Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 55.8%

  • No

    Votes: 61 44.2%
  • Total voters
    138
Jump to new
McLovin said:
in the context of the faulty premise of gay marriage being a stepping stone to gays adopting children
Click to expand...

It's further legitimising something that isn't very legitimate in the first place, ie it wasn't openly discussed and was decided behind closed doors for the very reason that LGB's want to avoid a plebiscite; ie it's a lot easy to bludgeon a few people in Parliament than the whole population.
 
greggles said:
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".

kevin-siers-cartoon.gif


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.
Click to expand...
you obviously have a twisted definition of marriage. Why bother marrying? I never have. Just more attention seeking waste of space and time rubbish. Honestly some people really need to get a life.
 

Attachments

  • kevin-siers-cartoon.gif
    kevin-siers-cartoon.gif
    177.3 KB · Views: 74
SirRumpole said:
it wasn't openly discussed and was decided behind closed doors for the very reason that LGB's want to avoid a plebiscite; ie it's a lot easy to bludgeon a few people in Parliament than the whole population.
Click to expand...

It seems strange to me people are happy with the parliament making and adjusting all sorts of laws, and even to declaring war on other nations, but some how think they can't be trusted with decisions about gay marriage.

If a plebiscite is the only way to make the change, so be it, But it shouldn't have to come to a plebiscite, because popular opinion does not give society the right to take rights away from minority groups.

Eg, if society voted to retain slavery in a plebiscite, it would not make slavery moral, and the government would still have the obligation to abolish it.

So a "No" vote in the plebiscite, is irrelevant.
 
The laws are adjusted where they have the same rights, therefore, imv, there is no reason to change the definition of marriage.
 
I would have historically voted against SSM but I'm presently undecided. While I'm not that way inclined myself, what two consenting adults wish to do is a matter for them.

One of the key things I'll be looking for in the proposal will be whether it will be forced on institutions that don't endorse SSM. I don't see it as my right to determine what others do in a bedroom and in the same light, I don't, for example, see is as the right of a cause to impose their way of life inside the walls of a religious institution where it doesn't fit with their values and beliefs.

What I'm very much in favour of is the public vote on what is a major social change to what is an accepted definition of marriage over a very long period of time and that's regardless of the specific wording of the Marriage Act in the past and how that's been changed.

I'll reserve my vote in this poll until I decide which way to vote in the postal poll assuming that passes the scrutiny of the High Court.
 
Does anyone know if people living on welfare can adopt children? Or single males/females? I don't feel like they should be able to.

I'm starting to see now that politicians are turning to us to be the law makers, which I find difficult. There's quite a responsibility, and a feeling like I'm interfering in others' lives. I guess that's what law making is. How many people would even think before they vote? Very few, I'd guess. They'd just watch The Project and do what they're told.
 
drsmith said:
One of the key things I'll be looking for in the proposal will be whether it will be forced on institutions that don't endorse SSM. I don't see it as my right to determine what others do in a bedroom and in the same light, I don't, for example, see is as the right of a cause to impose their way of life inside the walls of a religious institution where it doesn't fit with their values and beliefs.
Click to expand...

The law doesn't force the Catholic Church to re-marry divorcees who have not been granted an annulment by Rome. I would also object to any law that forced religious orgs to do anything that goes against their own beliefs.

Section 116 would probably pick up any law forcing religious orgs to marry gays as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
 
Last edited:
overhang said:
Ok lets use the facts and see how traditional marriage is.





http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?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.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring any facts, just correcting them as they incorrectly being applied to bolster you argument. I'm insinuating nothing and fully aware of how marriage works, how long its been used in the British empire and before and that rights are conferred by the people who govern, not a birthright
 
McLovin said:
The law doesn't force the Catholic Church to re-marry divorcees who have not been granted an annulment by Rome. I would also object to any law that forced religious orgs to do anything that goes against their own beliefs.

Section 116 would probably pick up any law forcing religious orgs to marry gays as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...


I'll think you'll find a Labor Govt will force marriage celebrants and god jockeys to wed gays. It's already resulted in one official getting her marching orders in the USA and the doctrine of precedent in Oz does draw on the US system when it wants to qualify and argument.
 
Tisme said:
I'll think you'll find a Labor Govt will force marriage celebrants and god jockeys to wed gays. It's already resulted in one official getting her marching orders in the USA and the doctrine of precedent in Oz does draw on the US system when it wants to qualify and argument.
Click to expand...
You may find the case in the US to be a little different:
The officer was a public servant, employed as a registrar and required to do her job in accordance with the Law. She had even received a Court Order to the effect, but chose to ignore it. So she was sacked and rightly so. She might even have been jailed for contempt of court - and should've been.

Your allegation what a Labor Government might do seems to infer that god jockeys (do you refer to priests?) could be forced to wed gays in a church service. I'd find that hard to enforce, and no Labor Cabinet would be silly enough to go that far. However, a marriage celebrant on the public purse and performing a public function may well be obliged follow the Law.
 
Back in the days when I did a bit of commercial law we were taught that advertising a particular good or service (eg the wedding cake) did not compell the advertiser to sell it. The advertisement was an invitation to treat, not a firm offer. This was contract law, so whether that still applies in these PC days I don't know.
 
Interesting result so far... 70/30, a bit more YES than I expected and I wonder if that reflects the community in general? In that "email" from the ABC to staff they claimed it to be 60/40 in favour.
 
SirRumpole said:
Back in the days when I did a bit of commercial law we were taught that advertising a particular good or service (eg the wedding cake) did not compell the advertiser to sell it. The advertisement was an invitation to treat, not a firm offer. This was contract law, so whether that still applies in these PC days I don't know.
Click to expand...

But do you feel people have the right to discrimiate, eg can I refuse to serve blacks at my place of business?
 
Last edited:
Value Collector said:
But do you feel people have the right to discrimiate, eg can I refuse to serve blacks at my place of business?
Click to expand...

Basically yes. If a person puts effort into producing a product they actually own that product and should have a RIGHT to sell it to who they want.

I don't believe that they SHOULD discriminate, but that's their choice.

Basically, anyone who wants to make money will sell to whoever wants to buy.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
455
finicky
finicky
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Knobby22
Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
916
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Finding the truth vs. "The Rule of Law"
10 11 12
Replies
239
Views
16K
JohnDe
JohnDe
basilio
A truly Christian school...!
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
cynic
cynic
Top