Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[ianna]

My first instinct when seeing this survey was to vote yes without giving it much thought. I now have to admit to changing my vote from yes to no. It's not as simple as the yes campaigners make out. This really is a matter that should have been dealt with by the parliament that's why it's there, but because of the conservatives and the lack of backbone in MT we have this $122 million dollar joke. If it is so necessary to have public input why don't we have plebiscites on emigration, asylum seekers, euthanasia, spending billions of dollars on submarines and a host of other more significant issues. With this survey we are being asked to vote on something without seeing the small print. It's a bit like being asked if you'd like a loan to buy a house, car or whatever and after you sign on the dotted line you'll then be told the terms and conditions. If this had to go to the public the proposed legislation should have been available for consideration before conducting the plebiscite/postal survey.

 

[Value Collector]

During the past 24 hours, I have read a number of posts by watchdog11 in other threads within this forum , so please, let's not allow our personal prejudices to obscure our view of actual facts!

out of his 12 posts.


7 - are on the same sex marriage thread

1 - is an anti islam post

1 - is asking if self promotion is ok

1 - is telling another member he likes his humour

1 - about scaffold

1 - is his signature


So yes, I do think he may have been drawn to the public forum to just spread his "Vote No" message, but I am happy to be proved wrong, lets see if he stays around, or starts posting in more diverse topics.

 

[cynic]

out of his 12 posts.


7 - are on the same sex marriage thread

1 - is an anti islam post

1 - is asking if self promotion is ok

1 - is telling another member he likes his humour

1 - about scaffold

1 - is his signature


So yes, I do think he may have been drawn to the public forum to just spread his "Vote No" message, but I am happy to be proved wrong, lets see if he stays around, or starts posting in more diverse topics.

Thanks for clarifying your position on this. What you suggest is certainly one of several potentially valid possibilities.

Anyway, I am sure you are able to understand the noticable difference between, that which you are acknowledging here, and your earlier statement:

Yes, such as watchdog, who only joined yesterday and who's only 12 posts all appear to be a the gay marriage thing.

and I suspect this forum probably isn't the only one he joined recently to spread his opinion, and after this vote, will probably won't hear from him again.

and how that difference gave rise to my objection regarding your former summarisation of the facts.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I crossed the NO box several times (though refrained from adding that four letter word and off) because some people just can't take NO for an answer.

 

[SirRumpole]

If this had to go to the public the proposed legislation should have been available for consideration before conducting the plebiscite/postal survey.

I believe the proposed legislation is as simple as changing the words "between a man and a woman" to "between two consenting adults" in the Marriage Act.

But I agree that the terms of the question is vague. It only refers to "the law", and this could mean altering the current Marriage Act or introducing supplementary legislation separate to the Marriage Act the latter of which I may well have voted for if I was given that option.

 

[Logique]

What seems absolutely nuts to me is the number of people who say they are voting No for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual question, eg voting No because they think Australia is to pc, that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

With respect VC, I think the No case has been covered abundantly and clearly, in many posts on this thread, and is there for anyone to read.

 

[Value Collector]

With respect VC, I think the No case has been covered abundantly and clearly, in many posts on this thread, and is there for anyone to read.

Thats the thing, I have read all the posts where people are giving reasons for why they are saying no, and almost none of them are relevant to the actual question.

The question is "Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry"

But, some people hear are saying things like, "I am saying No, because I am sick of PC" which has nothing to do with the question.

Others are saying No because they don't want gay men to have children, Which again is not the question.

Another person has said Yes they agree with same sex marriage but said No because they can't see the legislation, which is also silly because this survey is to gauge public opinion to see if its worth discussing details.

 

[Value Collector]

But I agree that the terms of the question is vague. It only refers to "the law", and this could mean altering the current Marriage Act or introducing supplementary legislation separate to the Marriage Act the latter of which I may well have voted for if I was given that option.

So you are basically agreeing that a No vote should not mean an end of discussion, because you and a lot of other people have basically said they have voted No, not as a final answer to the topic, but because they don't like the structure of the question or some detail, or stupidly they have said NO as a protest against some other issue.

 

[SirRumpole]

which is also silly because this survey is to gauge public opinion to see if its worth discussing details.

Oh come on, that's like me asking you if you want to buy my car and you say yes without even seeing it.

 

[wayneL]

Thats the thing, I have read all the posts where people are giving reasons for why they are saying no, and almost none of them are relevant to the actual question.

The question is "Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry"

But, some people hear are saying things like, "I am saying No, because I am sick of PC" which has nothing to do with the question.

Others are saying No because they don't want gay men to have children, Which again is not the question.

Another person has said Yes they agree with same sex marriage but said No because they can't see the legislation, which is also silly because this survey is to gauge public opinion to see if its worth discussing details.

Because the question is couched in simple binary terms without reference to attendant legislation or potential consequences for free speech etc.

Cases have been made, but you just don't want to accept those arguments

 

[SirRumpole]

So you are basically agreeing that a No vote should not mean an end of discussion, because you and a lot of other people have basically said they have voted No, not as a final answer to the topic, but because they don't like the structure of the question or some detail, or stupidly they have said NO as a protest against some other issue.

The "other issue" may well be relevant to the question at hand.

The structure of the question is important because we don't really know what we are getting into. Like the Republic was knocked back because we didn't know what that really meant in terms of powers, elections etc.

 

[Tisme]

Crikey! it can't just be Safe Schools that have all the attempted suicides:

https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.a...de-self-harm/facts-about-suicide-in-australia

 

[luutzu]

Christian theology doesn't work like that. It's one man , one female. You have so much knowledge elsewhere, but can't seem to discern something basic here. Their loyalty would be to God first, so they couldn't serve them. You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done. And yes it is like eating pork (for a jew) - the action would be 'unclean' to them.

What is, and what is not, "Christian" changes with the times. What is written in those good books can be interpreted quite differently, depending on who you ask.

But let's assume the basic Christian/Abrahamic religions' beliefs that there is only one God and that Creator create everything (in six days, takes a holiday on the 7th... bloody commie)... if we believe that core, then we/Christians will have to belief that God made homosexuals and all other gender identities too.

So a good Christian, one who love and worship God and all his creations, must also "learn" to love the gays too. That or they can go the Tony Abbott way and just screw and blunder, as "God intended" for Man to do.


To force a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork... that would be like forcing a Christian to be gay themselves. No one is forcing anyone to be gay, or to be friends with gay people. Just be accepting of them and their rights as fellow citizens. It's like the Jews and Muslims only eat Kosher/Halal food, but they do not stop others from eating chicken feet, intestines and all other horrible stuff that others find tasteful.

Legalising or permitting anyone to do anything that does no one any harm, yet in return make a few people happy... that's a supposedly Christian thing to do.

 

[Value Collector]

You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?

They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.

From the stuff I have seen hear I think the survey has been botched, it was silly from the start, but it's been further ruined by silly irrational answers.

So given reasoning behind your answers, you can't expect a No to make the issue go away.

 

[luutzu]

You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?

They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.

From the stuff I have seen hear I think the survey has been botched, it was silly from the start, but it's been further ruined by silly irrational answers.

So given reasoning behind your answers, you can't expect a No to make the issue go away.

Are you telling me that we just spent some $10m on a freaking survey? Not to mention the time/costs on those surveyed.

Whatever happened to size sampling; political leadership and stuff like that?

 

[Value Collector]

Are you telling me that we just spent some $10m on a freaking survey? Not to mention the time/costs on those surveyed.

Yep.

 

[sptrawler]

You guys know it's a survey and not a referendum right?

They are wanting to know your opinion on a specific topic, they aren't asking you to second guess things or give opinions on random secondary topics.

From the stuff I have seen hear I think the survey has been botched, it was silly from the start, but it's been further ruined by silly irrational answers.

So given reasoning behind your answers, you can't expect a No to make the issue go away.

I don't think you will ever get away from people trying to convince the mass, that non natural behaviour, is normal it will go on ad infinitum.
It supports their belief in the behaviour.

 

[Value Collector]

Can you define natural, and what you mean by it in this context.

Because same sex partnership do occur in nature, so I guess they are natural, at least by the dictionary definition of natural.

While many things that are "normal", are not indeed natural, eg flying in planes, using birth control, operating to remove cancer etc.

So I don't really get your appeal to "natural" in this case, because we all ready know that many un-natural things have improved life, while we also know that the topic at hand does play out in nature, so I am confused on both fronts.

 

[Tink]

“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

----------------------------

Same sex couple have civil unions which gives them the same rights.

Marriage is a man and a woman.

 

[Tisme]

Can you define natural, and what you mean by it in this context.

Because same sex partnership do occur in nature, so I guess they are natural, at least by the dictionary definition of natural.

While many things that are "normal", are not indeed natural, eg flying in planes, using birth control, operating to remove cancer etc.

So I don't really get your appeal to "natural" in this case, because we all ready know that many un-natural things have improved life, while we also know that the topic at hand does play out in nature, so I am confused on both fronts.

You're pretty quick to lump us into a mob of low intellect animals to prove your stubborn predispositions. And the long bows your draw about trying to redefine natural human behaviour are really quite illogically fantastic.

By all means go live with wild animals and see how long you last without human tools, rulz and empathy.