Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Tink · 13 September 2017

Luutzu, you can vote however you choose.
Just as I will be.
My vote hasn't changed, it will be NO.

As was mentioned, we all have an opinion and we are entitled to that opinion.
We don't want the thought police telling us how we need to think.

I disagree with everyone that has said, we should not be entitled to a vote, and I am disappointed that it was not the full plebiscite, rather than this postal vote.

This is a big change to our society, and I believe the public should have a say.

Tolerance is a two way street, and I am not seeing tolerance from the other side.
The left have ruined their own agenda.

I call them the Stalinists, as that is what they are, destroying every little bit on what this country was built on.
I am still hoping a NO will come from this, and people have woken up.

I have commented that whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, I would not have a clue, as we don't go around introducing ourselves on our sexuality.
I like to listen to their music, I have seen wonderful beauty in their art, and what snide remarks did I get back -- but you are glad that he is dead.

That is the thinking of a left, that because I do not agree with changing the marriage act, that I do not agree with their lifestyle, that I believe children and the family come first, then I need to be told that my enjoyment of their work is not allowed.
They do themselves no favours.

Bottom line is --

We all have a mother and a father.
We all have a family.
Biology is every one of us.
No matter your colour, creed, sexuality.

Marriage is - one man and one woman.

VC, you constantly attack our foundations, our Christian heritage, but I have asked you to show me an atheist country.
Lenin, and his useful idiots.

This is my view.

Tisme · 13 September 2017

overhang said:
Personally I don't think they're comparable. There is no discrimination because it's consistent across the board, regardless of race, sexuality, gender or faith no one by law can be married to multiple partners.

Value Collector said:
As long as it's between consenting adults who cares.

The bible is fine with multiple wives, I imagine Tinks "Traditional marriage" she talks about includes polygamy.

You are very quick to use the old testament as excuse for your own views, but quick to dismiss it when it runs counter to your views. The New Testament rarely gets a ticket to ride with you unless it suits your argument.

Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.

Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.

overhang · 13 September 2017

Tisme said:
Y
Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.

Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.

Then it's a moot point if no one will lobby for it. Frankly good luck to anyone that can two wives happy.

Tisme · 13 September 2017

overhang said:
Then it's a moot point if no one will lobby for it. Frankly good luck to anyone that can two wives happy.

Yes, but like SSM, the issue is not happyiness. The govt does not exist to keep people happy and egalatarian, it exists to make laws and provide good governance.

Like the real reason for SSM is for legal recognition of claim on a partner's assets, so too polygamist spouses would seek legal access to their spouses assets ...legally without going through the pre qualification process in the courts.

And remeber the reason Menzies took marriage out of the hands of the states, was the fear of reds under the beds taking our nation. Populate or perish was the mantra and the nuclear family was the way forward, imported or home grown.

MrBurns · 13 September 2017

It will be a resounding victory from the YES side unless the sleeper is the NO side who aren't as vocal.
Turnbull and Shorten ? Couple of bludging no hopers only interested in supporting what they think will get them votes.

Which brings me to this - politicians should be made to work with the disadvantaged for 3 months of the year, live in their electorates and only be allowed in Canberra for debates and votes. No pouncing around the dining room at Parliament House pontificating on how important they think they are.

As it is they are insulated from the people they are supposed to represent and do them little, if any, good.

Value Collector · 13 September 2017

Tisme said:
You are very quick to use the old testament as excuse for your own views, but quick to dismiss it when it runs counter to your views. The New Testament rarely gets a ticket to ride with you unless it suits your argument.

Polygamy probably wouldn't need any equal rights legislation, because there's generally only one legally married couple and additional spouses. Islam, UTAH and Sunnyvale (housos) are great examples of polygamy.

Bigamy is the one that might be the next big push for recognition.

I don't believe either testament is a source of morality, my morality is based on real world harm, not scripture.

I am just pointing out that when Tink talks about "traditional marriage" that traditional marriage has changed a lot over time.

Now Christians believe in the 10 commandments right? Well the guy that was meant to have gotten those commandments directly from god, had two wives, and god never mentioned it was wrong to him.

overhang · 13 September 2017

Tisme said:
Yes, but like SSM, the issue is not happyiness. The govt does not exist to keep people happy and egalatarian, it exists to make laws and provide good governance.

That's your opinion, I think you'll find the few effected by the policy change will be quite happy. Government exist to provide laws that are in sync with our society and the society we strive to be. Our society has progressed away from treating homosexuality as a criminal offense to gradually allowing them the same rights as heterosexual couples. This is just another step.

Tink · 13 September 2017

“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

MrBurns · 13 September 2017

Tink said:
“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

Correct ^^^^^

Tisme · 13 September 2017

Value Collector said:
I don't believe either testament is a source of morality, my morality is based on real world harm, not scripture.

I am just pointing out that when Tink talks about "traditional marriage" that traditional marriage has changed a lot over time.

Now Christians believe in the 10 commandments right? Well the guy that was meant to have gotten those commandments directly from god, had two wives, and god never mentioned it was wrong to him.

Yeah, but it's a furphy argument, like throwing disparate issues and trying to conflate them into the conversation as proof of truth.

The marraige act is naught to do with the bible, but all to do with our constitution. Proponents would point out that section 51 doesn't define man and women, but they are less quick to point out that homosexuality was illegal until the mid 1980's , so by default marriage was the traditional concept of man and women and the realism is that EVERYONE knew that no matter how many ways advocate of SSM would skew the facts.

I find the weasel words used and the lies rewriting history insulting to commonsense.

I am also insulted at the flippancy of the voting population who are all too willing to hand over their bedrocks to foreign cultures that never reached the heights of the Five Eyes countries....although with so many residents who aren't culturally Australians of yesteryear it's not surprising that vast numbers would bring the same poisons that made their own countries of origin untenable.

Compounding the world wide trend is China and India pursuing population control by encouraging gender blending.

http://www.cirnow.com.au/constitution-defines-marriage/

Value Collector · 13 September 2017

Tisme said:
Yeah, but it's a furphy argument, like throwing disparate issues and trying to conflate them into the conversation as proof of truth.

The marraige act is naught to do with the bible, but all to do with our constitution. Proponents would point out that section 51 doesn't define man and women, but they are less quick to point out that homosexuality was illegal until the mid 1980's , so by default marriage was the traditional concept of man and women and the realism is that EVERYONE knew that no matter how many ways advocate of SSM would skew the facts.

I find the weasel words used and the lies rewriting history insulting to commonsense.

I am also insulted at the flippancy of the voting population who are all too willing to hand over their bedrocks to foreign cultures that never reached the heights of the Five Eyes countries....although with so many residents who aren't culturally Australians of yesteryear it's not surprising that vast numbers would bring the same poisons that made their own countries of origin untenable.

Compounding the world wide trend is China and India pursuing population control by encouraging gender blending.

http://www.cirnow.com.au/constitution-defines-marriage/

My argument isn't a biblical argument, I am simply using the Bible to show that marriage has changed over time.

What Tink and you call "traditional" wasn't always Traditional, it would have been considered progressive.

So yes, the "definition of marriage" has changed a lot over time, and allowing same sex marriage is just a continuation of this progression.

And it's not even a big change really, simply allowing same sex marriages is almost nothing compared to the other big changes that have happened.

Tink · 13 September 2017

Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

overhang · 13 September 2017

Tink said:
“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.”

That might be your definition of marriage, that is your opinion, many don't share your belief. There are many couples out there who don't give a rats about your tradition, they are married outside of a church by a celebrant, they want to celebrate with friends and family.

overhang · 13 September 2017

Tink said:
Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Who actually created the creator? Something had to.

Tink · 13 September 2017

Yes, we can see, you are pushing for the 'free love'.

The lies that come out of VC and his 'rage against God' needed to be counter acted.

Value Collector · 13 September 2017

Tink said:
Yes, we can see, you are pushing for the 'free love'.

The lies that come out of VC and his 'rage against God' needed to be counter acted.

Can you give me an example of my "rage against god"?

Because I don't actually believe in any gods, so how can I be angry at one?

Any anger I have related to religion, is not a "rage against gods" it's a rage against humans with silly ideas and beliefs.

Tink · 13 September 2017

I am still waiting for you to say why marriage should be changed to genderless.

Why would we want the state over riding our families.

I don't want the thought police telling me how to think.

Vote NO.

Tisme · 13 September 2017

overhang said:
That's your opinion, I think you'll find the few effected by the policy change will be quite happy. Government exist to provide laws that are in sync with our society and the society we strive to be. Our society has progressed away from treating homosexuality as a criminal offense to gradually allowing them the same rights as heterosexual couples. This is just another step.

Not true, you need to revise your state and commonwealth constitutions.

This is one of those fallacious beliefs that are being used as proof of concept and it has no foundation of truth.

Tisme · 13 September 2017

Value Collector said:
So yes, the "definition of marriage" has changed a lot over time, .

Without resorting to anecdotal evidence, what definition of marriage has changed a lot over time, especially in Australia. It didn't come here until the first fleet epoque.

I'm sure the instruments and authority have changed, but the authenticity of male/female contracts or bahns go way back ...well they do in my family tree, but then my family wasn't afflicted with homo miasma vapours like so many today.

overhang · 13 September 2017

Tisme said:
Not true, you need to revise your state and commonwealth constitutions.

This is one of those fallacious beliefs that are being used as proof of concept and it has no foundation of truth.

That's just completely baseless

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?