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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A man and a woman get married really for the social side of having a legitimate family.
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.
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 ?
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.
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?"
Ever listened to Question Time ?
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?"
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.
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?