Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Tisme · 26 September 2017

tech/a said:
Heavens
Have you noticed the closing vote in the
Poll above?

Only 15% of ballots have been posted back, so there doesn't seem to be the imperative for SSM as they would have had us believe.

For me I don't think we should have been put in this position in the first place. SSM should never have been entertained and it is shameful our parliament should bow to social vandals and lobbyists for populist cheap vote catching.

I still stand by my belief that Govts have no right to legislate people's rights to, interfere with and to reward "love" or lust; it is a shallow, superficial basis for marriage. They have no right to relegate children and consign them to a deliberate second rate misfit life of gender imbalance role modelling, vilification, grooming and guilt.

I also believe the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who are/were married and they should decide if they want to gift away their privilege and replace it with a circus farce parody that denies the evolutionary physical and emotional needs truths for male/female unions now and going forward.

Junior · 26 September 2017

Tisme said:
Yep...always rely on facts rather than fiction I say

That is 2 divorces per 1,000 resident population in that particular year.

Or you could use a relevant statistic:

The probability that a marriage will end in divorce has been increasing over time. Based on the nuptiality tables, around 28% of marriages entered into in 1985–1987 could be expected to end in divorce. This proportion increased to 33% for all marriages entered into in 2000–2002.

For divorced men, the average time that could be expected to be spent divorced increased from 11 years for those divorcing in 1985–1987 to 17 years for those divorcing in 2000–2002, while for women divorcing in each period, the average time spent divorced increased from 18 years to 24 years. Several factors are expected to have contributed to this increase including increasing life expectancy, not entering into a formal remarriage and/or the tendency to live alone following divorce.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/26D94B4C9A4769E6CA25732C00207644?opendocument#DIVORCE

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

I've always believed every adult should be allowed to vote for change regardless of the topic

Tisme · 26 September 2017

Junior said:
That is 2 divorces per 1,000 resident population in that particular year.

Or you could use a relevant statistic:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/26D94B4C9A4769E6CA25732C00207644?opendocument#DIVORCE

No I just use the ABS unadulterated data.

If the argument is going to be ubiquitous, universal rights then the same statistical boundaries must apply.

It would be interesting to see how many of those "marriages" are actually defacto.

Tisme · 26 September 2017

PZ99 said:
I've always believed every adult should be allowed to vote for change regardless of the topic

Define adult. And do you think we should have the right to legislate for love?

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

Tisme said:
Define adult. And do you think we should have the right to legislate for love?

Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.

And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then

Tink · 26 September 2017

But the Stalinists tried to stop us voting.

And you were all for the public being silenced.

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

What Stalinists? You mean the Howard Govt when they changed the marriage act, changed the IR laws and sold off our T3 public asset without taking it to the people? Those Stalinists?

Junior · 26 September 2017

Tisme said:
No I just use the ABS unadulterated data.

If the argument is going to be ubiquitous, universal rights then the same statistical boundaries must apply.

It would be interesting to see how many of those "marriages" are actually defacto.

That is ABS data. De facto arrangement can't end in divorce.

Tink · 26 September 2017

The Marriage Act was stated by common law, as I have said already.

Our foundations are Christian.
Just like our public holidays that reflect this nation that the Greens despise.
Our Western Culture.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stalinism

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

The Marriage act was altered by the Conservative Govt of yester-century to pay lip service to paranoia from their mostly Catholic self-appointed masters-of-the-universe support base. It's where the majority of their funding comes from hence the dictation of their social agenda culminating into some of the most evil policies ever seen in this land - and out of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Conservatism

Value Collector · 26 September 2017

SirRumpole said:
This could be done by sending a couple of pamphlets home with the kids, there doesn't need to be a whole course done at school that the parents don't know about.

Yes, because a couple of pamphlets will suddenly make Tink, Tisme or Graph capable of providing their child with an appropriate level of understanding of LGBT issues. <this post contains sarcasm>

people with those sort of views can mess up their kids if it turns out their kids are LGBT, and no doubt even though their kids are probably straight, they can raise them with issues that will cause them to not treat their children well should they be LGBT.

wayneL · 26 September 2017

PZ99 said:
Adult in this context is anyone who is allowed to vote.

And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. We have become far more civilised since then

That is a very subjective opinion.

My objective opinion is that we have become substantively less civilised.

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

wayneL said:
That is a very subjective opinion.

My objective opinion is that we have become substantively less civilised.

An objective opinion is one free of emotive sensationalism.

Show me posts in this thread that illustrate left wing PC paranoia, the elitist righties' hyperbole of communism, the alleged destruction of our culture, the rage against atheists, the scare of mutant kids and the removal of our freedoms and I'll show you a subjective opinion.

And I say bring them on because liberating the above sensationalism is inviting a challenge.

wayneL · 26 September 2017

PZ99 said:
An objective opinion is one free of emotive sensationalism.

Show me posts in this thread that illustrate left wing PC paranoia, the elitist righties' hyperbole of communism, the alleged destruction of our culture, the rage against atheists, the scare of mutant kids and the removal of our freedoms and I'll show you a subjective opinion.

And I say bring them on because liberating the above sensationalism is inviting a challenge.

There is much objectivity in those subjective opinions however.

Cultural Marxism by its very nature is entirely subjective though... like 21 freakin genders?

Holy ****, genetic aberrations not withstanding, a human either has balls or not.

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

wayneL said:
There is much objectivity in those subjective opinions however.

Cultural Marxism by its very nature is entirely subjective though... like 21 freakin genders?

Holy ****, genetic aberrations not withstanding, a human either has balls or not.

The anachronisms in the marriage act aren't confined to who has balls or not. They also create inheritance problems for you and your partner unless you plan to go through some very messy legislation and expensive legal proceedings. As much as people like to deny it, civil unions and marriage are still two very different things hence the debate.
There's more to SSM than just four stars and Wham-Bam-Thankyou-Man.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/gay-couple-want-right-to-marry-before-they-die/6703756

Cultural Marxism? Too much paranoia from the conspiracy theorists for my liking Wayne. And people who aren't awake fall for it hook, line and sinker. Just look at the BUMSEX barcode thing. Someone claimed they received it but later on I proved on here it was a fake. What made it funny was the ABS sheep got conned into apologising for a algorithmic error that didn't even happen.

People should try independent thinking.... it's free!

grah33 · 26 September 2017

luutzu said:
Not the same though.

I'm sure a gay person could just leave the kids and his/her husband/wife just the same if they're that type of people.

.

Yes , it's the same. Sure, different types of love, but in all cases they're just silly. Think of a 20 year old woman that falls for an 80 year old man...(the other way around as well). Or the girl who has a crush on another woman (just silly love). Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings. Some people just don't marry, they can't for whatever reason (e.g. sick people). it doesn't have to be the end of the world. And it really shouldn't be.

We all gotta learn control , or we'll be remarrying all the time. and most married couples i know are bored of each other. but for the kids, being married makes sense.

wayneL · 26 September 2017

PZ99 said:
The anachronisms in the marriage act aren't confined to who has balls or not. They also create inheritance problems for you and your partner unless you plan to go through some very messy legislation and expensive legal proceedings. As much as people like to deny it, civil unions and marriage are still two very different things hence the debate.
There's more to SSM than just four stars and Wham-Bam-Thankyou-Man.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/gay-couple-want-right-to-marry-before-they-die/6703756

Cultural Marxism? Too much paranoia from the conspiracy theorists for my liking Wayne. And people who aren't awake fall for it hook, line and sinker. Just look at the BUMSEX barcode thing. Someone claimed they received it but later on I proved on here it was a fake. What made it funny was the ABS sheep got conned into apologising for a algorithmic error that didn't even happen.

People should try independent thinking.... it's free!

Ah subjective ad hominem and accusations of tin foil hat wearing.

Cmon Mate, Thats Guardian tactics for the komrades in the echo chamber.

Try some real debate, might be interesting

Value Collector · 26 September 2017

grah33 said:
Or the girl who has a crush on another woman (just silly love). Solution: reach out to them and tell them that it's not something to hate yourself for, it's not their fault, and they should just ignore such feelings.

The stupidity and ignorance of that comment is amazing.

Again, this is why the Schools have had to bring up LGBT issues, past generations have done a terrible job at understanding and raising LGBT children.

There are parents out there with similar views to graph, tink and tisme with LGBT children, and those childrens only hope for any sort of education about the issues they are facing is school.

Not only that, but even if the children are straight, they may become bullies etc or bad parents in the future due to the one sided views of their parents.

PZ99 · 26 September 2017

wayneL said:
Ah subjective ad hominem and accusations of tin foil hat wearing.

Cmon Mate, Thats Guardian tactics for the komrades in the echo chamber.

Try some real debate, might be interesting

Ad hominem Guardian tactics have used by anti leftists all through this thread who are boo hooing about a wider agenda with nothing to back up their claims...

The postal vote is about whether people of the same sex should get married or not.

That's the real debate mate - wanna lead the way?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?