Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[crackajack2]

actauly i love my trees vote one man animal marriage lol

 

[crackajack2]

Because I really love attention and those crappy yes adds. lol

 

[crackajack2]

Just vote yes to anything

 

[crackajack2]

Breaking news man marries a rock and has children lol

 

[crackajack2]

Breaking new woman marries her house and spontaneously has children lol

 

[crackajack2]

It's the new age of thinking. Human meets alien and marries.
Lol

 

[crackajack2]

Margaret Court is coming from a religious standpoint. Not relevant in politics and not relevant to the other HALF of the population of this country who do not identify with Christianity.

The law of the land is constantly evolving and changing. Some will live in the past whilst others will look to the future and embrace positive change.

Go back to school junior you obviously failed sex ed 101 lol

 

[Logique]

You put words in Code 12's mouth, end of story.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Seems to me it was Code 12 doing the verballing

 

[Tisme]

in the opinion of some.
others diametrically disagree...............
.

Yes just like this car

 

[dutchie]

Breaking news man marries a rock and has children lol

They would be pebbles then?

 

[SirRumpole]

They would be pebbles then?

and Bam Bam.

 

[dutchie]

Breaking new woman marries her house and spontaneously has children lol

No that's just the Family Court. Wife always gets house and children.

 

[Macquack]

It's the new age of thinking. Human meets alien and marries.
Lol

Haven't you watched Mork and Mindy?
As long as the alien was a good looking female, you would be in like Flynn.

 

[grah33]

A lot of comment and speculation...

Hi Code

I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.

But have you considered the suffering of conscientious objectors in the future, that is likely to occur if the yes camp prevails. We have to assume it will be as in other countries. Take for example some wedding photographer who happens to be a religious person , and feels they just can't take photos of a gay wedding. They have to make a choice as to whether they want to keep their job or their faith. They would be worrying about the future, and what's going to happen to them. Not a pretty picture.

And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people. So naturally when we see religion getting controlled by the government -happening already in SSM countries – it makes us (including people who support gay relationships) freak out. It's a major concern...

It would be different of course if everyone was free to do what they wanted.

 

[luutzu]

Hi Code

I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.

But have you considered the suffering of conscientious objectors in the future, that is likely to occur if the yes camp prevails. We have to assume it will be as in other countries. Take for example some wedding photographer who happens to be a religious person , and feels they just can't take photos of a gay wedding. They have to make a choice as to whether they want to keep their job or their faith. They would be worrying about the future, and what's going to happen to them. Not a pretty picture.

And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people. So naturally when we see religion getting controlled by the government -happening already in SSM countries – it makes us (including people who support gay relationships) freak out. It's a major concern...

It would be different of course if everyone was free to do what they wanted.

We're all free to do what we want. Just not free to discriminate against other people. Sounds like a fair approach to things.

Weren't too long ago that people "don't feel comfortable" working with, living near, catering or providing a service for a fee to the coloured folks; or the greasy folks; or the redheads etc. etc.

Better get used to it.

Having pre-marital sex is an insult to practically all religion, parenthood also being one of them. Did that stopped anyone lucky enough to get lucky? Did their having sex an assault on people's religious freedom? No.

So if a photographer's "religion" prevented them from taking photos of the gay couple, better get a doctor's note.

Money is the only religion that's permitted any business from serving anyone. Soo... if a gay couple turn up, you check your calendar; you jack up the price; you call in sick.

 

[pixel]

one man and one woman.

Tink,
I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.

 

[wayneL]

Tink,
I repeat: That "rule" has been snuck in by our reactionary PM John Howard as recently as 2004. And we all know how sneaky he was, playing Australians for marks with lies and broken promises. Not even today's "dual citizens" would've flown to London to celebrate Australia's centenary of independence at Bucks House.

Begd the question, why was there no SSM previously?

 

[Tisme]

Weren't too long ago that people "don't feel comfortable" working with, living near, catering or providing a service for a fee to the coloured folks; or the greasy folks; or the redheads etc. etc.

Where is this land of Zog that you and others bang on about? Seems to me that the arguments are nearly always predicated on some backwater pre industrial state in the USA, or USA in general and the pox riddled old world countries ....... the ones that are now imposing their social diseases, stigmatism and poison on our country and with it their own brand of antidote in the form of social obedience and tunnel vision.

The shame is the all too willing 60% population who are happy give away all our rights and our children's rights to freedom of disassociation to accommodate the demands of a persistent peculiar few who are actually being granted the right to special class status that none of the natural people will enjoy.

 

[Tink]

Pixel,

As I have said, our country has a Christian heritage, which reflects on our public holidays.
Whether you are black, white, we are all men and women, and it takes a man and a woman to have a child.
Children do best with their parents.

We grew up respecting all people, no matter who they were, and that comes from our heritage.

Marriage is what it is for a reason, and that is for raising a family.
Mother and Father and their children.

Men and women are different, and children need both, imv.

As we have seen, it is natural for children/people to want to know their heritage, and will go looking for their family, so I don't agree with changing the meaning of marriage.

This is my view.

 

[PZ99]

Begs the question, why was there no SSM previously?

My view is because homosexuality was illegal for a long time but since becoming legal larger sections of the community have increasingly accepted it to the point of entertaining SSM despite bipartisan resistance from the parliament a decade ago.