Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[overhang]

To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!
Based on that, I consider it erroneous to casually dismiss a valid concern as a red herring.

Do you have any proof that this is the case? Your the first person I've heard to claim as such, if not then yes it's a red herring.

Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.

It's a counter argument to claims that we shouldn't change the definition because it's tradition and that we never would have progressed as a society if we weren't willing to make those changes.

 

[cynic]

Do you have any proof that this is the case? Your the first person I've heard to claim as such, if not then yes it's a red herring.

Well it wouldn't be the first time that the modern day infallible gospel spouted misinformation, but according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia there exist a number of ifs and buts to what you are claiming.

Perhaps this is another of those many occasions that wiki is in severe need of revision.

It's a counter argument to claims that we shouldn't change the definition because it's tradition and that we never would have progressed as a society if we weren't willing to make those changes.

If that is the case, then the counter argument reeks of desperation!

What this counter argument seems to suggest is that totally unrelated historical events can now be cited as counter arguments to any opposition to any proposed changes to anything!

Basically, we are now talking about whale sized red herrings on steroids!!!

 

[Wysiwyg]

It really amazes me this debate is still occurring in this thread, it's the same regurgitated arguments from both sides, I doubt anyone has altered their judgement at all and if not probably strengthened their position. It's disgraceful the government has put us in this position and wasted tax payer dollars in the process.

That is because the general population don't care (about many things non financial) and the remainder would vote yes to end the debate forever. The people posting no here stand by their morals and are definitely not persuaded by vague comparisons and justifications.

 

[overhang]

Well it wouldn't be the first time that the modern day infallible gospel spouted misinformation, but according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia there exist a number of ifs and buts to what you are claiming.

Perhaps this is another of those many occasions that wiki is in severe need of revision.

If that is the case, then the counter argument reeks of desperation!

What this counter argument seems to suggest is that totally unrelated historical events can now be cited as counter arguments to any opposition to any proposed changes to anything!

Basically, we are now talking about whale sized red herrings on steroids!!!

I don't see anything in that wiki that mentions that the type of relationship dictates the ability to adopt. It's clutching at straws really and is the whale sized red herring you refer to.

It's quite a rational case you make there and I agree that this issue should be treated on it's merits and not past events nor future events which is why arguments like it will stop political correctness, it will lead to people wanting to marry their dog etc are just red herrings that deflect from the actual question.

 

[wayneL]

That's not an answer to the questions.

Because it ends up being a marketing exercise, the no camp need to throw around countless red herrings to convince people to vote no. The only way the no camp win is to frame it into an argument it's not and it's straight up dishonest.

Dishonest eh? Well stuff you and the donkey you rode in on bro.

My personal concerns are actually being born out in other countries with ssm.

So who is it being dishonest?

Pfffffffffffttt

 

[cynic]

I don't see anything in that wiki that mentions that the type of relationship dictates the ability to adopt. It's clutching at straws really and is the whale sized red herring you refer to.

What?!!!
Were you reading the article with your eyes squeezed closed?

It's quite a rational case you make there and I agree that this issue should be treated on it's merits and not past events nor future events which is why arguments like it will stop political correctness, it will lead to people wanting to marry their dog etc are just red herrings that deflect from the actual question.

I am not saying that we cannot utilise historical wisdom when speculating on the nature and likelihood of future outcomes, and as to whether those outcomes might be beneficial, or detrimental, to our society and its stability.

I believe that it is very important that we do exactly that!

Sadly, it appears that the majority of the populace is disinterested in thinking beyond the latest fashion.

 

[overhang]

Dishonest eh? Well stuff you and the donkey you rose in on bro.

My personal concerns are actually being born out in other countries with ssm.

So who is it being dishonest?

Pfffffffffffttt

You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised? No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.

 

[overhang]

What?!!!
Were you reading the article with your eyes squeezed closed?

Point out in which state SSM can't adopt children currently and will be able to if SSM is legalised. You can't because there aren't any.

I am not saying that we cannot utilise historical wisdom when speculating on the nature and likelihood of future outcomes, and as to whether those outcomes might be beneficial, or detrimental, to our society and its stability.

I believe that it is very important that we do exactly that!

Sadly, it appears that the majority of the populace is disinterested in thinking beyond the latest fashion.

Hopefully most the populace doesn't fall for this bull **** the no camp comes out with by deflecting this into something it's not.

 

[cynic]

Point out in which state SSM can't adopt children currently and will be able to if SSM is legalised. You can't because there aren't any.



Hopefully most the populace doesn't fall for this bull **** the no camp comes out with by deflecting this into something it's not.

What bs?!!! (unless you are referring to your own that is!)

It may not actually be referred to as a state, but did you happen to notice that the Northern Territory is actually part of the Australian continent?

 

[wayneL]

You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised? No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.

Why are they red herrings? Because they doesn't appear in the Marxist echo chamber?

 

[overhang]

Why are they red herrings? Because they doesn't appear in the Marxist echo chamber?

Because they're not the issue being raised. If a piece of legislation comes forward that limits freedom of speech etc then we treat that on it's merits.

 

[overhang]

What bs?!!! (unless you are referring to your own that is!)

It may not actually be referred to as a state, but did you happen to notice that the Northern Territory is actually part of the Australian continent?

This is why your argument is a load of BS. The adoption act in the Northern Territory states

For the purposes of this Act, a reference to 2 persons or a couple in relation to a joint adoption of a child under this Act is a reference to:

(a) a man and woman who are married; or

(b) an Aboriginal man and woman who are living together in a traditional Aboriginal marriage.

So if SSM is legalised then SS couples still can't adopt in the NT.

 

[SirRumpole]

How is this for a respectful campaign from the Yes side.

Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f*** all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.

Of course this was "just" a joke, but if something similar was said by a anti SSM proponent it would be outrageous.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...e/news-story/9aa68a1b5dd19bd9e29015bae099d80c

 

[Wysiwyg]

You mean like the States in the USA that have seen a reduction in teen suicide rates since SSM has been legalised? No of course you mean the right wing institute you linked a few pages back that again has a bunch of red herrings.

Have you seen the advert on tv stating 1 tradie suicides every 2 days?

LEADING men’s health organisation the Movember Foundation will launch a series of ads today to help combat male suicide.

The innovative campaign, called Unmute — ask him contains a series of videos that have men explaining tips for fishing, BBQing or fixing a flat tyre with subtitles.

Is setting every case up with free money and lotsa friends for life a fix? Don't bloody use suicide rates as a 'poor me' excuse from that selfish, demanding minority homosexual group to justify SSM.

 

[overhang]

Have you seen the advert on tv stating 1 tradie suicides every 2 days?
Is setting every case up with free money and lotsa friends for life a fix? Don't bloody use suicide rates as a 'poor me' excuse from that selfish, demanding minority homosexual group justifying SSM.

If someone is going to use overseas examples as to the effect of SSM then they can at least acknowledge positive effects.

Yeah how selfish of them asking for a right that the rest of us enjoy

 

[Wysiwyg]

If someone is going to use overseas examples as to the effect of SSM then they can at least acknowledge positive effects.

Yeah how selfish of them asking for a right that the rest of us enjoy

Why do you mob want to bastardise the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman?

 

[overhang]

Why do you mob want to bastardise the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman?

Because no one will actually be negatively effected by this change to any tangible level but for a few it will make a positive change in their life. I think most rational people see it this way too.

 

[cynic]

This is why your argument is a load of BS. The adoption act in the Northern Territory states


So if SSM is legalised then SS couples still can't adopt in the NT.

Okay let's step back and take a look at my earlier assertions:

Any time children are mentioned is the biggest red herring, it doesn't alter SS couples right to raise children (rightly or wrongly).

That wikipedia article happens to disagree, in a number of respects, with what you are claiming here.

Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!

In fact the one you are claiming to be the biggest, isn't even a red herring at all, for the simple reason that it does raise one or more valid and relevant concerns!

Namely, the last time I checked, SSM still had some bearing on questions surrounding the matter of rights of SS couples to adopt children etc.

Of course it's a red herring, the rights surrounding the adoption of children are regarding a government recognised relationship which a civil union already achieves.

What red herring has the yes camp used?

To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!
Based on that, I consider it erroneous to casually dismiss a valid concern as a red herring.

Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.

I trust that from my various postings and that linked article, you can now see that the basis for my contesting your red herring accusation isn't confined to the Northern Territory adoption laws.

Why anyone would expect that national recognition of SSM wouldn't subsequently be used as a platform to bolster campaigns for SS parental rights reforms in the NT (or anywhere else in Australia)?

Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone can wholly divorce the questions surrounding the concept of marriage, from those surrounding the parenting of children!

As can be seen from that wiki page, not all parenting rights are supported by all states and territories.

 

[overhang]

I trust that from my various postings and that linked article, you can now see that the basis for my contesting your red herring accusation isn't confined to the Northern Territory adoption laws.

Why anyone would you expect that national recognition of SSM wouldn't subsequently be used as a platform to bolster campaigns for SS parental rights reforms in the NT (or anywhere else in Australia)?

Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone can wholly divorce the questions surrounding the concept of marriage, from those surrounding the parenting of children!

As can be seen from that wiki page, not all parenting rights are supported by all states and territories.

This is actually really simple, if you don't believe it's a red herring then tell me which state or territory do SS not have parental rights but will so if marriage is legalised. If the answer is none then it's a moot point, I've already provided proof that it won't change anything in the NT.

 

[satanoperca]

You guys are all nuts even bring adoption into the discussion with SSM, adoption or lack of it in this country is far, far beyond worrying if SSM can do it.

FACT : During 2015–16, there were 278 adoptions finalised across Australia.

Disgraceful. But that is another topic that should be left out of SSM.