Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[tech/a]

At least I know I'm a DUCK

 

[Knobby22]

There have been a few women who have married their dog overseas.

Frankly I will vote yes because I don't see why the government should not let people do what they want.
I will never fully respect gay marriage but that's my problem, not theirs.

 

[Logique]

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.

Not the slightest personal issue with this group. It's when they presume to speak on my behalf , and to bypass the democratic process, that I call them out.

Anyway, when they've bullied this through, they're coming after our cars next, and I want to delay that as long as possible.

 

[tech/a]

Frankly I will vote yes because I don't see why the government should not let people do what they want.

You don't mean that literally do you.
You'd be happy with Guns
Anarchy
Lawlessness
Paedophilia.

You don't have a line?

 

[Value Collector]

You don't mean that literally do you.
You'd be happy with Guns
Anarchy
Lawlessness
Paedophilia.

You don't have a line?

Before something should be banned, it needs to be shown that the act is harmful.

Personal freedoms should be maximised.

 

[Value Collector]

Exactly
These adults will have children who will in turn be adults
No from me
I've seen enough of kids who have no idea who they are.
They don't have a choice
We do.

Gay parenting is a different topic, if you want to stop gay parenting, ban gay parenting (but be sure to have valid reasons)

You don't need to married to have kids, and you don't need to have kids to be married.

Banning gay marriage stops people that don't even want kids getting married, while doing nothing to stop gay people having children.

 

[tech/a]

Before something should be banned, it needs to be shown that the act is harmful.

Personal freedoms should be maximised.

And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
on generations going forward?

Guns were thought to be a right and still are in some societies.
Multiple wives and child brides accepted in others---who by the way will stone Homosexuals.

The world is so Ducked up Ducking it up further seemingly is of no concern.
The do gooders will be the first ones screaming.

 

[Knobby22]

You don't mean that literally do you.
You'd be happy with Guns
Anarchy
Lawlessness
Paedophilia.

You don't have a line?

It has to be legal.

I don't reckon many of the gays will get married anyway. They just want the right. It wil mainly be a few lesbians.

We all know hetero couples that never bothered to get married and couples that co habit for 10 years and then split (bad for the girl). Australian Society is a bit ffffed on marriage but this won't make it any worse.

 

[overhang]

And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
on generations going forward?

Guns were thought to be a right and still are in some societies.
Multiple wives and child brides accepted in others---who by the way will stone Homosexuals.

The world is so Ducked up Ducking it up further seemingly is of no concern.
The do gooders will be the first ones screaming.

With that logic we never would have progressed, indigenous Australians still wouldn't have the right to marry, thankfully there are enough people who think differently to you and they can marry. The Netherlands have legalised SSM since 2001 and they seem to have a normal functioning society so it appears there are no negative long term effects.

 

[Value Collector]

And so we have had enough time and experience in society to evaluate the long term effects
on generations going forward?

.

The default position should always be to maximise personal freedoms, until it can be shown that a certain thing is harmful in some way that justifies reducing personal freedoms in relation to it.

who by the way will stone Homosexuals.

Do you think they should be stoned?

Even most Christians are willing to ignore the Bible versus that call for them to be stoned, because it is generally agreed that Homosexuality is not a crime that deserves death, and its not even thought of as a crime in secular society anymore, allowing them to marry is just the next logical step.

 

[Junior]

Yes.

If two people love each other, and they want to get married, then go for it. The people who are anti, generally do not associate with homosexuals, and their marriage will not be impacted in any way. No one is forcing you to attend or witness a same-sex wedding.

Any argument based on religious beliefs are irrelevant. This is a legal definition. The largest religious group in this country is 'no religion', and they can get married and divorced as many times as they want.

It's not about children, that is a separate issue. I'd much rather a gay couple adopt one child, then the family out in Melton West who has 7 kids running around, soaking up taxpayer-funded healthcare & welfare benefits.

 

[SirRumpole]

I probably don't mind SSM as much as I mind the increasing degradation of our free speech rights that will follow.

If we dare to criticise a lifestyle that resulted in the spread of a deadly epidemic called AIDS, or if we dare to criticise the fact that children are being brought up in a environment that is contrary to their basic instincts, if we dare to suggest that LGBTI marriage degrades the traditions of our society, will we be hauled up before the courts for hurting someones feelings and be accused of hate speech ?

That seems to be the way it has gone in Canada as someone else posted before. We need to be able to discuss anything in this society in a civil manner. The PC brigade on a number of fronts is getting more shrill and aggressive by the day, whether it be the LGB's, the migrant Mafia, the indigenous army or the feminazis, they seem to think that they are the only people that matter and the majority can get stuffed.

 

[tech/a]

Do you think they should be stoned?

Even most Christians are willing to ignore the Bible versus that call for them to be stoned, because it is generally agreed that Homosexuality is not a crime that deserves death, and its not even thought of as a crime in secular society anymore, allowing them to marry is just the next logical step

Just pointing out that a ducked up group with a set of accepted principals in their society
doesn't accept Homosexuality in theirs.
That's how stuffed the world is.

By the way I'm atheist.

It's not about children, that is a separate issue. I'd much rather a gay couple adopt one child, then the family out in Melton West who has 7 kids running around, soaking up taxpayer-funded healthcare & welfare benefits.

Its not being treated as a separate issue!!
Get married have kids.
If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!

By the way the Melton couple wouldn't get past the adoption process.

 

[McLovin]

Its not being treated as a separate issue!!
Get married have kids.
If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!

Gays can already adopt/IVF/surrogate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Gays can already adopt/IVF/surrogate.

They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

[overhang]

I probably don't mind SSM as much as I mind the increasing degradation of our free speech rights that will follow.

I do see where you're coming from but just wish people wouldn't choose SSM as the platform to have this fight as there are people who will be effected by this. We'll get our chance to wage that war when they try and shift the date of Australia day, try and change the Australian flag etc. But I really hope that SSM and euthanasia are left out of this PC fight.

 

[Value Collector]

Just pointing out that a ducked up group with a set of accepted principals in their society
doesn't accept Homosexuality in theirs.
That's how stuffed the world is.

And your answer is to follow this "Ducked up group" and join them in denying rights to The LGBT members of our community?

Its not being treated as a separate issue!!
Get married have kids.
If it was how do you think the gay lobby would react.
I can hear the discrimination sector from my office!

As pointed out, It is not currently illegal for gay people to have children.

And banning couples from Marrying does nothing to stop them breeding.

You argument is actually a logical fallacy, called the "Slippery slope argument"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

[Value Collector]

They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

it means its not a valid argument to use against gay marriage.

How hard is it, If gay marriage is bad, state the reasons its bad without deferring to other things which are already legal.

 

[McLovin]

They got it because the PC brigade lobbied the politicians until the pollies got sick of it and gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I'm not debating it's merits. Just stating a fact, in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children. To be honest, I don't know why there is yet another thread on this topic. It's not like anyone will change anyone's mind on here.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I'm not debating it's merits. Just stating a fact, in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children. To be honest, I don't know why there is yet another thread on this topic. It's not like anyone will change anyone's mind on here.

Why is it a faulty premise/?