Gay Marriage

[Knobby22]

They have been got to by the LGBTI lobby, who are secretly afraid of losing the plebiscite, and put forward the "hate speech" nonsense.

There won't be much debate anyway, most people have made up their minds already, one way or the other.

Very true. I think they would win easily and the debate would help long term.
If they stop it then it may be a long wait to get the chance again.

I would vote yes though don't believe in some ways that it would be a true marriage to my thinking because why should Government be getting in the way. I think in this age when heterosexuals are not getting married that some LG BT community want to make the vows is nice.

 

[noco]

Very true. I think they would win easily and the debate would help long term.
If they stop it then it may be a long wait to get the chance again.

I would vote yes though don't believe in some ways that it would be a true marriage to my thinking because why should Government be getting in the way. I think in this age when heterosexuals are not getting married that some LG BT community want to make the vows is nice.

Why do gays have to get married?

A piece of paper does not hold two people together whether they are gay or straight.

Gays have been living together for centauries without taking their vows in a marriage of convenience.

A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family.

I am sure the Greens are worried about the history of plebesites and referendums which favour the NO vote.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why do gays have to get married?

A piece of paper does not hold two people together whether they are gay or straight.

Gays have been living together for centauries without taking their vows in a marriage of convenience.

A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family.

I am sure the Greens are worried about the history of plebesites and referendums which favour the NO vote.

Same with the gay parenting thing, they are trying to prove that they are "equal" to everyone else.

I'll give them marriage , but they should keep their hands off kids, gay households are not a natural environment to raise children.

 

[noco]

Same with the gay parenting thing, they are trying to prove that they are "equal" to everyone else.

I'll give them marriage , but they should keep their hands off kids, gay households are not a natural environment to raise children.

But if there are kids involved, they are either adopted or it can only be one legitimate parent......A gay female could fall pregnant through IVF from an unknown male donor or in the case of a gay man there would have to a surrogate mother.

Can you just imagine the embarrassment a child would face when he or she went to school.
Who is your daddy?....The kid would say I don't have a daddy but I have two mummies.
Or who is your Mummy?....the kid would say I don't have a Mummy but I have two daddies.

Those sort of kids would go through hell in life.

The child involved would eventually go to great pains to find out who their real mother of father is.

 

[SirRumpole]

The child involved would eventually go to great pains to find out who their real mother of father is.

Many of them do. IVF creates more problems than it solves imo.

 

[noco]

Many of them do. IVF creates more problems than it solves imo.

But in the case where a married couple can't have children for some medical reason, then the IVF is an alternative.
In this case the real father could be the donor.

 

[Tisme]

But in the case where a married couple can't have children for some medical reason, then the IVF is an alternative.
In this case the real father could be the donor.

I'd suggest the reason there is at least a 25% higher risk of childhood defect from IVF, (6% IVF/ICSI : 2.5% natural of births) that nature is preventing incompatible pregnancy = natural selection and all that.

2% of births are IVF sourced, which is a significant projection of turning a blind eye defects for profit as the current population of 6 billions is replaced.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'd suggest the reason there is at least a 25% higher risk of childhood defect from IVF, (6% IVF/ICSI : 2.5% natural of births) that nature is preventing incompatible pregnancy = natural selection and all that.

2% of births are IVF sourced, which is a significant projection of turning a blind eye defects for profit as the current population of 6 billions is replaced.

The male of a couple I know had a genetic defect so they decided to go to IVF to have a child. The child contracted cystic fibrosis from the donor.

Better not to do it if you don't know what you are getting.

 

[Knobby22]

That is terrible.

 

[Tisme]

The male of a couple I know had a genetic defect so they decided to go to IVF to have a child. The child contracted cystic fibrosis from the donor.

Better not to do it if you don't know what you are getting.

I've recited my story of a friend before. He went through two barren marriages before he found a third who would agree to IVF/ICSI. That child has severe mental development problems, still wear nappies at 16 years old, has had a heart transplant and life expectancy of ~ 21 years of age.

 

[Smurf1976]

A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family.

I'd argue that that one has lost its' relevance to considerable extent these days. Certainly in the past that was the case but these days it's pretty common that the kids are at the wedding and any stigma associated with that has long ago disappeared.

 

[Tink]

They have been got to by the LGBTI lobby, who are secretly afraid of losing the plebiscite, and put forward the "hate speech" nonsense.

There won't be much debate anyway, most people have made up their minds already, one way or the other.

I agree, Rumpole, that they are trying to take the vote away from the people, as they feel it will lose, imv.
I think that the public should be allowed to debate it, and then have a vote.

Where is the scientific evidence for these sexual orientations?
They keep talking about science, where is it?
I hate to think what the next thing is they will push for with their marketing ploy of love wins.

They talk about wanting to be equal, but we are not equal, as we don't need intervention to have a child, and a child belongs with their parents.
That is their right.

As I said, it is the GOLD standard - man and woman.

I see this as a major change to society as we know it.

I would vote NO.

They have civil unions, which have all the same rights as marriage.

In their terms, Marriage becomes re-defined to NO GENDER, and then it begins.

I am a female, not an 'IT', and I like my changing rooms to stay female only, thanks.

The activists insist that a homosexual is born that way and can never change, and it is harmful to even try, but in the same breath they insist that we can be whatever gender we want to be, with no limits to the preferences, attractions and identities one might run with.

They can do what they like, but leave Marriage alone.

 

[Value Collector]

The reason a vote should be avoided, is that when it comes to human rights, the majority do not have the right to deny a minority a basic human right.

You have all made the point before on various topics, that just because the majority believe something it does not make it right.

If we had a vote to bring back slavery, and the yes vote won, it would not make slavery moral, so the very concept of a vote to bring back slavery or to end slavery is flawed.

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

Ask yourself, would a no vote to ending slavery make slavery moral?

If not, what would be the point of the vote in the first place? Because a majority vote of no, would not give you the right to continue to deny slaves freedom.

It's exactly the same with marriage rights, our current laws are immoral and need to be changed, he publicsits opinion is irrelevant.

 

[SirRumpole]

The reason a vote should be avoided, is that when it comes to human rights, the majority do not have the right to deny a minority a basic human right.

You have all made the point before on various topics, that just because the majority believe something it does not make it right.

If we had a vote to bring back slavery, and the yes vote won, it would not make slavery moral, so the very concept of a vote to bring back slavery or to end slavery is flawed.

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

Ask yourself, would a no vote to ending slavery make slavery moral?

If not, what would be the point of the vote in the first place? Because a majority vote of no, would not give you the right to continue to deny slaves freedom.

It's exactly the same with marriage rights, our current laws are immoral and need to be changed, he publicsits opinion is irrelevant.

You have a right to your view of morality. You may well be right. The fact is that SOMEONE has to vote on SSM and I don't see how the vote of a few is better than the vote of the whole of society.

Can you explain to me why the vote of a few heavily lobbied politicians is better than the vote of all of us ?

 

[Value Collector]

You have a right to your view of morality. You may well be right. The fact is that SOMEONE has to vote on SSM and I don't see how the vote of a few is better than the vote of the whole of society.

Can you explain to me why the vote of a few heavily lobbied politicians is better than the vote of all of us ?

For starters we already vote in the lawmakers and trust them to make all sorts of laws already, I can't see how this in any different.

A debate and critical weighing of the facts by a group of rational people, in a moderated setting where fallacies, emotional arguments and irrelevant points can be purged is going to deliver a better outcome.

You only have to look as far as this forum to see how quickly emotions and logical fallacies slip into the debate.

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

Can you answer this question,

"If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"

 

[SirRumpole]

A debate and critical weighing of the facts by a group of rational people, in a moderated setting where fallacies, emotional arguments and irrelevant points can be purged is going to deliver a better outcome.

You are having me on aren't you ?



Ever listened to Question Time ?

The larger the sample the better the chances of getting the result that represents societies views, whether you agree with that result or not.

 

[Value Collector]

Can you answer this question,

"If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"

Sorry you missed this question.

Ever listened to Question Time ?

You need a setting that can purge logical fallacies and get at the facts, if the parliament don't feel up to it, it should be passed along to high court or something, passing the buck to the public is silly.

 

[SirRumpole]

Sorry you missed this question.

"If men last century had voted to continue to deny women the right to vote, would the government not be obligated to change the law anyway?"

If women were excluded from the vote in question, then the result would not be valid and Parliament could change it.

In the SSM vote the LGBTI community is not excluded from voting in the plebiscite so the result would be representative of society as a whole.

You need a setting that can purge logical fallacies and get at the facts, if the parliament don't feel up to it, it should be passed along to high court or something, passing the buck to the public is silly.

This is not a question of law, the public is just as capable of working out the issues as judges are.

What are you afraid of ?

 

[Value Collector]

If women were excluded from the vote in question, then the result would not be valid and Parliament could change it.

?

Even if you had 51% of women vote against, they wouldn't have the right to take the vote away from the other 49% of women.

In the SSM vote the LGBTI community is not excluded from voting in the plebiscite so the result would be representative of society as a whole.

So this vote is fair, because straw man got a vote?

Minorities basic human rights are protected, a majority can not vote to take them away.

This is not a question of law, the public is just as capable of working out the issues as judges are.

I don't think they are when they are easily side tracted by bogus religious arguments, and logical fallicies such as slippery slope.

What are you afraid of

That the injustice might continue due to the bigoted opinions of the public.

I would be saying exactly the same on a vote to give women the vote, I would say its stupid to vote on it, have the balls to just do the right thing.

 

[Value Collector]