Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next? That is sick.

.

Only by the standards you have chosen to adopt. To some that same revulsion extends further up the moral ladder to homosexuality, so perhaps those with looser ideals should consider the well being of those who find the whole idea of gay marriage a compromise/concession too far.

 

[Tisme]

Progressive society history:

here’s a summary:

1. Polygynous Marriage

old testament bible

2. Levirate Marriage
Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

3 A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5) (Judges 19:1-30).

4. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Deuteronomy 21:11-14

5. A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

6 A male and female slave

A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent.

7. Adelphopoiesis

banned 14th century Catholics and 18th century Orthodox

8. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage

9. Loop back to 7.

 

[Value Collector]

Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next? That is sick.

.

The slippery slope type arguments are all they have

If we don't trust ourselves then we might as well do away with jury trials, because obviously we can't trust our peers.

There is a vetting process for potential Jury, people with pre existing bias, and people who they think aren't capable of rational decisions based on facts are weeded out, the jury is also often shielded from all the public misconceptions that fly around in the media, So you analogy is bunk.

So , the question still stands, what are you afraid of ?

That enough misinformation and misdirection of debates is spread to make the voting public make the wrong decision.

Also I am mainly disturbed by the fact that an issue involving human rights is being put up for a vote, as I keep saying the vote is irrelevant, its not like we are voting to change the colour of the flag or something, this is a human rights issue.

 

[luutzu]

A plebiscite is an utter waste of time and money. Think about how many teachers and nurses could be employed with $160M.
As to the legislation: Every parliamentarian and his dog knows what the population wants. As they're supposed to be representing the Australian people, let's tell them "Get on with doing your job. Put the changes through the mill and make Marriage gender-neutral. End of story!"

Put forward as a private members bill, it could all be finished by the end of the week, and you can concentrate on more pressing tasks. Like giving our school leavers an opportunity to get a worthwhile apprenticeship; tap into the knowledge that's available in the older generation, many of whom feel too young to be turfed out into early retirement; stop looking at the next election and make plans for the long-term sustainability of Australian Life.

How true is that.

There's just way too much good that $160M could be put to than some stupid opinion polling this kind of "democracy" stunt is pretending to care about.

Seems to me the only reason the plebs get to decide on this issue is because the leadership in Canberra got no spine. Can't stand up to the conservative and religious base of theirs... don't want to alienate most of the population either... So they do what most lawyers and "leaders" do and pass that buck onto the other people.

If we're to run a gov't with these kind of democracy, let's put all future free trade deals to the public; how about taxation policies; how about industry incentives and tax cuts? The people would get more bang for their buck if they could decide on those issues.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is a vetting process for potential Jury, people with pre existing bias, and people who they think aren't capable of rational decisions based on facts are weeded out, the jury is also often shielded from all the public misconceptions that fly around in the media, So you analogy is bunk.

The vetting process for juries is bunk. Both sides choose those they think will favour them. They can't choose who will vote in a plebiscite.

Anyway, your lack of faith in your compatriots is disturbing. Your thinking that a few harrassed , heavily lobbied politicians are more capable of making decisions than the wider population is irrational .

If the vote for the plebiscite goes down in Parliament, and the matter does not arise in Parliament again for three years, what have you gained ?

 

[Value Collector]

To some that same revulsion extends further up the moral ladder to homosexuality,.

How would it affect you though, unless you happen to see a wedding.

 

[Tink]

Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.

That lamb must be the child.

So what is the benefit of same sex marriage in society?

What is the definition of marriage?

 

[Value Collector]

.

If the vote for the plebiscite goes down in Parliament, and the matter does not arise in Parliament again for three years, what have you gained ?

that may be better taking the 10% chance we would lose and then not have the government bring it up for another 30 years.

 

[Value Collector]

Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.

?

This thread is about Same sex marriage Tink, if you want to talk about parental rights, there is another thread.

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

Children have human rights too,

Unless they are gay hey Tink, then you want to limit their rights, and keep them in their box.

 

[luutzu]

See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it
you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers must be punished/executed;
You put yourself in the same bandwagon as the lunatic christians or muslim fundamentalists.
May I find this ironic?
Either you respect democracy or you do not; if you do not, that is your choice but do not take the high ground stance, you are no better than a Hitler, Pinochet,Poutine or Staline.....

I guess you're saying that if we value freedom and liberty, we ought to do whatever the majority wanted - regardless of what that want is. Else we're no better than a dictatorship where the few noble men decides what is best for the country; a few learned men work to protect the mob from itself.

That's a good point. But...

The idea of a Democracy is not to do what the majority wanted; it is not to do what the minority wanted either. It definitely ought not be doing what a few learned men thought is good. But it is to do what is right and just for all citizens.

The best way to achieve that, unless I am the absolute ruler or something, is to have some kind of representative democracy - where the plebs get to vent their thinking and learned men among them get to phrase that into proper English to do what their donors says ought to be done. Oh wait...

Not sure why you guys want a truly popular/majority democracy. With Muslims and Chinese (and Irish Catholics) breeding like rabbits... you know... eventually

 

[luutzu]

Children have human rights too, but they seem to be forgotten in the equation.

That lamb must be the child.

So what is the benefit of same sex marriage in society?

What is the definition of marriage?

The Save the Children but screw the grown up homosexual adults argument again.

What benefits society would gain from denying homosexuals their equal rights? Are those 'sacred' traditional marriages any better off? Are you sure the children of homosexual better off having society think their parents are weird and a runk or two below the other abusive fathers and mothers out there?

 

[SirRumpole]

that may be better taking the 10% chance we would lose and then not have the government bring it up for another 30 years.

Well, look at it this way.

If there is a vote in Parliament without a plebiscite and SSM gets up narrowly, then there is every chance that a future government will change it back to the way it was, but if there is a plebiscite with an overwhelming yes vote then it will make it a lot harder to change later.

So either way, it's a lucky dip.

 

[Value Collector]

If we're to run a gov't with these kind of democracy, let's put all future free trade deals to the public; how about taxation policies; how about industry incentives and tax cuts? The people would get more bang for their buck if they could decide on those issues.

Yes, How stupid would that be.

People are happy for the government to make all sorts of sweeping legislation, even fine with them declaring war on other nations, but suddenly they want a vote on whether it is right to extend the government recognition of marriages into the marriages between couples of the same sex.

Allowing gay marriage will literally have zero impact on straight people, yet straight people seem to want to vote about it, while they are fine with all the other rules and regs governments make or abolish.

 

[pixel]

How true is that.

There's just way too much good that $160M could be put to than some stupid opinion polling this kind of "democracy" stunt is pretending to care about.

Seems to me the only reason the plebs get to decide on this issue is because the leadership in Canberra got no spine. Can't stand up to the conservative and religious base of theirs... don't want to alienate most of the population either... So they do what most lawyers and "leaders" do and pass that buck onto the other people.

If we're to run a gov't with these kind of democracy, let's put all future free trade deals to the public; how about taxation policies; how about industry incentives and tax cuts? The people would get more bang for their buck if they could decide on those issues.

wowee! that's the Swiss model Let the people have a say and decide everything.

... but hang on: Isn't that what we've elected our representatives for?
If everything is put to the peepull, then we don't need an expensive bureaucracy.

Get rid of Canberra altogether

 

[SirRumpole]

People are happy for the government to make all sorts of sweeping legislation, even fine with them declaring war on other nations, but suddenly they want a vote on whether it is right to extend the government recognition of marriages into the marriages between couples of the same sex.

So we are happy are we ? I don't think so. If governments make decisions we don't like then we vote them out.

If you are happy for a future government to change the marriage laws to something you don't like , so be it.

 

[Value Collector]

So we are happy are we ? I don't think so. If governments make decisions we don't like then we vote them out.

.

yes, but you don't request a plebiscite before war or tax changes.

Why for a simple change in marriage legislation?

why trust the government on those big issues, but refuse to trust on the small thing?

 

[SirRumpole]

yes, but you don't request a plebiscite before war or tax changes.

Why for a simple change in marriage legislation?

why trust the government on those big issues, but refuse to trust on the small thing?

The plebiscite was the idea of the LNP, not the public and they should go through with it.

If they offer a plebiscite on other matters, that would be good, because I think the silent majority is being supressed on a number of matters.

The current way of holding a plebiscite is grossly expensive. some sort of Internet poll would give a good idea what people really think about issues, and the politicians would be silly to ignore them.

 

[noco]

The plebiscite was the idea of the LNP, not the public and they should go through with it.

If they offer a plebiscite on other matters, that would be good, because I think the silent majority is being supressed on a number of matters.

The current way of holding a plebiscite is grossly expensive. some sort of Internet poll would give a good idea what people really think about issues, and the politicians would be silly to ignore them.

Why do gays have to get married in the first place?

They have been living in sin for centuries...Who cares how they live so long as it does not affect the way I live.

Why not just carry on with the same tradition?

Save $160,000,000.

It is a lot to do about nothing.

 

[Value Collector]

Why do gays have to get married in the first place?

.

Because they want to.

why does anyone have to get married?

Who cares how they live so long as it does not affect the way I live.

exactly, so why not just let them marry?

Why do gays have to get married in the first place?

The fact is Gays already have marriages, its just the government doesn't currently recognise them, so if the government wants to be in the marriage recognition business, it should recognise them equally.

 

[qldfrog]

an issue involving human rights

So marriage is a human right, what about my human right not to pay taxes to supports causes I do not support? Sending army in ME or other cause where I would actually be in line with some of the leftist sides?
Human right?
human right is freedomn of thoughts, equality of opportunities regardless of age, sex, colour or even sexual preference (Gay would fit there and i would fight for them )
but marriage is not a human right ..The more we use these key values in an over the top way, the more we devalue them