gutfull said:
Yep, that is how surveys work. First you count how many of one kind of response there are. Then you count the other.
-
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
Yep, that is how surveys work. First you count how many of one kind of response there are. Then you count the other.
My reasoning for voting no is based around what I see as the likely consequences.
As I said before I am not obliged to give evidence or even an argument but there is no surprises as to the insulting names I have been called, the anti-religious bias shown (when did I mention religion?) or the censorius anger shown at my response above. Not only that but there seems to be broad agreement from the responses above that my conseqences are not far wide of the mark. If that is the society you want by all means vote yes!
I have gay friends too but not all gays will actually vote yes. Like most Aussies I dont care what people do in private but I do care if people force it down my throat! I do care if people will be forced to act against their conscience and celebrate gay relationships.
As for evidence, just google and read around the issue (and watch the no ads) and you will find all you desire. I have neither the time nor inclination to do it for you.
As I said before I am not obliged to give evidence or even an argument but there is no surprises as to the insulting names I have been called, the anti-religious bias shown (when did I mention religion?) or the censorius anger shown at my response above. Not only that but there seems to be broad agreement from the responses above that my conseqences are not far wide of the mark. If that is the society you want by all means vote yes!
I have gay friends too but not all gays will actually vote yes. Like most Aussies I dont care what people do in private but I do care if people force it down my throat! I do care if people will be forced to act against their conscience and celebrate gay relationships.
As for evidence, just google and read around the issue (and watch the no ads) and you will find all you desire. I have neither the time nor inclination to do it for you.
Djevv said:
I don't think you need to google anything to find evidence that there is bigotry and homophobia in Australia. That's patently obvious. The point is that it shouldn't determine Australian law, not that it exists.
And if you don't have a problem with what people do in their private lives, they vote yes. That is literally what it's about. No one is shoving anything down your throat. But it seems to be the only thing you're worried about.
Just interested Coburg in where I have shown a homophobic attitude? I tolerate homosexuals but don't celebrate their lifestyle. That is current legislation which I think is entirely appropriate. Hence the no vote.
Djevv said:
You are literally fearful that homosexuality will become more normalised in society. You have actually said you are worried that it will be discussed in sexual education, that you won't be able to 'conscientiously object' from gayness, and that homosexuality might be 'celebrated' (which, outside of gay parties, I'm assuming you mean it will be recognised as equal to heterosexuality).
This is the actual definition of homophobia.
Coburgtiger said:
Did you miss the part where I said that I don't care what people do in their private life? I am actually tolerating those I disagree with. Something the yes campaign could learn about. Celebrating homosexuality is different to tolerating. I do think it should be taught in sex-ed classes but in an informative way as it is now - i dont think people should be persecuted or villified for being gay either (real homophobia). But isnt and never has been normal, perhaps 3% of the population practice it? An even smaller minority will want to be married. Such a tiny minority should not lead us to redefine the most important institution in our society which provides the safest place for a child to grow up.
Djevv said:
Where is your evidence to back up this statement? In some cultures, it takes a 'village to raise a child' as the saying goes. The 'safest' place for a child to grow up? Can you please elaborate on that?
Multiple large studies of heterosexual couples show consistently that when you compare different family types the safest place to bring chidren is in a nuclear family where both children are related to the parents. The most unsafe is single mother homes. Where do homosexual families fit? I would say in with families where the children are not related to both parents. It is also common sense IMO. Only an academic would need a study to show that a biological nuclear family is the safest place for childen to grow up.
I don't think it is wrong, it just doesn't fit the narrative you've accepted.
Check the table on the first page. Makes sobering reading. This is simply to support my contention that traditional married couples are good for society rather than anything to do with same sex couples:
http://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/ia142-snapshot.pdf
Check the table on the first page. Makes sobering reading. This is simply to support my contention that traditional married couples are good for society rather than anything to do with same sex couples:
http://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/ia142-snapshot.pdf
jb03 said:
So unless I am prepared to celebrate homosexuality I am guilty of the thoughtcrime of homophobia? Being tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle is insufficient? Thats good to know - another excellent reason to vote no.
Djevv said:
I think 're-defining' is actually a loaded term. Including gay couples doesn't change the definition of marriage for anyone else. People have been pairing off in relationships that you don't think are normal throughout human history. So it isn't being redefined so much being expanded to include those people who have always been part of our community but have been excluded so far. You listed a whole raft of mostly nonsense almost none of which had anything remotely to do with equal marriage. You don't wish to provide any evidence that any of it is real so I will just dismiss it out of hand as bigoted alarmism. As the great Hitch said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence....or words to that effect.
MD Jazz said:
Thats all I expect in return MD. I don't expect them to come to church and celebrate my faith! Its the basis of a pluralistic society.
Djevv said:
You keep using the two words celebrate and tolerate, as though these are your only choices.
But there's another word - "accept"
I neither tolerate or celebrate gays.
I accept them.
2c
KnightersRevenge said:
Like I said before KR my position does not require argument or evidence. It is the default option. Your side needs the evidence that things must change - which is serverely lacking.
I went to a Lyle Shelton meeting last night - first time I have ever encountered security guards in church! Everything on my list he mentioned with supporting evidence. If you are really open to the evidence I suggest you go to the coallition for Marriage site & check it out!
Djevv said:
There was a time when slavery and racial segregation were the 'default' options. And in some countries, still is. The 'default' option side always requires arguments as to why it should remain the 'default' when challenged. Neither side has the luxury of being 'right' just because.
Sad to say it but as much as some people think the 'yes' side are shoving it down their throats, the more the 'no' side claims it's not homophobic or bigoted, the more they convince me that they actually are. The 'no' side, the 'default' side has done nothing so far except scaremongering.
Djevv said:
well that's a bloody damn good consequence if that's true. it should be illegal to teach religion to kids until they are mature enough to make their own informed choice of what to believe/not believe, instead of being brainwashed by outside influences at a susceptible age.
