Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tink]

The jackboots are door knocking as well as sending texts.

We have already voted NO.

 

[Junior]

Vote Yes - or else

We're talking about weddings here, it's not the end of civilisation as we know it.

 

[tech/a]

It is according to the Yes camp!

 

[Betavegeta]

I feel like if this is going to be approved there should be an approval rating of least 80%. It's not right to pass a law if a large portion of ppl are still against it.

 

[stevo2]

The only people who should be eligible to vote are those who are already married. The vote is about letting others into "our" club

 

[Junior]

Perhaps we should also exclude those who have been divorced, married more than once, committed adultery (only applies to women), or had children outside of marriage?

They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.

 

[basilio]

Marriage - A Question of Tradition.

How traditional should we make out Marriage Act ? For instance should we :

1) Allow children of primary school age to be maried ? (12 years of age)
2) Forbid marriage between aborigines and white people ?
3) Proclaim that since husbands and wives are married it is legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife?

Can you remember when these regulations were part of the Australian Marriage Act ?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/en...ion-we-need-to-recapture-20170922-gymw5y.html

 

[cynic]

SSM brigade invading my privacy by SMS texting relentlessly. I might have to send them a payload worm in return

Yesterday, shortly after drifting off to sleep, I was awoken by a chime from my mobile phone.
Thinking it must have been a text about something important, I roused myself from my much needed slumber, to read this latest text telling me to "vote YES for a fairer Australia".

I resisted the temptation to reply to those YES-morons with the suggestion that, if they truly believed me to lack the capacity for independent thought, then they could all go and hate FTSE themselves.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yesterday, shortly after drifting off to sleep, I was awoken by a chime from my mobile phone.
Thinking it must have been a text about something important, I roused myself from my much needed slumber, to read this latest text telling me to "vote YES for a fairer Australia".

I resisted the temptation to reply to those YES-morons with the suggestion that, if they truly believed me to lack the capacity for independent thought, then they could all go and hate FTSE themselves.

Your thoughts are echoed by others.

Being bothered by unsolicited advertising is a sure way of turning people off.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-24/yes-campaign-thousands-receive-same-sex-marriage-texts/8979030

 

[Triathlete]

Another poll favouring the "No" campaign.
The poll shows 18% had changed their vote to No...maybe people are starting to wake up or are fed up with it all....
I guess that is why we are getting bombarded with the SMS text messages....www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/polls/62

 

[Junior]

The 'yes campaign' has the support of leaders of both major parties, and a host of large companies, and even some religious groups & churches. Why f*ck it up with unsolicited text messages and door-knocking??

This postal survey already has widespread media coverage, there is no need to go further to 'educate' or 'create awareness'. Everyone is aware already!

 

[grah33]

Perhaps we should also exclude those who have been divorced, married more than once, committed adultery (only applies to women), or had children outside of marriage?

They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.

You're hinting at a deeper underlying problem – society doesn't really believe in marriage anymore (hence the massive divorce rates). And yes, it causes problems, especially for children. Gay marriage will just lead to even more problems. It's a progression in non-belief in the marriage idea.

Look at other nations out there. Some are polygamous. Some people might say that they don't actually believe in marriage either, since many here might think that that kind of marriage isn't a real or valid marriage. Many also say that they aren't good countries to live in. Perhaps though, if their marriage beliefs were the same as our marriage (at least before the massive divorce figures started happening), they might actually be rivaling the world in terms of living conditions and economic activity. The values a society believes in are reflected in the law.

(note: as i said b4, i don't always express properly what i really mean. that applies to every single post i've written)

 

[pixel]

Now isn't that interesting: John Howard, sly old fox, pulled another swifty. How did he get away with it? Was the Opposition asleep?

The "no" case against same-sex marriage hopes that Australia will be captured by its ahistoric amnesia, frightened into a timid stasis under the impression that today's arrangements are somehow a sacred artifact preserved unchanged from "time immemorial", as Abbott put it.

In fact, John Howard's 2004 decision to legislate marriage as between only a man and a woman is a politician's trick to hoodwink history. The people plumping for the status-quo don't want Australia to be reassured by its proud progressive tradition. John Keane, a professor of politics at Sydney University, observes that "tradition is not just for conservatives".

 

[pixel]

They have not behaved in line with the Gold Standard, tradition of marriage.

Just check your facts! Wikipedia will tell you this:
It's only been in 2004 that the law has been changed to specify a man and a woman.
Until the enactment of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, there was no definition in the Act of "marriage". However, the Family Law Act 1975 treats de facto relationships, including same-sex relationships, and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just check your facts! Wikipedia will tell you this:
It's only been in 2004 that the law has been changed to specify a man and a woman.
Until the enactment of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, there was no definition in the Act of "marriage". However, the Family Law Act 1975 treats de facto relationships, including same-sex relationships, and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup.

So why did we not have a plethora of same sex marriages before Howard changed the Act ?

Seems to me that the SSM push is basically just "the politics of envy" rather than a real desire to actually tie the knot.
.

 

[Tisme]

S...

Seems to me that the SSM push is basically just "the politics of envy" rather than a real desire to actually tie the knot.
.

It's spite and payback because they feel deprived ,,,,,, a double whammy because they are already missing out on true sex and true love, replacing it with rapacious lust for sexual self gratification.

The very nature of gay is multiple sexual encounters with many partners, even when they are supposedly monogomous. This is an undeniable fact they they will confess to when out of earshot of the do gooder supporters.

 

[Tisme]

My prediction: as the old fellas lose all their testestorone and the estrogen based meds kick in, they will be targetted in their retirement and aged care homes by gayboys for sexual favours, be convinced to marriage for continued company and have all their residual wealth at death stripped from their progeny.... one can only hope those men are the paternal family heads of people who voted YES.

 

[Logique]

I feel like if this is going to be approved there should be an approval rating of least 80%. It's not right to pass a law if a large portion of ppl are still against it.

I agree it should be a strong majority. For example, 55%-45% would ensure it remained a divisive issue, as would this thread's current 58%-42%.

Don't know about 80%, but a good solid 70-75% majority would be reasonable I think

 

[wayneL]

The 'yes campaign' has the support of leaders of both major parties, and a host of large companies, and even some religious groups & churches. Why f*ck it up with unsolicited text messages and door-knocking??

Because nobody trusts them anymore, the unanimity of the establishment creates suspicion.

But the brownshirts aren't helping either.

I think this may actually go down

 

[Tisme]

Mark Latham:

Rainbow Labor stopped me speaking at Smithfield RSL on March 31. Now rest of Aust is witnessing the Gay-Left Militancy I saw first-hand.