-
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
Giardiasis said:
I think that's another debate altogether. for example, there might be some merit in giving churches an exemption from having to marry 2 people of the same sex if their core values are against the idea. but that is also discrimination. but you are allowed to apply for exemptions to deliberately discriminate. eg. women only gyms have been given exceptions to ban men. some gay bars in have been given exemptions to ban hetero couples.
It shouldn't be against the law to discriminate. We all should have the freedom to associate with who we wish and not have it forced upon us.Ian4 said:
tigertime2 said:
The first part of your statement is correct, if slightly irrelevant (I'm not sure how brain development is linked to a sense of identity, sexual or otherwise). But if you know of the link, I'd love to read about it.
The rest of your statement is just appalling fictional rubbish that is designed to frighten and distract.
Giardiasis said:
your equating of 2 people getting married to a person marrying an animal or doormat. ridiculous. how would a door mat sign a marriage certificate?
There are people that want to do that. I agree it is a ridiculous concept and I would consider someone telling me they married their doormat or pet cat as nutty. But I don't think the government should have any say in the matter.Brodders17 said:
Giardiasis said:
as always you are letting you dogma get in the way of reality.
you can argue whether government should be involved in marriage, or building roads. but that is not the question here. the question is whether 2 gay people should be allowed to marry. the options are yes or no.
No it isn't. The question is should they be recognised by the government as married.Brodders17 said:
Giardiasis said:
As marriage is currently defined by an act of parliament the 2 are not so easily separated Gia.
Azza said:
Not necessarily. Queen Victoria seems to have inherited 2 good copies of the gene that controls blood clotting but an error occured that lead to a bad copy passing down to her offspring. The intermarrying in European Royalty concentrated those bad copies but it didn't 'cause' them.
And to be clear I am not advocating incest, just trying to establish some facts.
[Quote author=https://www.larasig.com/node/2020]
Consanguineous Relationship Risk Data
In fact, couples who are first cousins are estimated to have about a 1.7% to 2.8% increased risk for significant congenital defects above the population background risk. There is approximately a 4.4% increased risk for pre-reproductive mortality above the background risk, some of which includes major congenital defects (Bennett et al., 2002). The general population risk for significant birth defects varies among populations because of their varied sociodemographic characteristics and how various studies define adverse health outcomes in the first years of life.[/quote]
No where have we seen what the proposed legislative change would be. Does any thinking person trust the Government to do something that is not clearly defined? That alone should raise serious questions about voting yes.
tigertime2 said:
FUD. The survey is a farce and is non-binding on members of parliament, but don't let that make you vote no. If there's a yes vote then one would expect legislation to be tabled and voted on by members of parliament (as a conscience vote) if the Lib/Nat coalition have any honour left at all, which is arguable. Then there would be the usual public debate and legislative scrutiny by members of parliament.
It's not an undefined Constitutional change that we are voting on.
