Same sex marriage debate...

[colmcd]

Its been a dishonest campaign since the start. "Love is Love" and "Equality" are just buzz words that play no part in this debate, as no-body is forbidding gay people from loving each other, and there is already legal equality between straight and gay couples under State and Federal Laws.

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line. We aren't talking about Soviet-era Russia and their thought police, we are talking about the UK and USA in 2017.

So much for love, tolerance and equality.

I'll be voting No.

To sum up:
Please, please don't look at what this is "A vote on Marriage rights", but look at this scary scary scare campaign!

Obviously it would be far better to wait 3 years and have the "Green" version of marriage to prevent all this religious oppression. Religious institutions will be SO much better protected with Penny Wong and Bob Brown drafting the bill*!?

Damn, you are making me post a letter to confirm the right of two people to marry whom they want.

*I don't believe that there would be a concern. But if religious freedoms are your concern then surely you would want an agreed motion between Libs, Nats, Labor, rather then a Greens/Labor motion.

 

[Kul]

If I walked into a Church/Mosque/Synagogue today with some random girl from the street and asked to be married there and then, I have no problem them turning around and saying "No, we don't approve of the validity of your relationship". I respect their right to do that and, honestly, they are absolutely correct.

But the state has no right to make a judgement on the validity of a relationship.

By all means, protect religious freedoms and let the respective congregations have internal debates about the matter.

 

[Abraham]

Its been a dishonest campaign since the start. "Love is Love" and "Equality" are just buzz words that play no part in this debate, as no-body is forbidding gay people from loving each other, and there is already legal equality between straight and gay couples under State and Federal Laws.

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line. We aren't talking about Soviet-era Russia and their thought police, we are talking about the UK and USA in 2017.

So much for love, tolerance and equality.

I'll be voting No.

To sum up:
Please, please don't look at what this is "A vote on Marriage rights", but look at this scary scary scare campaign!

Obviously it would be far better to wait 3 years and have the "Green" version of marriage to prevent all this religious oppression. Religious institutions will be SO much better protected with Penny Wong and Bob Brown drafting the bill*!?

Damn, you are making me post a letter to confirm the right of two people to marry whom they want.

*I don't believe that there would be a concern. But if religious freedoms are your concern then surely you would want an agreed motion between Libs, Nats, Labor, rather then a Greens/Labor motion.

For people who follow politics closely, they will understand the Marxist agenda held by the groups behind the Gay Marriage push. Spoiler alert: its not the actual gay people who may get married if the law changes who are the driving force behind this.

But for many others, its just about virtue signalling and waving around a colorful flag to show how progressive they think they are. Its these people who could decide this issue without even understanding what they're really voting for, and the end game they will help become reality.

To address your specific comments, it doesn't matter if it is voted in under the Libs, because any religious protections will be scaled back under the next leftist government. Don't believe me, just take a look at what's going in countries who promised the same thing when they voted in Gay Marriage.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

All this talk of freedom of religion, how about freedom from religion?

I have no interest in the organised religions telling me how others should live their lives, or me for that matter, when it plainly does not affect them.

 

[colmcd]

Its been a dishonest campaign since the start. "Love is Love" and "Equality" are just buzz words that play no part in this debate, as no-body is forbidding gay people from loving each other, and there is already legal equality between straight and gay couples under State and Federal Laws.

The most concerning aspect to all Australians is what will come after Gay Marriage is legalized. Quite literally, anybody who says they support Traditional Marriage will be charged under anti-discrimination laws. Overseas we are already seeing religious schools being closed down, charities de-registered, Churches pressured to marry gay people. and Business Owners thrown in jail for not toeing the gay Marriage line. We aren't talking about Soviet-era Russia and their thought police, we are talking about the UK and USA in 2017.

So much for love, tolerance and equality.

I'll be voting No.

To sum up:
Please, please don't look at what this is "A vote on Marriage rights", but look at this scary scary scare campaign!

Obviously it would be far better to wait 3 years and have the "Green" version of marriage to prevent all this religious oppression. Religious institutions will be SO much better protected with Penny Wong and Bob Brown drafting the bill*!?

Damn, you are making me post a letter to confirm the right of two people to marry whom they want.

*I don't believe that there would be a concern. But if religious freedoms are your concern then surely you would want an agreed motion between Libs, Nats, Labor, rather then a Greens/Labor motion.

For people who follow politics closely, they will understand the Marxist agenda held by the groups behind the Gay Marriage push. Spoiler alert: its not the actual gay people who may get married if the law changes who are the driving force behind this.

But for many others, its just about virtue signalling and waving around a colorful flag to show how progressive they think they are. Its these people who could decide this issue without even understanding what they're really voting for, and the end game they will help become reality.

To address your specific comments, it doesn't matter if it is voted in under the Libs, because any religious protections will be scaled back under the next leftist government. Don't believe me, just take a look at what's going in countries who promised the same thing when they voted in Gay Marriage.

So vote "No" Folks, Rebel against the Marxist agenda and have Bill Shorten with Lee Rhiannon write Same sex marriage legislation in a parliamentary vote* !? *headpalm*

This can't be because two people of the same sex want to be married…. It's not like people are flying to Ireland or New Zealand to get married is it? Well they are and they are happy and stable. Just like people campaigned against inter-race marriages in the 1950's (true fact they were discouraged and often done on the quiet), this won't attack marriage.

But hey lets save marriage by encouraging Hedonism amongst the gay community! It's not like your actually talking about real threats to Marriage like a $800,000 Mortgage to afford anything decent in Sydney. Guess how many couples I know who have broken up because they are working 4 jobs between them?

Lenin is dead, but Friedman's Capitalist nonsense is still taught in schools. So go off and "defend Marriage" under a system where society, community and family are just economic inefficencies.

* I still think Shorten would do a piece of Legislation that protects religious freedoms. Yet the more you politicise this and straw-man your arguments the more likely you will get legislation that blocks religious freedoms.

 

[Abraham]

Sorry Col, your spittting out 50 random thoughts on a matter per post… makes it very hard to respond to, or engage in any sort of serious debate.

 

[tsjonathan]

leichhardt/inner west has the most gay and lesbians in all of aus

 

[Abraham]

All this talk of freedom of religion, how about freedom from religion?

I have no interest in the organised religions telling me how others should live their lives, or me for that matter, when it plainly does not affect them.

Your not getting it CB. Religious freedom and freedom from religion go hand-in-hand.

In a free society, a free citizen has the fundamental right to say they don't want to participate in an event they don't want to. Its something that old fashioned liberals/leftists used to fight for.

When the response of society is to send the police to that person, handcuff them, incarcerate them, fine them into bankruptcy, and de-register their business, than there is something wrong with that society.

If we can't agree on that fundamental point, then we probably can't agree on anything else.

 

[underdog]

It's a yes from me.

 

[fulleightyminutes]

They should have ticked the box and moved on ages ago.All this whole thing has done is wasted a lot of time that could have been used addressing real issues that need fixing and saved a bucket of money.

From where I sit it's about giving everyone the same rights,nothing to do with religion or so called moral values and let's face it the church has a pretty bad track record when it comes to moral issues

I was at the march in Sydney yesterday with my kids. There was no shouting abuse at people with religious beliefs -it was people asking for the same rights as the majority of Australians. Simple as that. However, if the shoe was on the other foot, and a religious person or Church told me I couldn't marry my wife, I'd be in the streets too.

 

[hobbo]

leichhardt/inner west has the most gay and lesbians in all of aus

Surely not ….not Dykehhardt 😱pen_mouth:

 

[barra]

And a yes from me.

 

[Coastie_Tiger]

To me this whole vote is rubbish Australia decides, which it does if its a no vote but if its a yes parliament vote what a waste of a $122 mil could be used for health or roads ect. I'll be voting yes purely on the fact it doesnt affect me so therefore why would i vote no and possibly affect someone else life for the worst. Im not offended by same sex marriage but everyone is entitled to their opinion, i just think the whole process is flawed i hope Australia and then Parliament do the right thing as i said above it doesnt really affect the people that are involved.

 

[Geo]

Yes and move on to something important like the Flag or National Anthem or change the date or something…

 

[Pawsandclaws]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

One thing this debate has done is highlight how dumb some people from the No side of the argument are. That No ad was quite embarrassing, talking about how kids at school are being made to role play as same sex couples. Others who believe same sex marriage would encourage children to be gay, as if being gay is a choice. Plus the morons who ask "what next, will we start marrying animals?"

I will vote yes, but not because I support the "love is love" catchphrase or anything else, rather solely because 2 consenting adults marrying, regardless of their gender, does not change my life. There's something wrong with you if you wake up in the morning wanting to oppress others over things that have no affect on your life. Go find a hobby.

I've said all along and I will continue to say, whether it takes a month, a year, 5 years or 50, same sex marriage WILL be legalised because the world we live in is progressive. There will come a day when we look back on this the same way we look back now to a time when women and black people were not allowed to vote. Those voting no are only delaying the inevitable. They will ultimately come out on the losing end.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

All this talk of freedom of religion, how about freedom from religion?

I have no interest in the organised religions telling me how others should live their lives, or me for that matter, when it plainly does not affect them.

Your not getting it CB. Religious freedom and freedom from religion go hand-in-hand.

In a free society, a free citizen has the fundamental right to say they don't want to participate in an event they don't want to. Its something that old fashioned liberals/leftists used to fight for.

When the response of society is to send the police to that person, handcuff them, incarcerate them, fine them into bankruptcy, and de-register their business, than there is something wrong with that society.

If we can't agree on that fundamental point, then we probably can't agree on anything else.

Did I ever say that the religious couldn't have their say? I said I have no interest in them telling me what I can and can't do in a secular society, and despite that if they want to vote no I'm not going to carry on like a sook because people are exercising their democratic right. I am in strict agreement with you that I don't agree with gaoling any person who disagrees with my opinions, I go even as far to say the crusade against the doctor featuring in the no campaign ad is a ridiculous reaction and par for the course now from the new age leftist movement. I distance myself from that.

IMO, hierarchy of religious organisations petitioning against things is not the same as the individual voting in accordance with their beliefs. The individual pays tax and in that civic duty they have a civic right to have their say in accordance with their beliefs. The institution does not. A secular law IMO is supposed to consider and cover all individuals and exclude faith so as not to preference one over the others. I would call that the definition of religious freedom.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.

 

[TerenceWatts]

I read somewhere online, a quote that said: "We live in a world where it's more socially and culturally accepted to see two men holdings guns instead of hands." Granted, the world spoken about in this quote is referring the Western privileged world, but regardless - in other words - we psychologically prefer to see something that represents violence over something that embodies love. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that one can draw from such a situation is that the human race finds expressions of physical love far more dangerous than expressions of physical hatred. A species with such a collective cultural attitude is destined for misery.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

It's a no to this survey from me. My wife will vote yes but she has a cousin who is a lesbian and two others who are gay. I refuse to discuss this with her as we cannot have a mature debate without the inevitable homophobic slur being trotted out. I see this as the last bastion of the morally defeated.

I am pro marriage and no amount of goodwill in the world will get around the fact that same sex couples are fundamentally biologically different to a marriage between a man and a woman. Let them call it some other name but not marriage because in my view it devalues marriage as we know it.

Do you believe that gay marriage devalues the institution of any more than a pair of ice addicts who have a family and neglect their kids, a marriage with domestic violence or hetero marriages that end in divorce?

N.B. The ancient Greeks had gay marriage. It predates the Abrahamic faiths.

Marriage was a way for women and their children not to starve to death when agriculture was perfected 10,000 years ago and it wasn't always strictly monogamous. It was borne out of survival instinct and bears little if at all resemblance to what marriage is now.

There is no such institution as "gay marriage".