Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[SirRumpole]

Because the no vote would win

It doesn't look like that will happen if the surveys are correct, but who knows in today's world ?

 

[overhang]

People keep talking about the right to marry. Well yes, men and women have a right to marry. People of the same sex have never had that right as it must engineered inro existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling.

Well it appeared they actually had the right to have their marriage recongised but then Howard changed the definition without any plebiscite or postal survey.

 

[overhang]

It doesn't look like that will happen if the surveys are correct, but who knows in today's world ?

After Brexit I wouldn't be gain to bet on a yes win

 

[Value Collector]

Gays are perhaps 1-2% of the Aussie population
There is no real comparison with % of 'blacks' in the US.

So if blacks only made up 2% of the population it in 1950's America, then in your opinion the racist legislation was ok, I disagree.

 

[Value Collector]

No one is game to speak up ---too afraid of being seen as Biased/Bigoted.
Pussies.

You are speaking up, why don't you provide a valid reason to show how recognising gay marriage causes harm and should be banned.

 

[Value Collector]

It's pretty obvious that you are just playing word games.

No its you playing word games, your whole position is

"lets give them all the rights, but lets not let them use our word" that is a word game.


your argument is like saying, "why should blacks use our drinking fountains?, their fountains are supplied by the same water source, what does it matter, they have the same rights to water"

 

[Value Collector]

People keep talking about the right to marry. Well yes, men and women have a right to marry. of the same sex have never had that right as it must engineered inro existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling.

.

You can say the same thing about most other progressive human rights movements.

e.g.

"People keep talking about the right to Vote. Well yes, men have a right to Vote. people of the female sex have never had that right as it must engineered into existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling."

 

[SirRumpole]

No its you playing word games, your whole position is

"lets give them all the rights, but lets not let them use our word" that is a word game.

They can call it "Same Sex Marriage" for all I care.

your argument is like saying, "why should blacks use our drinking fountains?, their fountains are supplied by the same water source, what does it matter, they have the same rights to water"

Black people drink water the same as white people, gay people don't choose their partners the same as straight people.

 

[tech/a]

You are speaking up, why don't you provide a valid reason to show how recognising gay marriage causes harm and should be banned.

I did
It's written above your quote in my post
You just don't call anything opposed to same sex marriage as " valid "
It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.

 

[wayneL]

You can say the same thing about most other progressive human rights movements.

e.g.

"People keep talking about the right to Vote. Well yes, men have a right to Vote. people of the female sex have never had that right as it must engineered into existence via changes in definition and appeal to virtue signalling."

Nonsense, you are conflating completely difference concepts.

There had never been any logical or moral impediment to equal voting rights, equal pay, equal opportunity etc.

With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage, ie raising families etc

 

[satanoperca]

N
With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage, ie raising families etc

That is incorrect, a gay couple can raise a family, they just cannot create life.

 

[tech/a]

It's not a family it's missing a component
Huge.
A Mother or Father
And if more than one child
Blood Brothers or sisters.

Nothing stronger

 

[Wysiwyg]

You like the idea of two males together don't you tech/a.

 

[overhang]

I did
It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.

There has to be a point where someones view is not worthy of acknowledgement. Freedom of speech allows everyone a view but freedom of speech also allows those with invalid views to be ridiculed for what they are, often people mistake this for political correctness. Personally someones view becomes invalid when it can be proven incorrect by statistics, scientific research etc (think flat earth). It also becomes invalid when their view impedes the rights of others that has no tangible negative repercussions. SSM is the latter, no one is forcing anyone to have a SSM, this isn't at all about children, it's merely opposing what someone else can do because opponents believe marriage is between a man and a women.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Who gives a crap anyway.

gg

 

[Wysiwyg]

it's merely opposing what someone else can do because opponents believe marriage is between a man and a women.

As you quoted, facts are important. Marriage between a male and a female in Australia is not a belief, it is a fact. People are defending what is marriage in Australia against changes to suit a minority group that have a different sexual orientation.

To add, no one is preventing queers from marrying, it simply isn't formally recognised and from the perspective of religious types, not a ritual they will perform.

To add more, if we were all poofs, lesbo's or whatever then there would be no issue.

 

[overhang]

As you quoted, facts are important. Marriage between a male and a female in Australia is not a belief, it is a fact. People are defending what is marriage in Australia against changes to suit a minority group that have a different sexual orientation.

To add, no one is preventing queers from marrying, it simply isn't formally recognised and from the perspective of the religious types, not a ritual they will perform.

To add more, if we were all poofs, lesbo's or whatever then there would be no issue.

It's a law, that's what it is, laws always change and always will change as has marriage in this country many times. We would have never progressed as a society if laws couldn't be changed because that's just what they were and what we believed at the time.

 

[Wysiwyg]

It's a law, that's what it is, laws always change and always will change as has marriage in this country many times. We would have never progressed as a society if laws couldn't be changed because that's just what they were and what we believed at the time.

Well all consideration should be focused on whether a law change will progress or regress society.

 

[Smurf1976]

With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage, ie raising families etc

I'll argue that society has already largely rejected any link between marriage and raising a family.

Sure, some get married and then have children. Others do it in the reverse order. Other parents don't get married at all.

There was a link in the past most definitely but it's substantially gone these days. In 2017 whether or not the parents are married is a matter of fact question rather than something which, if the answer is no, will be looked down upon.

Whether or not a couple is married has no practical effect on their ability to raise a family in Australia in 2017 and that applies regardless of the sexual preferences of the adults involved.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Whether or not a couple is married has no practical effect on their ability to raise a family in Australia in 2017 and that applies regardless of the sexual preferences of the adults involved.

Interesting Smurf. Should consideration be given to the psychological effect on the raised being. No mother/father, two male or female or whatever parents while other families have a natural arrangement.
People are self serving by nature, the survival thing, but this could be seen as taking selfishness to a new height.