Same sex marriage debate...

[jirskyr]

People have really made a mountain out of a mole hill regarding this same-sex marriage debate. If you support the notion vote yes, if you don't then vote no. If it means nothing to you either way then don't vote at all. #howhardisit

i don't see how this has over 40 pages. If you agree with same sex marriage vote yes, if you are conservative and don't think its right then vote no.

I believe love is love and people have a right to get married if they love and care for each other.

No offence but how are civil liberties a mole hill?

I agree the concept is easy, just vote and move on. But there has been a concerted "no" campaign based on 100 things that are not same-sex marriage, and it's engaged the frustrations of the "yes" campaign. I'd be ok if most "no" voters just came out and said "it's against my religious beliefs" or "I think homosexuality is a sin", because that is what I expect is at the core of lots of "no" voting: religion and conservative thinking. But that's borderline bigoted, so nobody says it outloud, not even Abbott or the Christian Lobby, they start talking about all these other topics.

The mere fact this thread has 40 pages when we are all footy nuts and probably not your typical hipster liberalists or right wing religious conservatives says a lot.

 

[innsaneink]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

 

[old_man_tiger]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

Not sure mate, i think gay couples have some restricted rights when one of them passes compared to straight couples. They don't count as next of kin. I don't know if there are other restricted rights, very hard to get clear information that isn't biased.

Even if they dislike this hullabaloo I'm sure they would want to have the same rights as a straight de facto couple. Sad that it becomes a public debacle like this, discourages many (although that might have been the point).

 

[innsaneink]

I was thinking more along the lines of theres probably plenty of straighties wishing hetero marriage was illegal

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

I was thinking more along the lines of theres probably plenty of straighties wishing hetero marriage was illegal

Everything can be seen from a different angle. On occasions I have even thought that so called faultless divorce is a bad thing. That is it if means that anything can take place in marriage and one party can exit without penalty. I know it was not supposed to mean that but on occasions that is what it is.

 

[jirskyr]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

Even if they dislike this hullabaloo I'm sure they would want to have the same rights as a straight de facto couple.

They essentially do. De facto relationships are available to same-sex couples under federal law since 2009 and you've been able to register a same-sex de facto relationship in NSW since 2010\. Civil unions have been legal in QLD since 2016.

 

[jirskyr]

I was thinking more along the lines of theres probably plenty of straighties wishing hetero marriage was illegal

The question in 100 years from now is how many people will still find marriage relevant? The crude marriage rate is slowly declining since 1995, though the crude divorce rate is also very slowly declining in that same time.

 

[Geo]

I never got one of those texts telling me how to vote nor did anyone from either side turn up on my doorstep….I'm outraged....

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

I never got one of those texts telling me how to vote nor did anyone from either side turn up on my doorstep….I'm outraged....

I once had a gorgeous Jehovah witness canvasser bailed up decades ago but she made a dashing exist when the ruddy Anglican priest also turned up - cursed that guy.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Just saw a photo posted by the no brigade on Facebook. Its of a little girl crying and it says (parahprasing) "A child deserves the right to be raised by a mother and a father. Say no to gay marriage".

Umm do these people even know what they are arguing. They are using a point that opposes gay adoption and equating it to gay marriage. Btw, its legal for gay couples to adopt, which makes it even more ridiculous.

 

[colmcd]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

Not sure mate, i think gay couples have some restricted rights when one of them passes compared to straight couples. They don't count as next of kin. I don't know if there are other restricted rights, very hard to get clear information that isn't biased.

Even if they dislike this hullabaloo I'm sure they would want to have the same rights as a straight de facto couple. Sad that it becomes a public debacle like this, discourages many (although that might have been the point).

Two points:
When a gay man passed away, under state law the decisions relating to his funeral went to his Brother instead of his 30 year old life partner.
Likewise probate law is very problematic. Because it is a very old set of laws, already VERY complex* you then have problems where a same sex partner may wish to claim their spouses estate.

*Do not under estimate the complexity of Probate law. Just don't, it is a very expensive and bitter process for anyone.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

Not sure mate, i think gay couples have some restricted rights when one of them passes compared to straight couples. They don't count as next of kin. I don't know if there are other restricted rights, very hard to get clear information that isn't biased.

Even if they dislike this hullabaloo I'm sure they would want to have the same rights as a straight de facto couple. Sad that it becomes a public debacle like this, discourages many (although that might have been the point).

Two points:
When a gay man passed away, under state law the decisions relating to his funeral went to his Brother instead of his 30 year old life partner.
Likewise probate law is very problematic. Because it is a very old set of laws, already VERY complex* you then have problems where a same sex partner may wish to claim their spouses estate.

*Do not under estimate the complexity of Probate law. Just don't, it is a very expensive and bitter process for anyone.

My wife will testify to that. She works primarily in property law, and probate matters are a big part of what she does also. She's dealt with some hideously complex matters, which only get worse when they are contested.

 

[colmcd]

As for the second part of your response that i didn't quote, well that has nothing to do with what we are actually being asked to vote for. None of this has been proposed as part of what is actually going on, so i wont be supporting what actually HAS been proposed.

There is not a vote!

This is a survey*. I cannot stress this enough, there is No voting taking place. People should not think of this as an election, it is not and it is a very silly and expensive exercise. It is non binding and MP's can do whatever they want.

Yes this survey may "encourage" a parliamentary vote on the matter, which may lead to one of the 5? private MP bills being put forward. Malcolm Turnbull has however promised John Howard (and others) the opportunity to have input into any legislation coming forward.

So if you are personally unhappy with all of the private members bills. Fine. But I am happy with the bi-partisan committee, all the drafts I have read, the opportunity for further input. Realistically far greater changes have happened with far less fuss.

*and personally I hate the idea of a Survey. Elections are run by the AEC who do a very good job at running them. Turnbull should be thrown out just for trying to switch the AEC out of the process.

 

[Chainlink]

I wonder if there are many or any gay people, particularly those in a long term r/ship quietly hoping this doesnt get legalised

Even if they dislike this hullabaloo I'm sure they would want to have the same rights as a straight de facto couple.

They essentially do. De facto relationships are available to same-sex couples under federal law since 2009 and you've been able to register a same-sex de facto relationship in NSW since 2010\. Civil unions have been legal in QLD since 2016.

Yes but Old Man Tiger is correct. Cannot be listed as next of kin. Other little related things too. Both parents can be listed on a birth certificate, but only one as 'mother', the other gets 'parent' or similar.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Abraham could be correct, changing marriage laws is all a Marxist conspiracy to destroy western, social and capitalist institutions as we know it.

Labor in 1975 under Whitlam and Lionel Murphy changed the Marriage Act so that marriages no longer had to be consummated.

The definition of consummation usually refers to penile-vaginal sexual penetration, but some religious doctrines hold that there is an additional requirement that there must not be any contraception used.
(from Wiki)

Now they want to change it again so there is no chance of these guys or gals having children. Penis and vagina will never share the same bedroom so forget penetration.

This results in less child being born in the white western capitalist world guaranteeing the collapse of capitalism that requires growth. The ripple effect will be the Greens wanting to put limits on the number of children that hetero couples can produce - that will be the final blade into capitalism's heart.

I would expect that Abraham would be healthily populating the world.

 

[earl]

Abraham could be correct, changing marriage laws is all a Marxist conspiracy to destroy western, social and capitalist institutions as we know it.

Honestly this is what some people think. BIzarre.

 

[JD Tiger]

Personally I wrote down yes on the survey, but one of my mates is very firmly against it, and I don't have a problem with that. He can think whatever he likes. Fair enough.

What I don't like, is that he is getting text messages inviting him to write 'Yes', from lobbyists I presume. He has received quite a few, and he has gotten really annoyed/ upset about them hassling him. There is no way they are ever going to get him to change his mind, he is firmed in his belief now even stronger.

If you want to go yes, cool, or no, whichever, but hassling people is not only counter-productive it is plain rude. Government should have banned all advertising about it, lobbying, all that rubbish. Just let people say what they think without trying to pressure them, isn't that what the whole thing was meant to be about?

 

[balmain boy]

Wow this thread's still going? How many pages was the Lote thread? Obviously some people like to discriminate.

I don't agree with the random unsolicited text messages. That's spam. Already more than enough coverage of this issue. If it were a one off generic text like "don't forget to send in your form" that would be more reasonable.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Whosever idea it was to send mass texts and knock on peoples doors are dumb as rocks. If you are going to try and influence people, how is doing that going to help? Its only going to enrage people who want to vote the other way, making them even more dogmatic in their beliefs. And its likely to push anyone on the fence to the other side. Its not helping your argument.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The same idiots who wax lyrical about this text message are generally the same tossers who will share rubbish articles, tag a million friends on Facebook on David Wolfe articles and send chain letters around via Messenger.

I had the coalition for marriage knock on my door, people actually entering my property to lecture me instead of a trending hashtag on my mobile. Not sure if pro-SSM groups are doing the same (I assume they probably do,) but I know which tactic I consider to be a more blatant invasion of privacy.

PS: 97% of people probably won't copy and paste this post.