Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[overhang]

Well you should consider it because the kids of tomorrow can't speak for themselves in a plebiscite but you and I can.

If I thought SS couples getting married would increase children being raised in SS relationships I would vote no but frankly I can't see how it will alter that figure. I encourage you to see that and vote yes and actually send a message to those teens that are having difficulty accepting their sexuality that they are normal and will have the same rights as the rest of us. Voting yes will save more kids than ruin imo.

 

[overhang]

To reiterate this position

US research released this week found the rate of youth suicide attempts among gay and lesbian youths dropped by 14 per cent where same sex marriage was made legal.

There was also a 7 per cent drop in suicide attempts among young people more broadly where the laws were introduced.

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...h/news-story/0c05f24fdd0bfa8e8a87e985ac4b5b14

I think it's fair to say that legalising SSM will save lives.

 

[Tink]

My answer is no.

In our society, there are many different relationships, but we should be encouraging parents, mother and father to be with their children, and raise them.
That is the best out come for the children.
That is why the GOLD standard of Marriage has been a part of our country.
One man and one woman.

What does same sex marriage contribute in our society?
They can do as they please in their homes but why is it that they need our acceptance.

Marriage is not a right.

I always thought the family -- family unit (father mother child) was protected in society.

This changes marriage to genderless - no gender, which then starts a whole new ball game.

Any one that talks about traditional marriage is considered hate speech.

This is my view.

--------------------------
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/gay-marriage.3680/

 

[tech/a]

Anyone that talks about traditional marriage is considered hate speech.

It's ok to have an opinion provided it's supportive.

 

[overhang]

Tink that concept of marriage ended a long time ago. I have more friends with divorced parents than those that remained married.

How do you look at the statistics I linked above that shows it will save lives and yet still vote no?

And btw you're wrong marriage is a right

Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right to marry

 

[Tink]

I put this up a while ago

 

[crackajack]

Tink that concept of marriage ended a long time ago. I have more friends with divorced parents than those that remained married.

How do you look at the statistics I linked above that shows it will save lives and yet still vote no?

And btw you're wrong marriage is a right

right to sponge more money lol

 

[skc]

I like this segment

 

[So_Cynical]

I want to vote - i dont care.

 

[greggles]

Those who oppose gay marriage are no different from those who opposed interracial marriage. The arguments are largely the same. It's an attack on "traditional" marriage. The children who will grow up in these "unnatural" marriages will be stigmatised. It's a "slippery slope".

Those opposed to gay marriages are on the wrong side of history, just like those who opposed interracial marriages. Children need love and support, and that can come from any two people irrespective of gender or race. There are plenty of abused and neglected children born into "normal" heterosexual marriages.

 

[PZ99]

I voted YES for a few reasons...

It has no effect on my life. I've always believed in freedom of choice.
If it goes through as a NO it will then hijack the next election which really should be the bigger issues and not a moral issue.

May the best... individual win

 

[Tink]

Inter racial is still man and woman.

Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.

No, overhang, marriage is not a right, unless you are prepared to accept the above also, as that is discrimination on their part.

The GOLD standard is the TRUTH - the family unit.

The attack on the family and our forefathers is disgraceful, imv.

Maybe we should give marriage back to the community, and out of the hands of the state.

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

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4

 

[overhang]

Inter racial is still man and woman.

Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.

No, overhang, marriage is not a right, unless you are prepared to accept the above also, as that is discrimination on their part.

The GOLD standard is the TRUTH - the family unit.

The attack on the family and our forefathers is disgraceful, imv.

Maybe we should give marriage back to the community, and out of the hands of the state.

Tink just because you say something isn't a right doesn't make that true. I have pointed out to you that article Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right to marry. I would actually call it quite equal that regardless of sexuality you can't marry multiple couples, and it turns out you can marry your first cousin so you're a bit later on the incest train.

The gold standard of society was when women couldn't vote which was a tradition then went back a long time, it was fundamental to our children that we lived in a society that women couldn't vote. Would children think women were equal to man if women were allowed to vote? Would they be confused about their gender seeing women in the polling booth?

 

[Tisme]

The gold standard of society was when women couldn't vote which was a tradition then went back a long time, it was fundamental to our children that we lived in a society that women couldn't vote. Would children think women were equal to man if women were allowed to vote? Would they be confused about their gender seeing women in the polling booth?

You are ignoring the facts that men in the street couldn't vote until extremely recently compared to traditional marriage either. e.g over 21 yearold men in 1895 and women in 1899 in Western Australia.

Your arguments should be based on facts not cherry picked myths

 

[Bill M]

Definite yes from me. Anyone should have the right to be who they are and marry who they love, nothing more needs to be added from me.

 

[Tisme]

Inter racial is still man and woman.

Yes, all those relationships are happening in society, incest, polygamy, the list goes on.

No, overhang, marriage is not a right, unless you are prepared to accept the above also, as that is discrimination on their part.

The GOLD standard is the TRUTH - the family unit.

The attack on the family and our forefathers is disgraceful, imv.

Maybe we should give marriage back to the community, and out of the hands of the state.

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

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...s-commission-a-national-disgrace.31515/page-4

A couple of articles that might interest you Tink:

https://realtruth.org/articles/070831-002-ssoafn.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html

 

[overhang]

You are ignoring the facts that men in the street couldn't vote until extremely recently compared to traditional marriage either. e.g over 21 yearold men in 1895 and women in 1899 in Western Australia.

Your arguments should be based on facts not cherry picked myths

Ok lets use the facts and see how traditional marriage is.

In convict Australia the government assumed control over who the majority of white Australians married and used this control for overt ideological purposes. Governor Philip wanted to create a native Australian yeomanry and rewarded those convicts who exhibited appropriate traits with permission to marry.

Governments across different jurisdictions have administered marriage laws in Australia since European settlement. These laws were not immutable. In fact, at various points in time, governments have seen fit to legislate on citizens’ eligibility to marry. Those considered minors by today’s standards were permitted to marry, and restrictions were placed on Indigenous Australians’ right to marry whom they chose.

A person’s eligibility to marry could change from one state to another at different points in time. For example, the marriageable age in Australian states and territories was the same as the age of consent: 14 for men and 12 for women. However, in 1942, Tasmania raised the marriageable age for men to 18 and for women to 16; Western Australia followed suit in 1956 and South Australia in 1957.3

November 18, 1966
The bar on employment of married women in the Commonwealth Public Service is abolished.

Introduced at the beginning of the 1900s, the "marriage bar" was intended to keep women from "stealing" men's jobs and also to boost the birth rate. It meant many women kept their marriages a secret.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...es?url=spla/bill marriage/report/chapter2.pdf

So you're ignoring facts by insinuating that marriage is a long standing tradition in our country when it's been a very fractured policy from get go where many demographics have had to fight for their right to marry. So my voting example is actually similar to marriage.

 

[Logique]

If there was to be an honest discussion, and an open and democratic process, available to all Australians of voting age, I'd be prepared to think about it.

But as a nation, we haven't yet had that balanced discussion. Just slogans and propaganda. And name calling, eg you're an '---ist' and a '---phobic'

I won't be voting yes at the point of a figurative gun, aimed at me by the inner-city elites and the political class. SSM lobby - make us a better offer than you have so far. So this time - No.

 

[overhang]

If there was to be an honest discussion, and an open and democratic process, available to all Australians of voting age, I'd be prepared to think about it.

But as a nation, we haven't yet had that balanced discussion. Just slogans and propaganda.

I won't be voting yes at the point of a figurative gun, aimed at me by the inner-city elites and the political class. SSM lobby - make us a better offer than you have so far. So this time - No.

Way to stick it to the inner city latte sipping Greenies, that will teach them to fight for the rights of a small minority group.

 

[dutchie]

Britain's FIRST gender fluid family: Father who's transitioning to be a woman and mother who identifies as male and female are raising their son, not to get 'hung up' on being a boy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4786350/Britain-s-gender-fluid-family.html#ixzz4pgHvUW9E
What are the chances that this "boy" will be given a fair go to a "normal" life.