But that will never change. It's just natural to identify differences and apply the herd or pride prejudices, certainly subliminally if not overtly. It doesn't mean there is hate or disgust involved, but acceptance is something that cannot be legislated.
I recall going through the numbers on this on another discussion board. Coming of a very small base the suicide rate was something like 1 and a bit people per year after the natural rate across all sectors was taken out.
Not trying to dilute your anger at poofta bashing and the like (which is a low act), but there have been many posts here that, for example, use the deep south black suppression as example for Australia's refusal to accept gay marriage. Applying the same logic it we could say that bashing of ginger headed people around the night club precincts is predicated on the hate for gays?
Poker machines ? That's more off topic than children in this debate.
I really need data to take this seriously, any links?
Not really. If the claim is to be against SSM to protect the children, but you then promote other areas of society to allow harm to children, well it's either hypocrisy or just using a red herring to divert from your true motivation.
There's plenty of politicians anti SSM but pro pokies and have actively stopped any reform. I'd be willing to bet more children's lives are currently ruined by gambling addiction of parents at the pokies than are ruined by SSM.
So, are you willing to start having a look at Norway / Denmark / Iceland / Greenland / Sweden and show that they have suffered from the issues you believe justify your stance against SSM? I'd think 15-25 years is long enough for your fears to have started to show an impact on their societies.
I disagree, most people now accept and don't think anything of Aboriginals having the right to vote yet I imagine there would have been quite a lot of outrage when the idea was first put forward. I would say the future will look back at this period and say that they can't believe it took so long for marriage equality to be passed.
What would the logical basis of your question be?
I think when someone is using language like fag and pooftah and homo that it's relatively easy to know what the motivation of their actions are.
One simple search pulled up scepticism about gay parenting in Norway which has had SSM since 2009. It seems that gays are not content with forcing their way into marriage they want to do it with parenting as well. The subject of gay parenting has divided Norwegian society and I think it will do the same here.
A public vote in my view is a better option than a parliamentary vote.
Abbott is just trying to stall the inevitable. Let the people decide this one,.
That's a big call, will you shut about it, if it loses the referendum?
No, because even if a referendum confirmed that the majority of people wanted gay marriage outlawed, it still does not make it right or lawful to outlaw it.
The majority can not choose to discriminate against a minority.
Eg. If the southern states of the USA had a referendum and the majority voted for slavery, it still would be immoral and unlawful.
The referendum would be good though, because I believe it would confirm that the majority support gay marriage or atleast don't care enough to to ban it.
People are discriminated against in lots of ways, I know people with disabilities, who are working on minimal money, yet because they work can't access government subsidised aids and services.
There are 60 year old's who can't access a seniors card and subsidies, because age eligibility has changed, that's discrimination.
There are people who have to wait untill 60, to access their super, there are others who don't qualify for a pension untill 67, probably going up to 70. That is discrimination.
But all we hear is gays can't get married, and change the bloody flag, jeez like I said people don't have enough to do.
The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate[sic] against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.
But a majority of politicians can vote to "discriminate" in this way ?
Politicians are supposed to represent us, so surely a vote of the people trumps a vote by politicians ?
Politicians can't just vote to take basic human rights away. The have to follow the constitution and various international conventions.
All the topics you just mentioned are different.
a better example would be if you knew a lady that couldn't get the aged pension because she was black, the government can set certain qualifying rules and age limits etc, that's not abusing human rights.
Saying you have to be 18 to get your drivers licence or 65 to get the aged pensionis obviously very different from saying you have to be white to have a drivers licence or the aged pension.
The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.
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?