-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Gunna vote yes,
but find the whole debate/process really annoying. A bit like the Peoples Front of Judiah wanting the right to have a baby.
I'd much prefer all the press/$$$ this vote has got be directed into a more meaningful question.
maybe something like 'should black fellas be able to live longer than 50 years?'
or 'should inheritance of over a million bucks be outlawed?'
Marriage isnt that good. for many, its a green light to beat up their wives, circumcise their wives, cheat on their wives, enslave their wives, rape their wives.
plus you get a legally binding mother-in-law.
anyone has the right to love anyone now, without spending a couple of hundred million bucks and distracting from proper issues for 2 years.
But, yeah, I'll vote yes, because in the confines of the dichotomy, its right
but find the whole debate/process really annoying. A bit like the Peoples Front of Judiah wanting the right to have a baby.
I'd much prefer all the press/$$$ this vote has got be directed into a more meaningful question.
maybe something like 'should black fellas be able to live longer than 50 years?'
or 'should inheritance of over a million bucks be outlawed?'
Marriage isnt that good. for many, its a green light to beat up their wives, circumcise their wives, cheat on their wives, enslave their wives, rape their wives.
plus you get a legally binding mother-in-law.
anyone has the right to love anyone now, without spending a couple of hundred million bucks and distracting from proper issues for 2 years.
But, yeah, I'll vote yes, because in the confines of the dichotomy, its right
evo said:
Technically your going to respond 'yes' to a survey. You're not voting for anything.
Maybe you can help me understand Generalissimo's reason. I don't get it.
Right you are. I'm but a plebeian responding to a plebiscite.KnightersRevenge said:
I thought he made it pretty clear. He values the tradition of marriage and thinks it should be reserved for heterosexual couples as it has always been.
He is a 'traditionalist'.
It's not very complex.
For many, it's a green light to emasculate their husbands, control their husbands, cut their husbands off from their mates, make their husbands watch Offspring, force their husbands to go to IKEA instead of the footy, insist their husbands do 50% of the housework while never mowing the lawn themselves.easy said:
(I'm an equal-opportunity generaliser.)
plus the husband gets a legally binding mother-in-law.
;D
evo said:
I know that is what he said, and to be clear I haven't slated him for it. I just asked him to explain it. I didn't demand he do so. He said his marriage 'stands for something'. I asked him what and in particular it stands for that he thinks is different for same-sex couples? He didn't respond other than to claim I was assessing his values. I can't see where I was doing that? I was asking him to explain his values. My posting style can be a little abrupt so he may have thought I was being snide, but I don't think that bears out. I did give him a dig later for claiming my attitude had an effect on how he would respond to the survey. That seems pretty petty and thin skinned. He also asked that I consider his feelings, I pointed out that his feelings ought be inconsequential. His marriage is wholly unaffected by this survey. It concerns only the marriages of same-sex couples. Their feelings are the issue. Why should anyone who is married or wants to marry under the current law have any negative feelings about it? I truly don't understand that reasoning and so far no one has cleared it up for me.
It's bizarre. You can still value the tradition of marriage even if gays are allowed to marry. You can still believe marriage is between a man and a woman even if gays are allowed to marry.
It's like the good Friday footy argument. Those that say GF should be a day free from footy and spent with the family or go to church. YOU can still do that even if there's footy on GF!
I find the attitude of some extremely selfish.
It's like the good Friday footy argument. Those that say GF should be a day free from footy and spent with the family or go to church. YOU can still do that even if there's footy on GF!
I find the attitude of some extremely selfish.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
spook said:
I instigated a small riot in IKEA and got banned for life :happy
I think we agree, marriage isnt all that great :hihi
FWIW, I've cohabited with a different sex angel for 25 years.
Well as it turns out in a democracy, one vote one value and all that, his feelings on the matter have as much relevence as yours or mine. ( yes I know its not a vote)KnightersRevenge said:
We have views on all sorts of things in politics that don't affect us. Easytiger was just expressing views on aboriginal health and millionaires. Assuming he isn't either of those groups, why aren't you castigating him for those views?It doesn't directly affect him.
I'm really the wrong bloke to argue this though. Firstly, I'm a minarchist and libertarian. In my view the government should have nothing to do with just about everything. Including marriage. Personally I'd never dreeam of asking the government for permission to get married.
Some of the arguments being out forward are beyond ridiculous. On the radio tonight, some mob going on aout how if gay marriage is allowed, students at schools will be asked to act out 'same sex' couple scenarios or however they put it. Apparently this is already happening. Is gay marriage allowed yet? No. So these are two different issues. Same sex marriage and what's being taught in schools are two completely separate things. To try and link the two is complete BS!
May as well ban the AFL because of the misbehaviour of parents at junior football games.
:
May as well ban the AFL because of the misbehaviour of parents at junior football games.
:
Interestingly, we don't get to participate in this plebiscite in Arnhem Land cos it's all too hard to organise for our poor little government. For what it's worth, I don't believe I have a right to decide who gets to marry who. I'm surprised we all still have to make such a big deal out of it.
KnightersRevenge said:
I know that is what he said, and to be clear I haven't slated him for it. I just asked him to explain it. I didn't demand he do so. He said his marriage 'stands for something'. I asked him what and in particular it stands for that he thinks is different for same-sex couples? He didn't respond other than to claim I was assessing his values. I can't see where I was doing that? I was asking him to explain his values. My posting style can be a little abrupt so he may have thought I was being snide, but I don't think that bears out. I did give him a dig later for claiming my attitude had an effect on how he would respond to the survey. That seems pretty petty and thin skinned. He also asked that I consider his feelings, I pointed out that his feelings ought be inconsequential. His marriage is wholly unaffected by this survey. It concerns only the marriages of same-sex couples. Their feelings are the issue. Why should anyone who is married or wants to marry under the current law have any negative feelings about it? I truly don't understand that reasoning and so far no one has cleared it up for me.
Probably his wife told him to vote no and he doesn't want to admit it.
I think for many they really think it devalues their union. Sad.
fastin bulbous said:
Same here. Marriage is a basic civic right in my mind. Everyone else should mind their own business.
The worrying thing is that historically, governments have used such issues as a smokescreen to hide what they're really up to, and usually not in the taxpayer's interests. It's not gay marriage we should be worried about, it's what our governments are up to behind the scenes that we should be concerned with. But in a country with as many human 'sheep' and NZ has real sheep, what can you do?
Harry said:
It's like the Inquisition, if you admit to voting no you're then required to justify it by answering targeted questions. And no explanation is ever satisfactory to the other mob.
You're right, best to simply shut up and vote.
evo said:
I agree. As I said to General I have no skin in the game. Even more so as I no longer live in Aus. I am married. That was done only for my wife. I explained to her that it meant nothing to me (she "loved" that!). My commitment to her was not tied to laws or churches or tradition (for me - I imagine it was tied to all of those things for her).
I agree completely that people's feelings matter to them. But General was accusing me (and more generally of people who think like me on this issue) of being arrogant and not considering his feelings. I find that pretty arrogant. His feelings relate to a small correction to a weasely change to the Australian Marriage Act that have absolutely no affect on him or his wife or his marriage. But it absolutely and materially affects same-sex couples. Why is his choice to deny them access to something that he takes for granted not arrogance? Not unfeeling? That is what I was trying to flesh out. Traditionalists don't tend to like to delve into issues. Tradition simply trumps all. It is thoughtless and closed minded and while General says his decision is not religious it certainly fits the bill.
easy said:
Genius. Must try that. What did you do? Yell 'free meat balls' then remove the Allen keys from all the flat packs?
Point out that nobody needs 35 different animal shaped candles? Make use of the display facilities?
None of those have worked for me.
