Same sex marriage debate...

[hammertime]

The way I see it, there are two, quite separate, parts to this debate

1) Equality in marriage
2) The same lefty intolerant attitude that got Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon into power.

If you are a decent human being, 1 is going to far outweigh 2\. But god damn it, the intollerant far left really needs to settle their aggression. They're lucky that this question is just too much of an easy answer to jeopardise the result, but things like the opposition to Australia Day is doing everyone's head in. There are real issues and made-up issues and it's time for them to be a little more productive and smarter in their campaigns.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It would have helped to have had drafted legislation in place in preparation for the survey so people knew what the ramifications would be, the LNP likely failed to do so in order to create this sort of confusion or because they are simply incompetent. In that sense it is assumption from both sides on what will or won't happen if this passes. Obviously the yes campaign will say nothing will change and what is happening overseas is no sure thing to happen here (which is true,) and the no campaign will point to things happening overseas and say it could happen here (which is true.)

I must admit I am conflicted in that if business doesn't want to supply services to a gay couple they should not be compelled to, as tasteless as I find it. In this day and age businesses by and large cannot afford to refuse business and the free market generally makes short work of them (especially in the social media era.) A business owner should be allowed to conduct their business the way they see fit, no matter what views they have on issues or certain parts of the community.

I believe people have a right to hold an opinion no matter how discriminatory. People should be free to have opinions and voice them accordingly, because with the freedom to express an opinion comes the freedom of others to challenge your opinion or express a contrary view. I do draw the line where safety of the community, or parts of it, is at risk (i.e. acting on, inciting violence which a previous poster alluded to,) that's when people should be brought task and held responsible for what they say. I've largely tried to debate with facts in regard to this issue as many whom are pro-SSM unfortunately debate with buzzwords to shut down debate, much the way the anti-SSM mob have rolled out the bullying counterargument.

Despite the uncertainties in legislation, I don't see it as a valid enough reason to deny gays the right to marry. Others will, they're likely people who might have something to worry about.

 

[Tigerdave]

Marriage is typically defined as man/woman.

So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway

Why not call it a union for the gays, and leave the historical meaning of marriage alone ?

because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.

Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

 

[Nelson]

People think that this is changing one little law that will not have any other effects, when **the truth is** that changing this one law will have a ripple effect onto many other laws, and will end up changing our society completely.

Passing opinion off as fact always cheapens an argument. What are the many other laws that **will** change? Effectively telling people to "go and read the internet" is a pretty lazy way of trying to make a point.

Except it is not an opinion, and is based entirely on factual events that have occurred overseas once SSM was legislated.

I have repeatedly detailed what these changes will be, from changes to school curriculums, pressure on churches to conform with radical LGBT ideology, the closure of charities, schools, and private businesses, even changes to adoption laws preventing christian couples from adopting, and a massive widening of anti-discrimination laws that will basically make it illegal for Australians to champion traditional marriage. There is much more, but im sure you get the hint.

And i have not told people to simply go off and read the internet, but to do their own investigating and see for themselves if they doubt what i am saying is true.

Speaking of lazy… have you bothered to check whether what i have said is true? Or are you content to pass your own opinions off as fact?

It hasn't happened yet - nothing has - so it's nothing more than an opinion. It cannot be fact. This is not a semantic argument, it is just an (actual) fact.

If a "yes" vote wins the stupid postal survey then someone will put a bill forward in parliament. The bill will be the subject of debate. As part of the debate there will no doubt be discussion of the overseas experiences and individuals in parliament will no doubt lobby for safeguards to be included in any legislation. So without any legislation having been put forward you don't know that any of those things will happen. There is no fact, you are just raising spectres.

 

[TrueTiger]

People can vote whichever way they choose….I have no problem with that at all...

Marriage to me is the uniting of a man and a woman to form a family and to REPRODUCE,thus forming the family of bloodlines carried down through generations..I have no problem with my way of thinking,especially with the way I was taught from an early age,it ties up many legal avenues as well (including child custody,biological parents etc in family courts)
I couldn't be bothered to argue politically or religiously as many people have differing points of view...
What I will say is,we have been way more tolerable than in years gone past where homosexuality was frowned upon,we now accept these many men and women as part of our community and lives...
BUT,should we change the marriage act to accommodate a section of our community to suit themselves and their way of living is the Question..Its quite simple YES or NO..Nobody needs to vear off on another tangent and bring other variances into the debate...

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Byron get out of here with your agendas. They are boring and you are just trying to derail another thread. Mods cant you see what this clown is doing? As soon as discussion goes against his will he forces you lot to close the thread by causing arguments off topic. It is an absolute tactic to stifle debate.

There's a neat little feature on this forum called the "foe" feature.

If you don't like reading his posts, ignore him.

 

[Abraham]

It hasn't happened yet - nothing has - so it's nothing more than an opinion. It cannot be fact. This is not a semantic argument, it is just an (actual) fact.

So do you think that Australia will be the one exception out of alllll the countries in the world that have legalised SSM, even though our existing 'free-speech' protections barely exist?

So you obviously don't think that it's worth exploring what happened overseas, before Australia potentially goes down the exact same path. Let's all just go in blind and hope that it works out for the best hey… because you know, she'll be right mate.

If a "yes" vote wins the stupid postal survey then someone will put a bill forward in parliament. The bill will be the subject of debate. As part of the debate there will no doubt be discussion of the overseas experiences and individuals in parliament will no doubt lobby for safeguards to be included in any legislation. So without any legislation having been put forward you don't know that any of those things will happen. There is no fact, you are just raising spectres.

We have seen the private members bill that has been touted be the basis of the 'religious protections' to be implemented if the 'yes' vote wins, and it protects 1% of the people it needs to.

I don't think our federal politicians have either the will or the ability of putting in place the necessary free-speech protections. You seem to have an exaggerated opinion as to the capabilities of our politicians it seems. I don't share your glowing recommendation, because again, there is no evidence to suggest what you're saying will happen.

On a side-note, I find your second-last line to be of special importance: "So without any legislation having been put forward you don't know that any of those things will happen".

WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know that the SSM legislation will even look like. How on Earth can you vote for something when the lazy bastards haven't even put forward any draft legislation for us to look at first! This has been a ham-fisted debacle from the start, and people looking to virtue signal and boast about voting 'yes' to legislation that haven't even seen is a perfect example of why i will be voting No.

 

[Abraham]

It would have helped to have had drafted legislation in place in preparation for the survey so people knew what the ramifications would be, the LNP likely failed to do so in order to create this sort of confusion or because they are simply incompetent. In that sense it is assumption from both sides on what will or won't happen if this passes. Obviously the yes campaign will say nothing will change and what is happening overseas is no sure thing to happen here (which is true,) and the no campaign will point to things happening overseas and say it could happen here (which is true.)

I must admit I am conflicted in that if business doesn't want to supply services to a gay couple they should not be compelled to, as tasteless as I find it. In this day and age businesses by and large cannot afford to refuse business and the free market generally makes short work of them (especially in the social media era.) A business owner should be allowed to conduct their business the way they see fit, no matter what views they have on issues or certain parts of the community.

I believe people have a right to hold an opinion no matter how discriminatory. People should be free to have opinions and voice them accordingly, because with the freedom to express an opinion comes the freedom of others to challenge your opinion or express a contrary view. I do draw the line where safety of the community, or parts of it, is at risk (i.e. acting on, inciting violence which a previous poster alluded to,) that's when people should be brought task and held responsible for what they say. I've largely tried to debate with facts in regard to this issue as many whom are pro-SSM unfortunately debate with buzzwords to shut down debate, much the way the anti-SSM mob have rolled out the bullying counterargument.

Despite the uncertainties in legislation, I don't see it as a valid enough reason to deny gays the right to marry. Others will, they're likely people who might have something to worry about.

You ruined it with your last paragraph :laughing:

Otherwise this is something that i could have quite literally written almost word-for-word.

Amazing how much in common the views of a 'religious nut-job' like myself and an atheist bogan can be intertwined when all the fluff and insults are removed.

I'm glad that at least one 'lefty' sees the importance of these issues. Unfortunately not many others do.

Well done CB.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Marriage is typically defined as man/woman.

So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway

Why not call it a union for the gays, and leave the historical meaning of marriage alone ?

because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.

Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It would have helped to have had drafted legislation in place in preparation for the survey so people knew what the ramifications would be, the LNP likely failed to do so in order to create this sort of confusion or because they are simply incompetent. In that sense it is assumption from both sides on what will or won't happen if this passes. Obviously the yes campaign will say nothing will change and what is happening overseas is no sure thing to happen here (which is true,) and the no campaign will point to things happening overseas and say it could happen here (which is true.)

I must admit I am conflicted in that if business doesn't want to supply services to a gay couple they should not be compelled to, as tasteless as I find it. In this day and age businesses by and large cannot afford to refuse business and the free market generally makes short work of them (especially in the social media era.) A business owner should be allowed to conduct their business the way they see fit, no matter what views they have on issues or certain parts of the community.

I believe people have a right to hold an opinion no matter how discriminatory. People should be free to have opinions and voice them accordingly, because with the freedom to express an opinion comes the freedom of others to challenge your opinion or express a contrary view. I do draw the line where safety of the community, or parts of it, is at risk (i.e. acting on, inciting violence which a previous poster alluded to,) that's when people should be brought task and held responsible for what they say. I've largely tried to debate with facts in regard to this issue as many whom are pro-SSM unfortunately debate with buzzwords to shut down debate, much the way the anti-SSM mob have rolled out the bullying counterargument.

Despite the uncertainties in legislation, I don't see it as a valid enough reason to deny gays the right to marry. Others will, they're likely people who might have something to worry about.

You ruined it with your last paragraph :laughing:

Otherwise this is something that i could have quite literally written almost word-for-word.

Amazing how much in common the views of a 'religious nut-job' like myself and an atheist bogan can be intertwined when all the fluff and insults are removed.

I'm glad that at least one 'lefty' sees the importance of these issues. Unfortunately not many others do.

Well done CB.

I personally don't see myself as a lefty, on social issues I guess I am, but I see myself as more of a centrist overall.

Did the 8 values political test the other day and was horrified to find out that I am considered a libertarian.

I just don't see the point in calling someone a homophobe unless you listen to their reasons, or lack thereof, and have facts to back yourself up. Screeching like a two year old at someone for not agreeing with you without a constructed argument to back your own opinion only unnecessarily escalates things.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

So? why can't it be changed? even though what was deemed as traditional marriage has changed over time anyway
\
\
\
because that's not equality that's segregation.

Back in the 60s all Aboriginals were given the right to vote, what if they were given the same rights, but they couldn't call it voting? they could call it "having a voice" or something to that effect, the term voting being traditionally reserved for white people. Same could apply to women, the term voting only allowed to be used by men. It's not equality.

Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

 

[colmcd]

Problem is that above isn't 'DONE'.

If it was, i couldn't care less if the Yes vote won.

hang on wait, so if it was made clear that religious institutions were exempt from discrimination you wouldn't care about the Yes vote?

No, if all people and all institutions were exempted, then i wouldnt care.

Why would i care if nobody else would be affected.

"Why would i care if nobody else would be affected."

Bingo. So you are happy (or Ambivalent) about two people of the same sex getting a state marriage.

You are only worried about the implications to the Anti Discrimination act and having the term "marriage" in the mix there. Your real beef is against the Anti Discrimination act and how the effect of SSM will effect the Anti Discrimination act and existing measures.

Many of the points you mention from overseas, will already be effected by Australian legislation.
I.e:
If a Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).
Likewise a college in Canada would only let Married (M/F) couples share the same bed. They lost their license because it was ruled that this was discrimination against SSM couples staying at the college. (SSM legal in Canada for 15 years) However as I understand it, unmarried partners could have also sued the college for discrimination.

All this is "No" case is about the Anti Discrimination act vs Religious freedom.
Enacting SSM only tilts some of the issues slightly, it doesn't change the acts above. Gay harassment will still be illegal be it Yes or No.

The best protection for this in legislation is now. Else as I have said Penny and Lee Rhiannon will write the next bill before parliament and I fail too see why they would be generous to the religious. (Penny Wong actually made a very tearful speech about how she had to "self Discriminate" to survive in the Labor caucus. I felt for her and I don't support binding in this way on either side).

Were are having a survey on SSM. If your position is "Yes" or "No" answer on it. However if your position is "oh I want to vote yes but I am worried about the possibility of some legislation overseas doing something" Vote yes, let your MP know your concerns. Good legislation will come from good people making good decisions. Compromise from fear of a might be that some thing could kinda happen leads to silly decisions.

I will be voting yes because I don't believe in Libertarian Hedonism.</anything>

 

[tig_prmz]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

 

[stryker]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

How about no im too busy? Discrimination happens every day, its the manner in which it occurs that matters.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Many consider marriage to be the building block and structure upon which society is built. It is the act of procreation by a heterosexual couple which defines marriage and differentiates it from a homosexual relationship. Both are equal but are different because it is only the heterosexual relationship which can procreate.

This survey is not about rights it is about the definition of marriage.

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I personally find the difference to be negiligable given gay people aren't sterile and can have kids the exact same way that hetereosexual couples, who are sterile or are struggling to have can between themselves, adoption and surrogacy.

I don't see how the defination of a word trumps equal rights.

We are having a survey on the definition of marriage. Nothing defines marriage more than procreation. Procreation is between a heterosexual couple.

Both forms of relationship are equal, but they are different. This survey is not about rights but the definition of marriage.

Actually, there are several competing views of what the definition of marriage is.

Some argue it is for procreation, others believe it was for collection of rights, others as a right to sexual access and others as a relationship recognised by custom and/or law.

**You** define marriage by procreation, it doesn't mean to say that everyone else does.

The existing law is quite specific about the definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman.
Procreation is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there is no getting around this fact.

It has only been specific for about a decade, although some are carrying on that it's been that way since the inception of the Marriage Act, and we didn't need a postal survey or a plebiscite to change it, a former PM went rogue on it. No matter which way you try to twist and turn, there's no getting around that fact.

And if you want to argue specifics, although it is obviously most common, you do not require a "relationship" any more to procreate (sperm donors, IVF etc,) nor does a heterosexual relationship always result in procreation. Some couples cannot conceive, even with the aid of science, nor do they choose to have children. Should deny those people marriage as well since they cannot/will not procreate.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

There is an evolutionary psychology response to homosexuality - it was so that if the parents cannot look after children (due to death whatever) then the non-childbearing gays can look after the children for them. It went something like that twenty years ago.

Remember the abortion debate slogan - Get your rosaries off our ovaries.

I wonder what slogan will come out of this debate? Get your missal off our missile. ha haha

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

i dont think comparing it to the injustices of aboriginal or women is fair. The thing about being homosexuality is that it's not objective, the only research that has come out so far which i know of is that there is a smudgy left/right brain differentiation in those who claimed to be homosexual vs heterosexual (that was 5 years ago).

Do you choose to be attracted to whatever sex you're attracted to?

 

[colmcd]

Baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple celebrating <anything>then that is discrimination. You have refused to serve a person for who they are. (I can hear arguments on a baker painting a "happy gay wedding" sign on a cake, likewise if a Jewish baker painted a "happy Adolf Hitler day" on a cake. I won't hear arguments about service of a "generic" cake).</anything>

How about no im too busy? Discrimination happens every day, its the manner in which it occurs that matters.

Agreed. Just talk to people hiring a cab.

Ultimately that's why I think the whole cake argument is a bit of a strawman. If someone really doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple they will just say "were busy" or "oh were booked out on that date"…. Just like Anti Discrimination works so well with racism, take the race out and you can fire anyone you want.

The funny thing about this debate is we are worried about the Bakers. If people were serious about life preservation they would worry about the Bridezillas! ... but hey I guess everyone is thinking about the Wedding cake baker during a Marriage ceremony *sic*

 

[Abraham]

Did the 8 values political test the other day and was horrified to find out that I am considered a libertarian.

Next thing your going to tell me you are a born-again Christian.