AusCelebs Forums

View active topics It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:21 am



Reply to topic 
 [ 72 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 Same sex marriage vote 

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Yes 69%  69%  [ 117 ]
No 31%  31%  [ 53 ]
Total votes : 170

 Same sex marriage vote 
Message Author

Postby mr_walker* » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:40 pm


phunkyfeelone wrote:
HIPPYD wrote:
Have you seen the tv ads for the no campaign? All they talk about is what their 'christian' kids will get taught in school about blah blah, they don't even mention what the actual vote is about. Someone said they are ok with people objecting on religious and non homophobic reasons, when your religion says gays should be killed I'd say that's homophobic. Those ads are homophobic and I'm yet to see a non homophobic reason for the no campaign.


None of them mention anything specific about religion or mention "christian", you're assuming they do because it's assumed that all those opposing gay marriage are religious.

Their focus, which is exaggerated but not unrealistic, is that normalising same-sex marriage will normalise and promote non-natural behaviours, and as with any minority, we seem to over-teach and over-educate, which in turn influences young minds into thinking it's a choice, not a biological occurrence.

Promote non-natural behaviour? There are lots of examples of same sex relationships in the animal kingdom.


2
Carl Carlson
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:23 am
Posts: 540
Karma: 88.15 (476 thanks)

Location: No longer in a queue at Centrelink.
Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:40 pm
Profile

Postby phunkyfeelone » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:24 pm


mr_walker* wrote:
phunkyfeelone wrote:
HIPPYD wrote:
Have you seen the tv ads for the no campaign? All they talk about is what their 'christian' kids will get taught in school about blah blah, they don't even mention what the actual vote is about. Someone said they are ok with people objecting on religious and non homophobic reasons, when your religion says gays should be killed I'd say that's homophobic. Those ads are homophobic and I'm yet to see a non homophobic reason for the no campaign.


None of them mention anything specific about religion or mention "christian", you're assuming they do because it's assumed that all those opposing gay marriage are religious.

Their focus, which is exaggerated but not unrealistic, is that normalising same-sex marriage will normalise and promote non-natural behaviours, and as with any minority, we seem to over-teach and over-educate, which in turn influences young minds into thinking it's a choice, not a biological occurrence.

Promote non-natural behaviour? There are lots of examples of same sex relationships in the animal kingdom.



Such as? As per an earlier post, name one species where a same-sex relationship results in the production of young...
There is a difference between "same-sex relationship" and affection between those of the same gender.
I give my mates a hug, and a couple even get a kiss on the cheek. Last time I checked it's not sexual, it's affection.


1
Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 2077
Karma: 164.13 (3409 thanks)

Location: The Land of Chocolate
Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:24 pm
Profile

Postby SKaVeN » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:27 pm


phunkyfeelone wrote:
SKaVeN wrote:
phunkyfeelone wrote:
The law is already equal - any adult can legally marry a person of the opposite sex.
Whether you WANT to is a different story.

Equality means being able top marry whomever you want/love (man or woman), being told you can only make your choice based on gender is exactly what equality does not mean.

Anyway, like I said, it's all over nothing because all the polls, so far, have been in support of SSM. Even this one here is showing a staggering 91% in favour; that, and the amount of THANKS per post (in this thread) are enough to convince me which side of the argument is presenting a better case.


91% :scratch:

It's 68% for, 32% against, which surprisingly seems to reflect general opinion polls.
When I suggested this, i thought it would skew slightly one way or the other due to the mainly male viewership of AusCelebs.

Equality means everyone having the same opportunity based on the rules or laws in play. Changing a law to socially engineer equality in the eyes of a minority is a sets a poor precedent. Everyone is in a minority group of one or another.


Ah, yes, my eyes must've skimmed on the number of YES votes instead by mistake. I wasn't wearing my reading glasses at the time. :oops:

Even if the laws are unequal? You may think changing rules to suit minority groups sets a bad precedent, but I personally believe that to be a rather draconian belief and that they should have just as many rights and opportunities as everyone else.


Last edited by SKaVeN on Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:51 pm
Posts: 2066
Karma: 2.52 (52 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:27 pm
Profile

Postby SKaVeN » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:54 pm


phunkyfeelone wrote:
mr_walker* wrote:
phunkyfeelone wrote:

None of them mention anything specific about religion or mention "christian", you're assuming they do because it's assumed that all those opposing gay marriage are religious.

Their focus, which is exaggerated but not unrealistic, is that normalising same-sex marriage will normalise and promote non-natural behaviours, and as with any minority, we seem to over-teach and over-educate, which in turn influences young minds into thinking it's a choice, not a biological occurrence.

Promote non-natural behaviour? There are lots of examples of same sex relationships in the animal kingdom.



Such as? As per an earlier post, name one species where a same-sex relationship results in the production of young...
There is a difference between "same-sex relationship" and affection between those of the same gender.
I give my mates a hug, and a couple even get a kiss on the cheek. Last time I checked it's not sexual, it's affection.

The marriage plebiscite is for the right to get married, not to make babies. This is one of the classic misinformation tactics the NO campaign are using. If people should only be able to marry on condition of being able to produce children, then what about older people or people who are medically infertile? If a girl had ovarian cancer, and have to have a hysterectomy at a young age, does that mean she's also barred from ever being able to get married one day, too? As for the rest of us, should we start having compulsory fertility tests before getting married? The marriage laws in North Korea aren't even as strict as that. :neutral:

I'm pretty positive Walker meant sexual behaviour, not affection. Affection wouldn't make monkeys of the same sex mount each other. I once had a neighbour, nearing 30 years ago, who bought his daughter two rabbits which were both male, and he said they were always at it like... well... rabbits! As far as I know, affection is identified in most mammals, but not all other species. Some insects have even been know to practise same sex, and they don't have affection.


3
Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:51 pm
Posts: 2066
Karma: 2.52 (52 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:54 pm
Profile

Postby wolverine » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:53 pm


meperson wrote:
True but we are constantly making decisions that create their own consequences which aren't related to morality and the amount of 'rights' one should have has its limitations.

I demand my right to marry despite being an unsocial perfectionist who cannot instigate a proper relationship nor maintain it; still, I demand the first woman I propose to, out of the blue, to answer in the affirmative because it's my right, after all. I also demand to become a member of Mensa without knowing my IQ because I refuse to take the test as is my right not to. I think I might just disappear into the wilderness somewhere but still demand my right to plumbing and having my mail and pizza delivered to me promptly.

You see, demanding absolute equality with the next person despite being different to the majority is irrational.


I think this comment perfectly sums up why I will vote no.

It's not about denying anything to anyone, gay people already have all the rights as heterosexual people do. But marriage is not a right - rather it is another tool for those of us who decide to procreate to keep our family together and functioning in this crazy world. Yes, you might argue that as such the institution of marriage is failing because number of divorces is as high as ever but it is still the best solution we have. My gay friends' experience is that gay people are often less loyal to each other (no kids, less commitments), and relationships fail in greater proportion (certainly the case in short term). By allowing same sex couples to marry, it will contribute even more to degradation of concept of marriage. I also have gay friends who have been in long-term relationships and are quite happy and are in the for the long haul. But I just don't see how their life would be any different if this marriage law change comes to pass?

How do I keep a straight face while telling my kids that a princess came to rescue another princess, gave her a kiss and they lived happily ever after :no:


Capo Bastone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 2707
Karma: 241.63 (6541 thanks)
Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:53 pm
Profile

Postby sports_fan39 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm


i dont understand why this is even a vote, if u wanna get marries and your gay/lesbian or whatever, i dont see why you cant,


Lionel Hutz

Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 400
Karma: 7.79 (31 thanks)

Location: Victoria
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm
Profile

Postby atefooterz » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:47 pm


I do enjoy reading how these alphabet couples have the same rights, that they do not & equally surprised no yes folks have pointed it out. If it was really the case then much of the push would not be happening.
Rights in relation to common law & say organizing a funeral etc, yes some de facto things apply but families can challenge and over rule much of a will. Also the partner has zero input in the event of say partners vegetative state, after an accident for one example.


3
Santa's Little Helper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 13767
Karma: 166.54 (22928 thanks)

Location: #nowhereman
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:47 pm
Profile WWW

Postby wolverine » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:25 am


atefooterz wrote:
I do enjoy reading how these alphabet couples have the same rights, that they do not & equally surprised no yes folks have pointed it out. If it was really the case then much of the push would not be happening.
Rights in relation to common law & say organizing a funeral etc, yes some de facto things apply but families can challenge and over rule much of a will. Also the partner has zero input in the event of say partners vegetative state, after an accident for one example.


Wills can be challenged regardless, gay couple or not.

On the second point, I agree - if any gay couple lived together in a committed relationship, they need to have same rights as anyone else when it comes to making decisions about their partners health and life. However, there are a lot of cases where relationships fail but no divorce takes place. Clearly, that area needs to be addressed in law so that a husband who hasn't been living with their wife for 5 years for example can't make a decision to end life support. And those same laws should be used for gay couples as well. So change the law to fix it. But don't change the concept of marriage, it has nothing to do with it.


Capo Bastone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 2707
Karma: 241.63 (6541 thanks)
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:25 am
Profile

Postby atefooterz » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:50 am


I think there was far more uprising about mass being spoken in English (not Latin) then the dropping off of eating fish on a Friday.
When ssm was 1st legal (1974) i worked with the 3rd couple, who went to SA, they lasted 30 or so years before i lost contact.
The issue about young gays being promiscuous is valid but not so much in 2017 where packs of young women only want a sweaty fix.
I think in time many mellow out and have happy long term relationships, maybe not so much in WA?
As i said previously we had a huge same sex customer base, using our service to buy/sell homes, recommendation is powerful, we also hooked into deaf & other impaired folks as we were easy, we also did a lot of "name" divorces, as we were discreet and not gossip, unlike our competition. :)


Santa's Little Helper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 13767
Karma: 166.54 (22928 thanks)

Location: #nowhereman
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:50 am
Profile WWW

Postby SKaVeN » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:18 am


Just think about it for a moment... Imagine what it would be like being told that you and your partner weren't allowed to be married. Not because you've broken any of our laws, paid all your taxes, or demonstrated any lack of respect for the institution of marriage, but just because you're different. Would honestly you still feel you have equal rights? Rather than just trying to win arguments, try looking into your conscience. If people don't want a gay marriage, no one says they have to have one but, instead of thinking about what we want and what we think is right, let other people choose for themselves. If you don't think their marriages will work and they'll get divorced then, fine, let them. Instead of the heterosexual majority trying to make stricter rules for them to protect them from themselves [which I think is pretty hypocritical and patronising], why don't we just but out and mind our own damn business.

In regards to having children, this is nothing more than a misdirection tactic made by the NO campaign. Marriage certificates do not produce children. A lot of couples who have children don't even have a marriage certificate, and same sex couples can't produce children. However, same sex couples can raise children and have already been doing so for decades and will continue to do so, whether they are ever allowed to get married or not. Voting yes or no will not change that. But, if you believe children should be raised by couples in wedlock then, great, let them get married.


7
Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:51 pm
Posts: 2066
Karma: 2.52 (52 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic 
 [ 72 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
.