16/lions-partnership-for-diversity

What occurs to me is that there should never have been a debate in the first place.

There can be no reasonable or legitimate argument for a NO vote.

It's simply the right thing to do. Australia is not a religious state bound by religious laws. Australia is an egalitarian state and as such all Australians are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

If churches and various religions can enter the debate and encourage people to vote against an equal rights bill, then every part of society has an equal and legitimate right to enter the debate.

If you're happy for one organisation you follow to enter the debate, then you MUST be prepared and happy for other organisations you follow to enter the debate as well.

"Slippery slope argument" - On one hand, this vote is about same sex marriage and nothing else. On the other hand, there is significant implications coming out of America, Canada, and various other countries where once same sex marriage have been legalised, rather than claiming victory, pro-same sex marriage organisations moved straight on to surrounding issues. Canada particularly has had some concerning cases pushed for by lobby groups surrounding issues of parents' rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It's a tough one, because this vote is about one thing, but I can see why some people have raised concerns about the flow-on effects.

Again, I'm not so good with putting thoughts in to words, but to me this is a cowards argument. We're not going to do the right thing by one group of people, because it might open up a pandoras box of other groups or communities or peoples wanting equality as well. Well **** me that's a ****ing b*lls*!t thing to try and hide behind.

 

[CarterS]

Here's my 2c.

I don't follow the issue much, I've seen a small % of people say the vote is about human rights, well technically marriage isn't a human right, according to Human rights courts in Europe. I think the term Human Rights is dropped too much (generally speaking, I haven't seen it used here yet). The UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have backed up the fact that marriage isn't a human right. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the equality comes in terms of access to entitlements for same-sex couples as opposed to different-sex couples. Equality yes, Human rights, no.

I will be voting yes, though. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact me.

I do think the Yes campaign have lost their way a bit, whether you think so or not, there is a perception out there of bullying of the No campaign by the Yes, and this is swaying people in the middle towards the No campaign. The poll numbers back that up pretty strongly. That woman being sacked yesterday for saying "it's ok to vote No" is probably the best thing that could have happened to the No campaign.

I suspect the No vote will do better than what people think and is a real chance of winning.

 

[irel]

I'm not good with debates. I'm certainly not as learned or smart as some of the people contributing here.

spotthedog1 what was your view on this?

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2017-05-16/lions-partnership-for-diversity

What occurs to me is that there should never have been a debate in the first place.

There can be no reasonable or legitimate argument for a NO vote.

It's simply the right thing to do. Australia is not a religious state bound by religious laws. Australia is an egalitarian state and as such all Australians are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

If churches and various religions can enter the debate and encourage people to vote against an equal rights bill, then every part of society has an equal and legitimate right to enter the debate.

If you're happy for one organisation you follow to enter the debate, then you MUST be prepared and happy for other organisations you follow to enter the debate as well.



Again, I'm not so good with putting thoughts in to words, but to me this is a cowards argument. We're not going to do the right thing by one group of people, because it might open up a pandoras box of other groups or communities or peoples wanting equality as well. Well **** me that's a ****ing b*lls*!t thing to try and hide behind.

Did you say you're not good at this? Well #$#@ me that reads well.

 

[jackess]

I agree that this shouldn't be a political issue. Therefore, I also think that there shouldn't be campaigning by sides and businesses shouldn't be a part of this.

It would be good PR for the Lions but that's it and it wouldn't necessarily reflect the views of anyone in the club and no more useful than hashtags or profile pic banners.

 

[Skoob]

Here's my 2c.

I don't follow the issue much, I've seen a small % of people say the vote is about human rights, well technically marriage isn't a human right, according to Human rights courts in Europe. I think the term Human Rights is dropped too much (generally speaking, I haven't seen it used here yet). The UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have backed up the fact that marriage isn't a human right. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the equality comes in terms of access to entitlements for same-sex couples as opposed to different-sex couples. Equality yes, Human rights, no.

I will be voting yes, though. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact me.

I do think the Yes campaign have lost their way a bit, whether you think so or not, there is a perception out there of bullying of the No campaign by the Yes, and this is swaying people in the middle towards the No campaign. The poll numbers back that up pretty strongly. That woman being sacked yesterday for saying "it's ok to vote No" is probably the best thing that could have happened to the No campaign.

I suspect the No vote will do better than what people think and is a real chance of winning.

That doesn't sound right to me. Not a vicar in sight at my wedding. Maybe marriage has its roots in religious custom, but that is obviously not the modern meaning of marriage. A lot of western customs and laws originate in Christianity, however that doesn't give religion ownership of those customs or laws.

 

[CarterS]

That doesn't sound right to me. Not a vicar in sight at my wedding. Maybe marriage has its roots in religious custom, but that is obviously not the modern meaning of marriage. A lot of western customs and laws originate in Christianity, however that doesn't give religion ownership of those customs or laws.

Fair point. I should say then "Marriage is a ceremony"

 

[irel]

Here's my 2c.

I don't follow the issue much, I've seen a small % of people say the vote is about human rights, well technically marriage isn't a human right, according to Human rights courts in Europe. I think the term Human Rights is dropped too much (generally speaking, I haven't seen it used here yet). The UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have backed up the fact that marriage isn't a human right. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the equality comes in terms of access to entitlements for same-sex couples as opposed to different-sex couples. Equality yes, Human rights, no.

I will be voting yes, though. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact me.

I do think the Yes campaign have lost their way a bit, whether you think so or not, there is a perception out there of bullying of the No campaign by the Yes, and this is swaying people in the middle towards the No campaign. The poll numbers back that up pretty strongly. That woman being sacked yesterday for saying "it's ok to vote No" is probably the best thing that could have happened to the No campaign.

I suspect the No vote will do better than what people think and is a real chance of winning.

The last wedding I attended where religion played a part was 25 years ago at a Greek Orthodox friend of mine. All others have been Civil ceremonies and not a Priest, Vicar, Compadre, father, Mullah etc.... was within five kilometers of the ceremony.

 

[acuguy]

I was hoping the club would come out and condemn the waste of 122 million dollars on this survey and then state that our politicians should just sort this out for us or take it to the next election. This is a political football and our club is correct by staying out of it. If our club is going to get political, then I encourage it to lobby the govt. about the incarceration of genuine refugees in sub human conditions on Manus and Nauru.

 

[Skoob]

I agree that this shouldn't be a political issue. Therefore, I also think that there shouldn't be campaigning by sides and businesses shouldn't be a part of this.
It would be good PR for the Lions but that's it and it wouldn't necessarily reflect the views of anyone in the club and no more useful than hashtags or profile pic banners.

Just PR, of no other use?
How about a real influencing voice for something that is important, if not to you or me, to thousands of other members, not to mention people they actually employ.

 

[spotthedog1]

I'm not good with debates. I'm certainly not as learned or smart as some of the people contributing here.

spotthedog1 what was your view on this?

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2017-05-16/lions-partnership-for-diversity

What occurs to me is that there should never have been a debate in the first place.

There can be no reasonable or legitimate argument for a NO vote.

It's simply the right thing to do. Australia is not a religious state bound by religious laws. Australia is an egalitarian state and as such all Australians are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

If churches and various religions can enter the debate and encourage people to vote against an equal rights bill, then every part of society has an equal and legitimate right to enter the debate.

If you're happy for one organisation you follow to enter the debate, then you MUST be prepared and happy for other organisations you follow to enter the debate as well.



Again, I'm not so good with putting thoughts in to words, but to me this is a cowards argument. We're not going to do the right thing by one group of people, because it might open up a pandoras box of other groups or communities or peoples wanting equality as well. Well **** me that's a ****ing b*lls*!t thing to try and hide behind.

Cheers Briztoon. Welcome to the fun.

I stated it a few posts back, but just to sum up, I don't like organisations wading into debates about things that have no relevance to them. Many organisations are jumping on the same sex marriage debate because it's an easy advertising point, or because of the views of a director. I view that as unethical. If it's advertising, then that's ridiculous - companies shouldn't try to score points by jumping on the popular side of a debate. It doesn't add to debate at all, and generally it oversimplifies it to a marketing slogan. Conversely, if a company is simply spouting the views of a director, then that is mismanagement, because the director is using his position and generally company dollars to spread his/her political message. Again - unethical. I see two exclusions to this:
- Charity - companies generally do charitable things, and get advertising benefit out of this. If Commonwealth Bank (for example) start pumping money into helping sick kids, and get some advertising benefit out of it, fair enough. There's actually mutual benefit, because the sick kids get the medicine they need, etc. There is not mutual benefit to CBA picking a side in a sociopolitical debate, and it reduces the debate.
- It is a matter that has relevance to their business. I also have no problem with Commonwealth Bank jumping into a debate on banking regulation, or the FOFA (Future of Financial Advice) laws that were recently passed. It has a vested interest in it, and it has specialist knowledge. I don't see that an organisation can have an opinion about same sex marriage though, unless it is directly involved in something related (eg. marriage, gay rights, etc).

With regard to the Lions partnership for diversity, I don't have an opinion, because I don't know enough of what it's about. It looks like it's at least partially about encouraging indigenous welfare, which I would consider to fall under charity, and therefore be completely reasonable. Particularly in a sport with a high indigenous representation, that's a very valid point. With regard to performances before the game, you could view that as advertising - trying to get people groups involved - or something else. I remember seeing a few of these performances at the gabba this season, and didn't give them much thought to be honest.

This is also why I don't any issue at all with churches being involved in the marriage debate. Churches have always been involved in discussions of morality, ethics, marriage, etc. I also have no issue with many other organisations joining the debate. But airlines and banks and sporting codes don't have any relevance at all to the debate, and in my opinion, shouldn't enter it.

Where I feel your argument lets you down is that you struggle to see the other side of the debate. I can see many reasons to change the law, and many reasons not to. Stating that there is no reason to vote no is a little strange. For starters, I disagree that it's an issue of equality in any way. Gay people have equal rights, as was fully legislated in 2008 and 2009. 70-something (I think it was 73?) pieces of legislation were changed to ensure that gay couples were afforded full and equal rights with straight couples. I was in favour of this, as it was an issue of equality, and gay people deserve to be treated fairly and equally. They were then fully entitled to be treated as spouses, receive government benefits in line with hetersexual couples, and be treated exactly the same way by governments, hospitals (eg. next of kin), and society by-and-large. It was pretty comprehensive, and it was reasonable. I will note that I found it funny when gay rights groups started complaining because most gay couples started receiving lower centrelink support after they were redefined as a couple instead of as 2 individuals, and wanted gay couples to receive more, but thankfully that was shouted down as ridiculous, as I'm sure most would agree was reasonable.

A common reason I'm seeing from my lawyer friends is that it is, from a legal perspective, against legal ethics to have an opinion on a piece of legislation without reviewing it. As the legislation has not been written, let alone released to the public, I have a few lawyer friends (religious and non-religious) voting no simply because they can not review it, and feel it would contravene their legal ethics to vote for it on those grounds. I found that concept interesting, despite not being a lawyer myself.

Not knowing what will be included and excluded in the legislation is also a concern for anyone interested in personal freedoms. Freedoms of speech and religion were both significantly encroached upon in various other countries following the introduction of same sex marriage. This is where many conservatives decide to vote no - fear of loss of freedoms (which are categorically different to rights). That said, most conservatives would still vote against it, as Shorten has already come out and said that he favours minimal freedoms with regard to same-sex marriage. Though he's walked this back in recent days following poor polling.

I also disagree with you that the slippery slope argument is cowards argument. You've made several false assumptions there. As I've stated, I completely disagree that prohibiting same sex marriage involves doing wrong to any group of people, so it can't be a matter of wronging some people to prevent other people wanting equality. Further, there are 26 countries with same sex marriage laws - we have plenty of evidence from those countries as to what the outcomes of changing marriage laws involves. This is why things like safe schools and the gender debate are being dragged into the Australian debate - because it has been proven in many countries to follow immediately, and by the same groups. Also, a lot of the slippery slope arguments have nothing to do with equality (though several polygamy organisations have already come out of the woodwork to argue that polygamy should be included in the current ballot). I mentioned cases from the US and Canada. The obvious examples include hundreds of businesses in the US who were systematically scouted, and then sued for refusing to participate in same sex weddings (not refusing to serve LGBTQI individuals, which would be discrimination, but refusing to offer services to a ceremony that contradicts their religious beliefs). From Canada we're seeing that after legalising same sex marriage, the pro-SSM organisations immediately moved on to gender issues, and have successfully had laws changed in several territories that threaten to remove children from parents where a parent does not agree to change a child's gender. And I'm talking children as young as 5 here.

There are a variety of reasons to disagree with it, and if you feel it's an equality issue, then can understand why you'd vote for it. I don't agree but respect your right to hold a different opinion.

 

[Fatcat08]

That doesn't sound right to me. Not a vicar in sight at my wedding. Maybe marriage has its roots in religious custom, but that is obviously not the modern meaning of marriage. A lot of western customs and laws originate in Christianity, however that doesn't give religion ownership of those customs or laws.

Actually a lot of them originate from pagan traditions which were then adopted as part of Christianity

 

[jackess]

Just PR, of no other use?
How about a real influencing voice for something that is important, if not to you or me, to thousands of other members, not to mention people they actually employ.

I don't think they'd have much influence. I don't think any of this campaigning has much influence. It's not an election. There aren't swing voters.

Nor do I think they should. What if they said vote no?

Plus they need to learn from the Trump and Brexit votes and let people make the decision for themselves.

And I hope you're not saying an employer should influence the way their employees vote.

 

[Skoob]

I don't think they'd have much influence. I don't think any of this campaigning has much influence. It's not an election. There aren't swing voters.

Nor do I think they should. What if they said vote no?

Plus they need to learn from the Trump and Brexit votes and let people make the decision for themselves.

And I hope you're not saying an employer should influence the way their employees vote.

No, I'm talking about support. Support for those who have to live through the ignorance and lies of the 'No' campaign. Support for those who are already marginalised and discriminated against, and are now having thrown in their face daily. Support for those people who are having their futures decided by a stupid survey.
I think it would make a big difference to a lot, and influence how they feel. I don't think people appreciate how this is affecting thousands of people, emotionally. That support, could literally save a life.

 

[jackess]

No, I'm talking about support. Support for those who have to live through the ignorance and lies of the 'No' campaign. Support for those who are already marginalised and discriminated against, and are now having thrown in their face daily. Support for those people who are having their futures decided by a stupid survey.
I think it would make a big difference to a lot, and influence how they feel. I don't think people appreciate how this is affecting thousands of people, emotionally. That support, could literally save a life.

Support yes but the louder the pro-yes movement shout, the louder the anti-marriage equality voters will become.

 

[Viceregal]

First off thank you for moving this out of the Lions Insider thread!

I was going to address TheBrownDog's collection of straw men and assumptions and presumptions dressed up in unassailable fact gear but most of that has already been covered but even for him that was a doozy of a post... so I don't have to engage on that one

I agree this has nothing to do with 'equality'. Equality under the law was already present. This is just another step along the well worn path of destroying the things that civilisations were built on and getting out the latest version of the procustean bed.

I have absolutely no trust that our political class, should the 'yes' vote get up, given what will be taken as a mandate will do a better job than the ones in the US/Canada/Ireland/UK etc nor that the activists who are already demonising people for supporting the debate (let alone the 'no' position) are going to turn around and for the first time in progressive history say 'ah yes we have arrived and shall not move the goal posts any further out'.

Btw - How many decades worth of debates were spent with (mostly) Christians fighting a rearguard action on the necessity/sanctity of marriage and the vast majority on the side of 'it's just a piece of paper ... I don't need a ceremony to prove my love ... marriage is an outdated remnant etc etc - and suddenly it gets turned around into an 'essential human right' which will cause unbearable harm if not allowed immediately etc?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Just hear them out. Don't bully them. You just have to understand it from their perspective. First they want black children to go to school with white children... what will they want next?

#BothSides

 

[jackess]

It's those sorts of condescending comparisons that played a role in driving people to vote for Trump. We need to allow people the time and space to make up their own mind instead of berating them like children.

A persons favourite footy team supporting the yes campaign would stop somebody voting no

 

[briztoon]

Cheers Briztoon. Welcome to the fun.

I stated it a few posts back, but just to sum up, I don't like organisations wading into debates about things that have no relevance to them. Many organisations are jumping on the same sex marriage debate because it's an easy advertising point, or because of the views of a director. I view that as unethical. If it's advertising, then that's ridiculous - companies shouldn't try to score points by jumping on the popular side of a debate. It doesn't add to debate at all, and generally it oversimplifies it to a marketing slogan. Conversely, if a company is simply spouting the views of a director, then that is mismanagement, because the director is using his position and generally company dollars to spread his/her political message. Again - unethical. I see two exclusions to this:
- Charity - companies generally do charitable things, and get advertising benefit out of this. If Commonwealth Bank (for example) start pumping money into helping sick kids, and get some advertising benefit out of it, fair enough. There's actually mutual benefit, because the sick kids get the medicine they need, etc. There is not mutual benefit to CBA picking a side in a sociopolitical debate, and it reduces the debate.
- It is a matter that has relevance to their business. I also have no problem with Commonwealth Bank jumping into a debate on banking regulation, or the FOFA (Future of Financial Advice) laws that were recently passed. It has a vested interest in it, and it has specialist knowledge. I don't see that an organisation can have an opinion about same sex marriage though, unless it is directly involved in something related (eg. marriage, gay rights, etc).

With regard to the Lions partnership for diversity, I don't have an opinion, because I don't know enough of what it's about. It looks like it's at least partially about encouraging indigenous welfare, which I would consider to fall under charity, and therefore be completely reasonable. Particularly in a sport with a high indigenous representation, that's a very valid point. With regard to performances before the game, you could view that as advertising - trying to get people groups involved - or something else. I remember seeing a few of these performances at the gabba this season, and didn't give them much thought to be honest.

This is also why I don't any issue at all with churches being involved in the marriage debate. Churches have always been involved in discussions of morality, ethics, marriage, etc. I also have no issue with many other organisations joining the debate. But airlines and banks and sporting codes don't have any relevance at all to the debate, and in my opinion, shouldn't enter it.

Where I feel your argument lets you down is that you struggle to see the other side of the debate. I can see many reasons to change the law, and many reasons not to. Stating that there is no reason to vote no is a little strange. For starters, I disagree that it's an issue of equality in any way. Gay people have equal rights, as was fully legislated in 2008 and 2009. 70-something (I think it was 73?) pieces of legislation were changed to ensure that gay couples were afforded full and equal rights with straight couples. I was in favour of this, as it was an issue of equality, and gay people deserve to be treated fairly and equally. They were then fully entitled to be treated as spouses, receive government benefits in line with hetersexual couples, and be treated exactly the same way by governments, hospitals (eg. next of kin), and society by-and-large. It was pretty comprehensive, and it was reasonable. I will note that I found it funny when gay rights groups started complaining because most gay couples started receiving lower centrelink support after they were redefined as a couple instead of as 2 individuals, and wanted gay couples to receive more, but thankfully that was shouted down as ridiculous, as I'm sure most would agree was reasonable.

A common reason I'm seeing from my lawyer friends is that it is, from a legal perspective, against legal ethics to have an opinion on a piece of legislation without reviewing it. As the legislation has not been written, let alone released to the public, I have a few lawyer friends (religious and non-religious) voting no simply because they can not review it, and feel it would contravene their legal ethics to vote for it on those grounds. I found that concept interesting, despite not being a lawyer myself.

Not knowing what will be included and excluded in the legislation is also a concern for anyone interested in personal freedoms. Freedoms of speech and religion were both significantly encroached upon in various other countries following the introduction of same sex marriage. This is where many conservatives decide to vote no - fear of loss of freedoms (which are categorically different to rights). That said, most conservatives would still vote against it, as Shorten has already come out and said that he favours minimal freedoms with regard to same-sex marriage. Though he's walked this back in recent days following poor polling.

I also disagree with you that the slippery slope argument is cowards argument. You've made several false assumptions there. As I've stated, I completely disagree that prohibiting same sex marriage involves doing wrong to any group of people, so it can't be a matter of wronging some people to prevent other people wanting equality. Further, there are 26 countries with same sex marriage laws - we have plenty of evidence from those countries as to what the outcomes of changing marriage laws involves. This is why things like safe schools and the gender debate are being dragged into the Australian debate - because it has been proven in many countries to follow immediately, and by the same groups. Also, a lot of the slippery slope arguments have nothing to do with equality (though several polygamy organisations have already come out of the woodwork to argue that polygamy should be included in the current ballot). I mentioned cases from the US and Canada. The obvious examples include hundreds of businesses in the US who were systematically scouted, and then sued for refusing to participate in same sex weddings (not refusing to serve LGBTQI individuals, which would be discrimination, but refusing to offer services to a ceremony that contradicts their religious beliefs). From Canada we're seeing that after legalising same sex marriage, the pro-SSM organisations immediately moved on to gender issues, and have successfully had laws changed in several territories that threaten to remove children from parents where a parent does not agree to change a child's gender. And I'm talking children as young as 5 here.

There are a variety of reasons to disagree with it, and if you feel it's an equality issue, then can understand why you'd vote for it. I don't agree but respect your right to hold a different opinion.

So what is the ethical and moral argument against SSM?

We're not a church/religious State.

I come from a religious family. Grew up Roman Catholic, attended Mt Carmel at Coorparoo, family then joined a non denominational "church", went to a Christian Brother school. Actually, every kid in my generation of the extended family went to religious school. And the whole extended family are all voting yes.

 

[Billy Puller]

We're throwing natural selection out the window and it's going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I have four gay friends and two voted no one didn't vote and the other voted yes. Kinda surprising anyone else found that with there LGTBIQ buddies?

 

[Hollow Knight]

We're throwing natural selection out the window and it's going to come back and bite us on the ass.

Um, what?

How does legislating for gay marriage interfere with the processes of natural selection?

What a bizarre statement.

I suspect you've just got a bit bumfuzzled on terminology there Billy. I hope so anyway, because people who genuinely think natural selection is something we should build our social and economic policies around are in effect arguing for Social Darwinism or Eugenics.

 

[Billy Puller]

Um, what?

How does legislating for gay marriage interfere with the processes of natural selection?

What a bizarre statement.

I suspect you've just got a bit bumfuzzled on terminology there Billy.

No not at all bud, I know it's not really completely relevant to this thread well kind of as genetically gay people can't have kids and one of my mates arguments why he voted no (he's gay) is the whole marriage to start family have kids etc thingo. The fact I was just reading up on white spot decimating the prawn populations and how we keep everyone alive now days so we're probably gonna white spot ourselves.

TBH I dunno if I even would've made it if we let natural selection take its course.

Just a random thought that's been bobbing around my mind for the last 5 minutes. That's what forums are for hey!