Same sex marriage debate...

[Tiger_Pete]

I think what irks me most is that if you choose to vote no or suggest that you are against same sex marriage, then you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Im neither.

Although i am 115kgs, 6ft2in tall. By any stretch i am not little or petite. But if i suddenly want to be described as 'petite', i should get that right as a member of society? Unfortunately the word 'petite' describes something i am not. Do we then change the meaning of the word to include my description? No. Accept what i am and accept what i am not and move on.

Now i am 100% supportive of same sex couples having the same legal rights in EVERY way to a male and female married couple. Superannuation, money, rights whatever. But why do we have to change the meaning of a word for that reason?

Notwithstanding all of the above, this is not the most important issue in our country. Get on with running the country! For those whinging about the current government not allowing same sex marriage because of religion or tony abbott or whatever, why didnt the Labor opposition allow same sex marriage only 5 years ago when they were in power?

The answer is that this is a BS beat up by politicians to take the focus off the real issue of running the country for all of us.

We change the definition of words all the time.

Are you specifically against changing the meaning of any words or just this one?

 

[Abraham]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

I understand Pete, ever thought its you who doesn't understand?

A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for somebody because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Buy why should that same baker be compelled to bake a cake for an event (not a person, but an event) that they don't agree with?

What are your positions on the examples i gave?

And if your short sighted enough to believe that this is about gay marriage and nothing else, then i would suggest with all sincerity that you open your eyes to the world around you.

 

[Abraham]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

**Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?**

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

I bolded a line that I wrote earlier. Isn't there some legislation saying people can't be discriminated against for their sexual preference, gender, race etc? Your examples don't come close to those categories.

See my above reply to Pete.

Discriminating against a person because of their characteristics is not the same as not wanting to take part in an event.

 

[Abraham]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services… Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.

Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .

 

[Swordy]

I think what irks me most is that if you choose to vote no or suggest that you are against same sex marriage, then you are a homophobe or a bigot.

Im neither.

Although i am 115kgs, 6ft2in tall. By any stretch i am not little or petite. But if i suddenly want to be described as 'petite', i should get that right as a member of society? Unfortunately the word 'petite' describes something i am not. Do we then change the meaning of the word to include my description? No. Accept what i am and accept what i am not and move on.

Now i am 100% supportive of same sex couples having the same legal rights in EVERY way to a male and female married couple. Superannuation, money, rights whatever. But why do we have to change the meaning of a word for that reason?

Notwithstanding all of the above, this is not the most important issue in our country. Get on with running the country! For those whinging about the current government not allowing same sex marriage because of religion or tony abbott or whatever, why didnt the Labor opposition allow same sex marriage only 5 years ago when they were in power?

The answer is that this is a BS beat up by politicians to take the focus off the real issue of running the country for all of us.

We change the definition of words all the time.

Are you specifically against changing the meaning of any words or just this one?

Does it matter? I think I was pretty clear with what I wrote.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I hope it gets through for no other reason than im sick to death of hearing about it. What a boring topic it is.

Lets get onto a real juicy topic…like those scumbags ferals who want to change the date and/or refuse to acknowledge Australia Day for what it is.

I think you described those on both sides of the debate topic of your ultimate paragraph. Agree on the first one as it should have already been voted upon in Parliament.

 

[hammertime]

For a large majority of the no vote, I think it's fair to say we are probably talking about people's older parents or grandparents who grew up in a very different time. Society adapts and grows. The people left behind grew up in a different world and usually are just fearful of change.

To be honest, the vitriol and hatred from the left is more sickening to me than an older person just wanting to be comfortable with keeping things how they were when they were young.

 

[Tiger_Pete]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

I understand Pete, ever thought its you who doesn't understand?

A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for somebody because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Buy why should that same baker be compelled to bake a cake for an event (not a person, but an event) that they don't agree with?

What are your positions on the examples i gave?

And if your short sighted enough to believe that this is about gay marriage and nothing else, then i would suggest with all sincerity that you open your eyes to the world around you.

Well, if you can tell me whether it discrimination for a baker to refuse to make a kid's Bar Mitzvah cake because it's for an event they don't believe in, then I can answer your hypothetical question.

Because, as I said, nothing is changing in the anti-discrimination laws.

But, the reason I'm not worried, is because this is already the law and I haven't seen anyone forced to do horrible things against their will.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the "cake argument". Whatever laws are in place now regarding a baker's rights or otherwise to sell cakes they find morally or religiously objectionable would still be in place if SSM is legalised. It's a red herring to a simple legislative change concerning the marriage law.

 

[earl]

I skimmed through these posts so I might not be giving the best response to what I've read.

Personally though I'm sick of hearing about how bad the left is and how people who are denying people the same rights under law are just perfect little citizens.

I'll vote yes because everyone should have the same rights. To me it's a human rights issue. I won't though be doing any campaigning for this in any way shape or form.

I also think that there is no reason to vote on this and the money should be spent on other things. Australia in my opinion is way too conservative. The US which in my opinion is way too conservative allows gay marriage and marijuana is decriminalised. These should both be legalised in Australia with no debate because to me they are clear cut human rights issues.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services… Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.

Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .

There are at least a few interesting points that have to be answered/explained:

- many people want to recognise Aboriginal culture, but when it comes to SSM, their culture and practice is not taken into account - my understanding is that Aboriginal culture is strongly against SSM and even homosexuals. It is hypocritical on one hand to scream "recognise Aboriginal culture" and 'bring the statues down" and than legalise the law that goes against their culture. Similar argument applies to Islamic culture.
- bullying from both sides has to stop.
- the 'free speech' has to be protected, regarding that, an interesting discussion/experience from Ireland and UK: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

The 'safe school' and other assorted BS has to be clearly kept away from decision arising from this issue.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

By what you just said, the shop refused to supply the product (refusing to offer their service) as it would be used in a ceremony they didn't want to be associated with. That is refusing their service. Exact same as black man analogy. (Note: I don't know anything more about this example then what has been written here.)

Aren't people (in most western countries if not all countries) required by law to not discriminate against people in providing services, in certain situations, and I would have thought someone being gay would be on that list?

And I question the line of thinking where a normal person when being discriminated against would simply take their business elsewhere. If they knew these people were likely to discriminate against them, I don't see a problem in trying to make that known.

By that logic, if a girl went out with a dodgy character who she had heard bad things about, and that character did then do horrible unspeakable things to her, it's her fault because she knew he was dodgy and put herself in that situation. It may not have been sensible to put herself there, but surely it is the guy perpetrating that is at fault for his own actions.

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

I can agree that a person should not be compelled to act against their moral judgements. However their is a nuance between that and discrimination. For instance I worked at a night club that would regularly refuse guests because they were Asian. There was no "Moral" judgement here just discrimination, I had a Moral judgement to not be involved with that side of the business as I found it disgusting.

That being said, "I deny you marriage because some people who might object to your marriage might be asked to provide services… Refuse and be sued" is a very poor argument. Ultimately who is hurt more, a cakemaker who has to write "Best wishes to Gary and Steve" or a couple not allowed to marry? One is icing, the other is a denial of a natural expression of love. Put another way, who matters more to you the LOVE OF YOUR LIFE or a customer?

Yet, hey you can go for both. Go ring your MP, lobby them and get a clause that allows service providers to object to providing a service if they have a real and strong objection. My question is if you gets this clause would you then support Gay Marriage being legalised? If not then it is not your key argument.

Wise Judgement is needed, I don't think you can make a blanket rule in cases of a person refusing service.

Your conflating issues. Removing perceived discrimination against gay people under the marriage act and replacing it with real discrimination against people who support traditional marriage is the action of a warped society.

I have mentioned my personal libertarian view on gay marriage numerous times previously. Its not the government's business to be involved in marriage in any capacity.

If you want to marry according to cultural or religious traditions, go to your church or synagogue or temple and get married. For everyone else, apply for a certificate of civil union from the state. That way there is one rule that applies equally to everyone, and no one can argue
discrimination.

I am a massive beleiver in keeping the government at bay. And the government passing legislation to refefine a 5,000 year old word to mean something that no one even considered to be a thing 5 minutes ago, is massive government overreach that will have far reaching consequences .

Fellow Libertarians, may force be with you

 

[boonboon]

I skimmed through these posts so I might not be giving the best response to what I've read.

Personally though I'm sick of hearing about how bad the left is and how people who are denying people the same rights under law are just perfect little citizens.

I'll vote yes because everyone should have the same rights. To me it's a human rights issue. I won't though be doing any campaigning for this in any way shape or form.

I also think that there is no reason to vote on this and the money should be spent on other things. Australia in my opinion is way too conservative. The US which in my opinion is way too conservative allows gay marriage and marijuana is decriminalised. These should both be legalised in Australia with no debate because to me they are clear cut human rights issues.

Agree completely and as for the so-called left I am a ex–Liberal Party member and donor and wouldn't be considered a lefty by anyone who knows me and I couldn't find a single valid reason ever to vote No.

 

[Abraham]

So if a swingers club wants to use the local church hall (which is available for hire) for their weekly 'get together', does the church have to say yes?

Or if somebody wants to start a campaign calling for the banning of gay adoption, and they approach a gay lawyer who has adopted children, does the lawyer have to agree to work on overturning the law for this group?

According to you, it seems the answer is a 'Yes' to both questions.

To most fair people, the answer is 'No'. A person should not be compelled to act against their moral or personal sensitives.

At least try and understand what we're debating here. LGBT anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia. The fact that you haven't noticed them probably means they are not the end of the world like you're suggesting. This plebiscite is to decide marriage equality – nothing else.

I understand Pete, ever thought its you who doesn't understand?

A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for somebody because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Buy why should that same baker be compelled to bake a cake for an event (not a person, but an event) that they don't agree with?

What are your positions on the examples i gave?

And if your short sighted enough to believe that this is about gay marriage and nothing else, then i would suggest with all sincerity that you open your eyes to the world around you.

Well, if you can tell me whether it discrimination for a baker to refuse to make a kid's Bar Mitzvah cake because it's for an event they don't believe in, then I can answer your hypothetical question.

Because, as I said, nothing is changing in the anti-discrimination laws.

But, the reason I'm not worried, is because this is already the law and I haven't seen anyone forced to do horrible things against their will.

Your playing games now. Leave me out of it.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

For a large majority of the no vote, I think it's fair to say we are probably talking about people's older parents or grandparents who grew up in a very different time. Society adapts and grows. The people left behind grew up in a different world and usually are just fearful of change.

To be honest, the vitriol and hatred from the left is more sickening to me than an older person just wanting to be comfortable with keeping things how they were when they were young.

I don't perceive as a Left or Right issue but as a human rights issue. Abbott's lesbian sister I doubt is Left wing. The Liberal MPs in favour of gay marriage are not Left wing. I think Abraham is suffering Marxist paranoia - I hope it is not contagious. Did Marx ever say anything about gay marriage - I doubt it. If JC did not say anything against gay marriage than it is not anti-Christian. Please tell me if anyone happens to get messages from JC on this issue when talking to God.

 

[TrueTiger]

Ok,by what Iam reading, I would say many are in the it's their choice if same sex want to marry,it doesn't affect me one bit unless they try to push that agenda my way..I have my beliefs and teachings but also have leeway for others to live their lives how they choose..
Irrespective if you vote yes or no "everyone has a right to live their lives and have a freedom to do as such" this is why we are a democratic society that everyone wants to live in…

 

[BalmainBoy]

who exactly are the losers / victims if same sex couples are allowed to marry?

How is it going to hurt your life if "yes" is the answer?

Might it hurt some if "no" is the answer ..?

Should the Church (participation rate 10%? Maybe lesss) really have such relevance in our societal choices ..

There's another guy called Adam that liked Steve .. is this really worth debating ?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Because religions are excluded from provisions of the anti-discrimination act they continue to discriminate against same sex couples and single couples in defacto relationships. Same sex couples contribute to taxes that help finance the religious schools so why can't they get their money's worth in return via employment etc.?

 

[Swordy]

Im still confused as to why when the other mob were in government, they didnt make it happen then? Now its Tony Abbott and the fault of the church?

 

[Tiger_Tim]

I'm not gay, never have been and never will be so the vote won't affect me. One of my best mates is gay and he doesn't believe in it and is voting NO so that's good enough for me. I'd also like to thank all the politicians for making the decision even easier, as we all know you can't trust a politician.