-
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
tigertime2 said:
The earliest fossils identified as homo sapien have been dated to be around 200 thousand years ago. A lot of current evidence suggesting our species is somewhere between 200 - 300 thousand years old. Making 6000 years fairly recent history. Can't be bothered linking a bunch of citations, as this is fairly common and accepted knowledge. Look it up yourself.
The point being, people tend to overemphasise the relevance and importance of our 'history' and 'traditions' as some ancient law that's always been the way it is. The reality is, life has been changing for nearly 4 billion years, and our society will continue to change along with it.
We should be making the best decisions we can for our situation as it is at the moment, and not base them on some small and arbitrary period in our recent history.
Giardiasis said:
it is unfortunate some no voters are being abused, and some have had assaulted.
i doubt any have faced what members of the LQGTBI community have faced over their lives. i doubt any have been as brutally assaulted as members of the LQGTBI community have been. i doubt they have real fear of what might happen to them.
and you complain about $7000 being given to train people to identify hate speech. i cant say i have seen you complaining about the religious right using their wealth to campaign, wealth that is part due to tax payer subsidies.
i reckon the 'religious right' are as anti liberty as the 'left', if not more so. and in this case one side is trying to trying to increase people's liberty, while the other side is trying restrict it. yet your posts all side with the 'no' camp, or at least oppose the 'hes' campaign.
How many here argue from the viewpoint of the religious right? Be buggered if I can think of one. If there were as many of them as there are lefties here then I think you'd find I'd be arguing against them just as much. You guys are by far the vocal majority and regularly back each other up with "spot ons" and "don't worry about Gia he is 'insert ad hominem'..." etc. When you say subsidies do you mean tax breaks? You won't often find me complaining about them.Brodders17 said:
You are focusing on the liberty of one group to be able to do what they want and forgetting about the liberty of the other group to be able to do what they want. Both the yes and no camps hold anti liberty viewpoints, the only consistent one is to say people should be free to marry whoever they want and to not recognise others as married if they want. But you don't want that, you want to force a group of people to consider SSM as valid that don't want to.
Giardiasis said:
Just because the person using the argument isn't religious doesn't mean that isn't the source of the argument. Growing up in a religious household or community leaves traces behind. When you ask someone using it to explain it tends to get pretty wishy-washy.
That's not completely accurate Gia. We live in a society under a government. There are laws and rules that apply here. They currently exclude one group. This is not about whether you or Fred or Betty recognise the marriage, it is about whether the legal exclusion at law is in line with current societal norms. There is a feeling that it isn't. This is how laws change. I agree with you that it shouldn't have anything to do with government but that just isn't the system we are in.
No they exclude many groups not just SS couples. One group wants to exclude more than the other, and the only option in front of them is to chose what they want and force it upon the rest as you point out that is the system we live in. However there is a third choice which seems the only sensible option to me, and that's to not vote at all, as any vote either way is anti liberty.KnightersRevenge said:
Giardiasis said:
Agreed, but I doubt even the very best advocates from the dogs and doormats lobbies would be able to convince a majority that they need to be considered. Ditto polyamory or incest proponents. Societal norms are transient. The zietgiest is what it is and sometimes when the wind is blowing just right a minority are able to convince the majority to see things from their perspective. I value that in society. The whole enterprise improves when that happens, IMO.
Growing up Catholic really screwed up my thinking on abortion, homosexuality, critical thinking, nuclear families...Even after I realised I didn't believe in god anymore it took years for my views on gay rights in terms of parenthood to evolve. It was absolutely my upbringing that was clouding my thinking even though I no longer believed. People who were never indoctrinated find it very hard to understand how grown men and women can hold such contrary views on certain topics. I don't.
I think the no vote is viable from a 'no change required' POV. No further argument is required.
Djevv said:
Except a change was made. Without a plebiscite. Without a referendum. And very recently. And that change is the reason this change is required. Had Howard/Ruddock left the language of the Marriage Act alone would the view still be 'no change required'?
KR Howard did not re-define marriage when he changed the wording. Everyone understood what people meant when they said marriage. Even people like Gilard & Wong. Howard just closed a loophole. Good on him! Redefining marriage may have many unintended consequences which sensible voters look into by checking out what happens where it has been redefined. If they are not happy with the erosion of free speech and religious freedoms they see there they vote no for no change.
Giardiasis said:
Marriage was undefined in the act. It was assumed everyone understood it the same way. As far as I know it hadn't been 'tested' so under the act there was no reason a same sex marriage wasn't a legal marriage. But were it to occur it would likely have to have gone to court. The UK was moving to recognise civil union, and I imagine John Winston Howard along with Philip Ruddock (with a constant weather eye on the motherland) was worried that a court might choose to interpret it in the more liberal sense. Changing the act removed any chance for a court to alter the common law meaning.
Djevv said:
You say he didn't. I say there are many different kinds of marriage. There are child brides, women sold into marriage, polygamy...the idea that it means just one thing and has always meant the same thing is patently false. Can you elaborate on some of the unintended consequences? I can tell you some of the actual consequences of not doing it. The refusal of access to same-sex partners of terminally ill patients. The refusal to accept them as next of kin. The loss of housing through estates where the partner of the deceased is not recognised. Just the fact that two people who have been in a long term committed relationship should have to ask anyone let alone the whole country to ratify their relationship. It is demeaning and absurd that you get to decide what the status of someone entirely unconnected to you is.
My point has not changed. Marriage equality affects only the people seeking the equality. It costs the rest absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So to deny them is to be heartless and bloody-minded. Sorry if that is uncomfortable but thems the facts. I understand why some people don't feel comfortable with a change to the definition of marriage. What I don't understand is how they think it affects them in anyway. There is absolutely no mechanism by which allowing more people to get married changes the lives of people who are already married or can still get married. If you think I am wrong about that by all means set me right. Will they love their wife or kids less? Will they value their marriage less? Will they lose money? Status? What is the cost of letting other people do something they have always been able to do?
As far as I can see gays can already access marriage rights via being in a defacto relationship. If they reckon there are issues of discrimination then these can be legislated against. But I think these were all addressed years ago in parliament. My sister is defacto long term with children to her partner and has never complained of discrimination. BTW when I speak of traditional marriage I mean marriage between 1 man & 1 woman over the age of majority - nothing else!
Unintended consequences:
Religious schools forced to close for not including SSM in their curriculum (UK)
People being able to change their gender on their birth cert at the stroke of a pen (UK)
Kids in Canadian schools forced to celebrate homosexuality
De-gendering of society in general
People lose careers over the thoughtcrime of thinking marriage is between a man & a woman
Children lose the right to natural parents - parent 1 & parent 2 on the birth certificate
Case for Polygamous/polyarmorous marrages become stronger
Sex education curricula that include homosexual acts become compulsory.
Legalised discrimination against consciecious objectors to homosexuality are strengthened.
Commercial surrogacy could be legalised leaving kids to grow up without a mum.
SSM advocates are already violently hostile (in many cases) to anyone who opposes them. Voting yes will only encourage this kind of behavior.
For me voting for a future like this for my kids & grandkids is unconscionable so Im voting no.
Unintended consequences:
Religious schools forced to close for not including SSM in their curriculum (UK)
People being able to change their gender on their birth cert at the stroke of a pen (UK)
Kids in Canadian schools forced to celebrate homosexuality
De-gendering of society in general
People lose careers over the thoughtcrime of thinking marriage is between a man & a woman
Children lose the right to natural parents - parent 1 & parent 2 on the birth certificate
Case for Polygamous/polyarmorous marrages become stronger
Sex education curricula that include homosexual acts become compulsory.
Legalised discrimination against consciecious objectors to homosexuality are strengthened.
Commercial surrogacy could be legalised leaving kids to grow up without a mum.
SSM advocates are already violently hostile (in many cases) to anyone who opposes them. Voting yes will only encourage this kind of behavior.
For me voting for a future like this for my kids & grandkids is unconscionable so Im voting no.
Djevv said:
What putrid homophobic garbage.
Also, none of that list has got anything to do with marriage, and most of it isn't actually bad.
People can change gender? Oh no! There will be people who are finally comfortable with who they are!
Kids celebrating homosexuality? Wait. You mean all the gay people out there will actually be able to grow up without feeling like freaks and failures? People will be happy and accepted? Like it's... Normal? Hmmm, god won't like that.
WTF is a 'conscientious objector to homosexuality'? No one's drafting you into the gay army. You aren't forced to be homosexual. Is this another way of saying 'thoughtful homophobe'? 'Conscious prejudice'? We live in a country where you can believe whatever you want. You can even conscientiously object to it. But moral 'objection to homosexuality' should never be written into law. Jesus.
Why shouldn't sex education including homosexual acts be taught? Gay people exist. They will have sex. They deserve to be taught the risks and risk management just like everyone else. Or do you believe kids should be condemned to disease and death through ignorance and negligence if they are gay?
I don't even know what 'de-gendering of society' is, why anyone would care, or how it would hurt anyone. You can be whatever orientation and gender you call yourself now. No one's going to take that away from you. I mean, that's kinda the point.
Djevv said:
Some seriously deluded and dangerous thinking here DJ. No one. Not one person. At any time. In any way. Is advocating that you or any other person, be forced to be gay. That is the biggest red herring posted here in this whole debate. The only thing being discussed here is whether two sets of people who wish to be in legal relationships should be seen differently by the state. That's it. I have no idea what the rest of your nonsense is about.
Then you are answering a question you were not asked in the survey.
