Marriage Equality

[Harry]

Again, the question in the survey is not about your personal system of beliefs. It is about what you think the law should be.

You can be a religious person who believes homosexuality to be immoral. But if you want to be able to truthfully say that you are not forcing those beliefs on anyone else, then those personal beliefs should NOT factor in what you think the law should reflect.

You can't have it both ways.

You want them to help force a law against their beliefs and vote yes? Or not vote at all? As I said stupid process.

 

[Harry]

Wowee, who are you to tell parents what they can and can’t teach their children! It is up to parents, as stewards of their children, to decide what’s best for them and what they should be taught. Not you.

Ian's for total government control.

 

[Giardiasis]

Ian's for total government control.

Only as long as it follows his dictates.

 

[MD Jazz]

This is anti-religious bigotry!

Religion is the main reason for wars, death & destruction. A tool of control. I don't need religion to teach me to be kind, be tolerant, have empathy. I just need to act like a decent human being. It's pretty simple. I stopped believeing in tooth fairies and the like at about 10, took a while longer to realise religion was no different. I don't need religion for meaning in my life, that comes from the act of living.

 

[MD Jazz]

Wowee, who are you to tell parents what they can and can’t teach their children! It is up to parents, as stewards of their children, to decide what’s best for them and what they should be taught. Not you.

Who are parents to tell children what to do - what about their rights?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

This is also anti-religious bigotry. People and their families have every right to practice their faith.

Sure, you can "practice" your religion in your home and in your church. But why should anyone be forced to "celebrate" your choice?

 

[Willo]

Who are parents to tell children what to do - what about their rights?

That must be tongue in cheek, surely ;D

 

[MD Jazz]

That must be tongue in cheek, surely ;D

Gia's always banging on about rights. I'm sure he's mentioned kids rights previously. Seems to be contradicting himself now.

Stewards, great word for parenting, all sounds very loving.

 

[Willo]

Gia's always banging on about rights. I'm sure he's mentioned kids rights previously. Seems to be contradicting himself now.

Stewards, great word for parenting, all sounds very loving.

Fair point

 

[Rosy]

Religion is the main reason for wars, death & destruction. A tool of control. I don't need religion to teach me to be kind, be tolerant, have empathy. I just need to act like a decent human being. It's pretty simple. ......

Hahah hehehe surely you jest. Has to be tongue in cheek. How many people have you harassed and abused on PRE? How many user identities have you registered with? Fair dinkum...oh I get it. Kind, tolerant and decent doesn't necessarily apply to internet personas. :rofl :hihi

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hahah hehehe surely you jest. Has to be tongue in cheek. How many people have you harassed and abused on PRE? How many user identities have you registered with? Fair dinkum...oh I get it. Kind, tolerant and decent doesn't necessarily apply to internet personas. :rofl :hihi

Interwebs has different rules Rosy. For some reason you will type something you would almost certainly never say face to face. I know I do.

 

[Brodders17]

Gia's always banging on about rights. I'm sure he's mentioned kids rights previously. Seems to be contradicting himself now.

Stewards, great word for parenting, all sounds very loving.

kids are property of their parents. they dont have rights until some court (user pays) decides they can.

 

[Brodders17]

It's been put out to a vote and people are voting based on their religious beliefs which is what's important to them. These people aren't forcing a law on anyone, they have been asked for an opinion and a vote and are giving it. Doesn't matter if you belive in a god or not - it doesn't need a justification everyone undertands and agrees on. Those who are religious see the yes voters opinions just as ridiculous. This is why the whole process is a joke.

many religious leaders are in favour of the yes vote.

 

[Brodders17]

Looking at the amount of anti-religious bigotry on display in here voting no is realistically the only option for those of us who value freedom of conscience. People call my concerns irrelevant then proceed to make them all very relevant with their postings.

Brodders I read that it was an excellent school except they would not celebrate homosexual behavior. Do you have any evidence for your claim that it was a 'dud'. I'd be interested to read it! Also: I have said why people's lack of being able to follow the logic of my argument notwithstanding!

https://aleph.org.au/2017/09/10/lyle-shelton-exposed-for-falsely-blaming-marriage-equality-for-the-failings-of-a-london-jewish-school/

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/testing-the-many-claims-of-the-samesex-marriage-campaign-20170929-gyrd1s.html

https://www.jewishnews.net.au/ant-ssm-ad-riddled-inaccuracies/68949


The "no" campsaign is full of lies, and diversions.
the no case relies on arguments against political correctness, against a variety of changes that have nothing to do with marriage and supposed tradition, ignoring the many changes that have occurred over Australia's history. their was an article floating around recently about the man imprisoned because he married an Aboriginal woman without permission. should the law have been changed then?

 

[jb03]

https://aleph.org.au/2017/09/10/lyle-shelton-exposed-for-falsely-blaming-marriage-equality-for-the-failings-of-a-london-jewish-school/

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/testing-the-many-claims-of-the-samesex-marriage-campaign-20170929-gyrd1s.html

https://www.jewishnews.net.au/ant-ssm-ad-riddled-inaccuracies/68949


The "no" campsaign is full of lies, and diversions.
the no case relies on arguments against political correctness, against a variety of changes that have nothing to do with marriage and supposed tradition, ignoring the many changes that have occurred over Australia's history. their was an article floating around recently about the man imprisoned because he married an Aboriginal woman without permission. should the law have been changed then?

I thought the no campaign was based on the yes campaign sending out text messages.

 

[Brodders17]

I thought the no campaign was based on the yes campaign sending out text messages.

funny we didnt hear the outrage when Bernadi said he was going to call people to push poll.

 

[Giardiasis]

Who are parents to tell children what to do - what about their rights?

I have written about this already. It’s pretty complicated but in a nutshell parents hold guardianship rights over their children (not ownership) until the children can claim ownership of their body. Before you go off, no that doesn’t mean the parents can sell them or abuse them. If they did so, they would lose their superior claim of guardianship.

 

[Rosy]

funny we didnt hear the outrage when Bernadi said he was going to call people to push poll.

I commented on my own experience with the yes brigade early in the piece. I haven't had any calls or emails from the no side. Can't be bothered with it any more. Stupid waste of money dividing people. The govt should have the guts to make decisions themselves.

 

[Rosy]

Interwebs has different rules Rosy. For some reason you will type something you would almost certainly never say face to face. I know I do.

I'd like to think I wouldn't post anything I wouldn't say face to face.

 

[Brodders17]

I have written about this already. It’s pretty complicated but in a nutshell parents hold guardianship rights over their children (not ownership) until the children can claim ownership of their body. Before you go off, no that doesn’t mean the parents can sell them or abuse them. If they did so, they would lose their superior claim of guardianship.

im still not sure who decides what abuse is though. and who would then decide who takes over guardianship.

on q&a last night someone again asked about the rights of the children, because 'every child needs a mum and dad'., ignoring the fact that marriage equality will not change the right of same sex couples to have children, either biologically or through adoption, and ignoring the fact there is no legal intervention to stop single people from having children or couples separating once they have children. it is another smokescreen.

then the conservative (inter)national senator says people should vote no because we havent seen the legislation. does he think the parties should go to elections with all their policies fully written so people know exactly what they are voting for?
if religious people are really concerned about religious rights they are best off voting yes so the current conservative government writes the law. once they lose at the next election and Labor are in power the 'religious right' wont get as much say in new laws.