Same sex marriage debate...

[Go_You_Good_Things]

Yossarian, I call the gays un natural based on mother nature's decision to give us sex organs designed for a specific purpose.( and being straight or gay is pretty much a sex issue ) It is natural for a vagina to accept a penis. It is against nature to stick your penis in a donkey, chicken, or a man's bumhole. ( the donkey and chicken were just red herrings. What the F, it's also un natural to have sex with a herring, and bloody hard to use one to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest )THAT is why gays are un natural. Because a large part of what defines them as gay involves them having un natural sex. That is my opinion. If you think otherwise, that's just super. I don't think I'm alone. But I won't call you a moron for thinking that way, because I am tolerant of other's opinions, even though I might not agree with them.
Right there is a concept that you might consider.
Which goes towards the left being truly intolerant of any opinion that differs with theirs. See your responses. See Byron's responses. Nothing further, your honour.
Oh, btw . . . I'm sure the Hillary supporters would have thought the Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon voters were increasingly in the minority too. And THERE was a lesson in being tolerant of others that might disagree with you.
One more thing . . . a few have mentioned the ripple effect, but have amazingly been booed down. IF the gays only want "marriage" equality, they would have gotten a lot more positive result if there were iron clad guarantees that nothing further would eventuate. Like the Catholic Church being forced to marry gays if the law is passed. That 7 yr old kids would not be forced to learn in school that homosexuality is natural, or reading books about jack and Bob going up the hill. That those same kids would not be forced to use gender neutral toilets because of some whacko kid who has had his head messed up on gender definition by his progressive thinking parents. So basically that absolutely nothing else would change, except for gays being allowed to marry. After all, that IS what you all are spouting, yes ?

 

[Abraham]

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.
If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.

I'm glad you said "reality". Your sentence above that I've highlighted is the reality.

I'm not even clear about what specifically your objection is, and I've read a lot of your stuff over these 25 pages. I mean specifically, not vague future "catch-all" comments about freedoms and rights.

Can you actually be specific about a single right or freedom that could possibly be rescinded, threatened or overturned for Australians if a certain group of Australians are given a right (such as same-sex marriage)? Is this based on predictions, fear or experience?

Did something happen to "ordinary" Australians when women were allowed to vote across the Commonwealth in 1902, or indigenous Australians in 1962? What were the negative consequences for personal liberties when same-sex unions were deemed as de facto relationships under the Family Law Act 1975?

The government hasn't even proposed or debated legislation and you are saying they will allow freedoms to be impeded?

This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

The ABS are asking you should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. They aren't asking for your opinions about long-term consequences, future legislation, nation-wide civil liberties. You have to simplify these things because the vast majority of Australians are not qualified to develop, advise, or introduce legislation changes.

I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.
If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.

I'm glad you said "reality". Your sentence above that I've highlighted is the reality.

I'm not even clear about what specifically your objection is, and I've read a lot of your stuff over these 25 pages. I mean specifically, not vague future "catch-all" comments about freedoms and rights.

Can you actually be specific about a single right or freedom that could possibly be rescinded, threatened or overturned for Australians if a certain group of Australians are given a right (such as same-sex marriage)? Is this based on predictions, fear or experience?

Did something happen to "ordinary" Australians when women were allowed to vote across the Commonwealth in 1902, or indigenous Australians in 1962? What were the negative consequences for personal liberties when same-sex unions were deemed as de facto relationships under the Family Law Act 1975?

The government hasn't even proposed or debated legislation and you are saying they will allow freedoms to be impeded?

This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

The ABS are asking you should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. They aren't asking for your opinions about long-term consequences, future legislation, nation-wide civil liberties. You have to simplify these things because the vast majority of Australians are not qualified to develop, advise, or introduce legislation changes.

I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.

I have. I said both sides are claiming what happened overseas are both a possibility of happening, and not happening. Both are entirely possible at this point.

 

[Yossarian]

Yossarian, I call the gays un natural based on mother nature's decision to give us sex organs designed for a specific purpose.( and being straight or gay is pretty much a sex issue ) It is natural for a vagina to accept a penis. It is against nature to stick your penis in a donkey, chicken, or a man's bumhole. ( the donkey and chicken were just red herrings. What the F, it's also un natural to have sex with a herring, and bloody hard to use one to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest )THAT is why gays are un natural. Because a large part of what defines them as gay involves them having un natural sex. That is my opinion. If you think otherwise, that's just super. I don't think I'm alone. But I won't call you a moron for thinking that way, because I am tolerant of other's opinions, even though I might not agree with them.
Right there is a concept that you might consider.
Which goes towards the left being truly intolerant of any opinion that differs with theirs. See your responses. See Byron's responses. Nothing further, your honour.
Oh, btw . . . I'm sure the Hillary supporters would have thought the Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon voters were increasingly in the minority too. And THERE was a lesson in being tolerant of others that might disagree with you.
One more thing . . . a few have mentioned the ripple effect, but have amazingly been booed down. IF the gays only want "marriage" equality, they would have gotten a lot more positive result if there were iron clad guarantees that nothing further would eventuate. Like the Catholic Church being forced to marry gays if the law is passed. That 7 yr old kids would not be forced to learn in school that homosexuality is natural, or reading books about jack and Bob going up the hill. That those same kids would not be forced to use gender neutral toilets because of some whacko kid who has had his head messed up on gender definition by his progressive thinking parents. So basically that absolutely nothing else would change, except for gays being allowed to marry. After all, that IS what you all are spouting, yes ?

Yes you don't think gay people are normal - we heard you. You are voting no because you disaprove of homosexuals. We get it.

Your idea of tolerance seems to involve you wanting people to allow you to be intolerant. Like that's a reasonable or fair thing. If you want to be a homophobe fine. Personally I'm intolerant of homophobes. I'll admit it. I dislike people who form a view on someone's worth based on their sexual orientation.

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon voters were a minority - look it up.

How many 7 year olds are getting sex ed classes? In any event if it stops teens from killing themselves because homophobic idiots tell them their natural impulses are unnatural then I'm all for it. I'm more than happy formy boy to learn that gay people aren't deviants. No sane person would suggest being told this is going to "turn them gay."

Sprouting? No I'm stating a fact. What is being proposed is a legislative amendment. You may view it as some part of a broad social trend you disagree with but you can tilt at that windmill all you like. I'm happy people like you are increasingly becoming a minority. I look forward to a day where people are judged solely on their worth as a person.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.

 

[jirskyr]

Why? Is it such a leap to believe that the majority of marred couples in Australia would want to experience nature at its most beautiful by creating a child?

Nature at it's most beautiful!? Next time you think of that phrase imagine David Oldfield frogging Pauline Hanson and tell me that's beautiful. Or your parents.

Also, the law, inclusive of Howard's amendment, does not define procreation as a stipulation for a marriage to be legitimate.

Plenty of people have kids by accident and have no intention of marrying. Makes the institution of marriage being about procreation a bit of a joke when plenty of kids are born out of wedlock.

More than this, I personally know a gay guy who provided sperm to a lesbian couple. Newsflash to Paws: women don't need to have sex with a man any more to have children.

And anyway procreation has nothing to do with this survey, because gay couples can already have children through adoption or insemination.

And hetero couples can use IVF or altruistic surrogacy, and there's nothing traditional about those either.

Thanks for the mind movies :smiley:

I say this with the greatest respect that we've discussed the non natural conception methods which only serve to muddy the waters. The issue is procreation via a heterosexual couple which differentiates the relationship from a homosexual couple.

Talk about muddying the waters, procreation isn't even part of the survey discussion. Marriage only.

 

[jirskyr]

I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.

I just hope you realise the tremendous irony that you are apparently tired of presenting your examples, but then you go on to say it's hilarious how nobody has refuted you.

I offer to refute you, please restate your clear and irrefutable examples. It would take 5 mins of your time max, then 5 mins to read my response.

 

[Tigerdave]

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.

for some it's about the definition, for others it's about rights.

 

[Tiger_Pete]

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.
If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

The government needs to do this properly, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.

I'm glad you said "reality". Your sentence above that I've highlighted is the reality.

I'm not even clear about what specifically your objection is, and I've read a lot of your stuff over these 25 pages. I mean specifically, not vague future "catch-all" comments about freedoms and rights.

Can you actually be specific about a single right or freedom that could possibly be rescinded, threatened or overturned for Australians if a certain group of Australians are given a right (such as same-sex marriage)? Is this based on predictions, fear or experience?

Did something happen to "ordinary" Australians when women were allowed to vote across the Commonwealth in 1902, or indigenous Australians in 1962? What were the negative consequences for personal liberties when same-sex unions were deemed as de facto relationships under the Family Law Act 1975?

The government hasn't even proposed or debated legislation and you are saying they will allow freedoms to be impeded?

This is fear-mongering, nothing more.

The ABS are asking you should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. They aren't asking for your opinions about long-term consequences, future legislation, nation-wide civil liberties. You have to simplify these things because the vast majority of Australians are not qualified to develop, advise, or introduce legislation changes.

I've mentioned them already a few times and don't intend on doing it each time someone new asks me the question. No offence intended to you specifically.

If by fear mongering you mean raising awareness of what is going to happen based on factual events that have happened elsewhere, then guilty as charged. I thought that was patently obvious.

Funny how we are nearly 30 pages into this thread and nobody has been able outright refute the claim that the freedoms i have discussed have been stomped on overseas once SSM was legalised. Hilarious in fact.

God know why I bother replying, as I know you'll only misconstrue whatever I write, but here goes nothing-

First, you ask for someone to "outright refute the claim" and them you use an emotive and subjective term like "stomped". The problem is, I don't think our definitions of "stomped" are the same.

If you think a handful of cases where anti-discrimination laws have been tested as stomped, then you are correct. If however, you look at it more realistically, what you have is a tiny number of people who have rightly or wrongly been affected out of 760 million people who live in countries where same-sex marriage has been made legal. An irrelevant blip in the scheme of things.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.

Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years. I am nearby at the moment and was planning on taking my family there on this trip, but the latest crackdowns have influenced us to give it a miss and might head to the Malaysian GP instead.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.

Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years.

The money is part of what bugs me mate. It's probably petty on my part, my mini protest.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Threw my survey out today after hearing the moronic woman from Canberra who fired a contractor over a "private discussion with her brother" where the contractor disclosed they were a homophobe. She went on to call Richard Glover a biased journalist with an agenda, the bloke couldn't swat a fly, I doubt he is a beer chugging, chainsaw wielding fascist redneck, but whatever. It was pretty pathetic to hear someone talk such rubbish, and confirmed my belief that the politicians should've just come up with a law that protects the rights of all Australians, allowing equal legal recognition to all, and protecting those who object. It wouldn't be that hard.

This debate has given a platform to people on both sides who come from a different planet compared to most Australians. Change the law, put in any protections necessary for the rights of the individuals or religious groups who disagree and get on with trying to run the country.

Btw, a yes or no vote guarantees nothing, even if it is the majority, don't forget that. They are using this to distract you from things they can't change; power prices, housing affordability, limited growth for several years on end, national security.

I consider myself a leftist on most social issues, economic issues, issues of race and gender and sexuality. I just couldn't get "on the bus" with people who call this a human rights issue, but don't know where Myanmar is. If people in Australia were being beaten routinely for their sexuality, and hunted like dogs, I would have a very different view. I like to think I would go out of my way to defend their rights, and remember many fights growing up in the 1980/90s (physical and verbal) sticking up for people who came out, or expressed some homosexual leanings and then copped it from mates. The people I defended probably didn't dare to dream that if they chose a same-sex relationship that they would have rights like a de facto straight couple, be able to adopt or have children using donor eggs/sperm etc.. We have come a long way, and I'd like us to go further, but not for the sake of some "outraged" social media bandits who will forget about this in 10 minutes and who don't and can't understand what it is to truly have your safety and human rights threatened.

Generally agree OMT, though you should have had your say as we are paying one hundred and twenty odd million for it.

Might help some if you said /Burma, but most would still probably have no idea of the systematic vilification there over many years.

The money is part of what bugs me mate. It's probably petty on my part, my mini protest.

It bugs me alright as well. Could have passed the law and spent the cash on education of the bill, or anything else with some return.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Yossarian, I call the gays un natural based on mother nature's decision to give us sex organs designed for a specific purpose.( and being straight or gay is pretty much a sex issue ) It is natural for a vagina to accept a penis. It is against nature to stick your penis in a donkey, chicken, or a man's bumhole. ( the donkey and chicken were just red herrings. What the F, it's also un natural to have sex with a herring, and bloody hard to use one to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest )THAT is why gays are un natural. Because a large part of what defines them as gay involves them having un natural sex. That is my opinion. If you think otherwise, that's just super. I don't think I'm alone. But I won't call you a moron for thinking that way, because I am tolerant of other's opinions, even though I might not agree with them.
Right there is a concept that you might consider.
Which goes towards the left being truly intolerant of any opinion that differs with theirs. See your responses. See Byron's responses. Nothing further, your honour.
Oh, btw . . . I'm sure the Hillary supporters would have thought the Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon voters were increasingly in the minority too. And THERE was a lesson in being tolerant of others that might disagree with you.
One more thing . . . a few have mentioned the ripple effect, but have amazingly been booed down. IF the gays only want "marriage" equality, they would have gotten a lot more positive result if there were iron clad guarantees that nothing further would eventuate. Like the Catholic Church being forced to marry gays if the law is passed. That 7 yr old kids would not be forced to learn in school that homosexuality is natural, or reading books about jack and Bob going up the hill. That those same kids would not be forced to use gender neutral toilets because of some whacko kid who has had his head messed up on gender definition by his progressive thinking parents. So basically that absolutely nothing else would change, except for gays being allowed to marry. After all, that IS what you all are spouting, yes ?

Donald lost the popular vote and has a current approval rating in the 30's, which will only get lower now he's outraged his base by making deals with the Democrats that takes the big beautiful wall off the table.

 

[Nelson]

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.

No I don't think it's worth exploring what happened overseas because I can't be bothered exploring it in the level of detail that would be required to actually inform my decision. You haven't looked at in detail either, you've just read sporadic anecdotal evidence that is written with an agenda in mind. I'm content to make my own moral choice on the question itself and then leave the consequences to the parliament. That's their job in a representative democracy.

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.

The question is a simple one. You are not being requisitioned into the parliament to have your input on the legislation, that is not our political system and that is not this process. You are being asked what your view is on the question as framed. You can obviously use the lack of information as a justification for your vote but I personally do not think that is the spirit in which the question is being asked.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

Just found this….some of you may find it interesting.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/37141103/same-sex-marriage-canberra-boss-fires-employee-for-vote-no/

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I don't think that everyone who votes no is homophobic, but there is certainly a significant element. There's a pretty good example of it in this thread. As much as anything, i think its a generational thing. A lot of the older generation come from a time where it was not the norm, and if you live your whole life like that, i can understand why the idea might take some getting use to. But when people don't like it because they don't want gay marriages to fall under the same umbrella as their marriage, as an example of an argument i have seen put forward recently, then i can't understand that. There is also the element of no voters who try and play the victim card, claiming people are telling them they can't have an opinion. Apart from it being my pet hate in a debate to complain that anyone who challenges your opinion is telling you you aren't entitled to it, there is also the added irony that you are complaining about not being allowed to an opinion, when you are complaining about others potentially having equal rights.

 

[TrueTiger]

I don't think that everyone who votes no is homophobic, but there is certainly a significant element. There's a pretty good example of it in this thread. As much as anything, i think its a generational thing. A lot of the older generation come from a time where it was not the norm, and if you live your whole life like that, i can understand why the idea might take some getting use to. But when people don't like it because they don't want gay marriages to fall under the same umbrella as their marriage, as an example of an argument i have seen put forward recently, then i can't understand that. There is also the element of no voters who try and play the victim card, claiming people are telling them they can't have an opinion. Apart from it being my pet hate in a debate to complain that anyone who challenges your opinion is telling you you aren't entitled to it, there is also the added irony that you are complaining about not being allowed to an opinion, when you are complaining about others potentially having equal rights.

I come from an era where free love,peace, goodwill and Buddha stix were the norm….the sixties and seventies...wow what a time ...homosexuality was frowned upon,it wasn't right I was told,its unnatural,man and woman have healthy loving relationships and make babies.....gee I have come along way since then,now Iam more TOLERENT of peoples feelings and accept that homosexuality is amongst us,we all have to deal with it in a manner where we can still remain caring human beings, after all isn't life precious and we need to live it the best we can,how we can..each to their own I say... :neutral_face:

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

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.

for some it's about the definition, for others it's about rights.

Years ago , procreation was one of the biggest Reasons to get married. There was a big stigma around any girl who became pregnant without being married first. Girls were going to great lengths to cover up the signs of a pregnancy. Many Australian country girls were sent to stay with relations in the cities and abortions were another way out.
These days you do not have to get married before having kids. On the contrary, there are lots of girls now walking down the isle with various baby bumps every day , or with their Children being involved in the ceremony.
There are others who decide to have a full family and may not EVER get married, that's their choice
On the other hand there are those who get married and never want to have any kids at all.
Marriage has changed, procreation has a much smaller reason for it

The word " marriage" has already evolved into different meanings to different people. And no one owns it.
People couldn't get married to a Protestant if they were a Catholic. And vice versa,
I had first hand knowledge of that stupid custom. when my Father would not let me to go to my two sisters weddings, and didn't speak to them for about 5 yrs.afterwards.

marriage and the reasons for ithave already changed a lot in EVERY church and most country's. Yet we still have some people who want to tell others that they can't marry whoever they like. Why do they still hang on to an outdated outlook on people getting married when so much has already changed.
It's marvellous how the hypocrisy eventually comes to light over the years about the ridiculous superstitions that they try and hold on to around religion, the church and marriage
My Catholic brother in law ( years ago very devout) spent ages trying to get me to not eat meat on Friday , then with a stroke of the Popes pen, it was over.
One day you'd go to hell if you had a prawn, the next day it was open slather.
I think that the yes voters should take a chill pill. Gays don't want to marry you, just other gay people

 

[earl]

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who get married and don't have kids. Should that be outlawed as well.

 

[marzie]

Imagine being told it's against the law to marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with

Hmmmm seems fair