Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tink]

Same sex/transgender couples are already recognised by the government, they have civil unions.

In 2008, 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation were changed.

--------------------

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 rejects these truths.

Marriage is one man and one woman.

---------------------

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

 

[code12]

Hi Code

I can understand you feel hurt about it all, and I empathize with you. I've had my own share of trials in this life too.

But have you considered the suffering of conscientious objectors in the future, that is likely to occur if the yes camp prevails. We have to assume it will be as in other countries. Take for example some wedding photographer who happens to be a religious person , and feels they just can't take photos of a gay wedding. They have to make a choice as to whether they want to keep their job or their faith. They would be worrying about the future, and what's going to happen to them. Not a pretty picture.

And as others have pointed out when there is no more religious freedom it's a disaster. You see, it is the path of oppressive political systems such as communism etc to control religion. They get rid of religious freedom in order to assume full control of the people. So naturally when we see religion getting controlled by the government -happening already in SSM countries – it makes us (including people who support gay relationships) freak out. It's a major concern...

It would be different of course if everyone was free to do what they wanted.

No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now. Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are missing the point,

The majority, can not take away the rights of a minority, regardless of whether then win a vote of not.

Hence why even a law that got 100% suppport by parliament could still be struck down as "unconstitutional"

Google the term "inalienable rights"

The ACT tried to enact SSM and the High Court knocked it back.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are missing the point,

No, I'm not missing the point, you seem to be. The Parliament has voted 18 times against SSM and the High Court has not decided that this is unconstitutional. Every law comes down to a vote in Parliament.

People shouldn't need to be told how government works in this country.

Marriage is not an "inalienable right". It is society's recognition of a relationship. We choose not to recognise marriages between siblings because it could be bad for society, so we can choose not to recognise SSM's for the same reason.

 

[Tisme]

You are missing the point,

The majority, can not take away the rights of a minority, regardless of whether then win a vote of not.

Hence why even a law that got 100% suppport by parliament could still be struck down as "unconstitutional"

Google the term "inalienable rights"

Does Australia have a bill of rights?

 

[Tisme]

No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now. Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.

Two items:

1) Tell us more about your assertion "Marriage was originally about land ownership"
2) How did what happen when you write "How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia?"? Oz has traditionally had a major aversion to homosexuality and SSM was never overtly on the agenda. it was unthinkable.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Alternative relationships need to lobby government for an alternative legal recognition. The two are not the same.

 

[grah33]

No I'm not hurt. I don't know where you get that from. I'm free as well as very happily married to my wonderful partner living in a country that doesn't have the same uptight dogma that you guys are thrashing around, still. Did you know Marriage was originally about land ownership a legal agreement? It still is. This is a human rights issue not a religious issue. But all the bible bashers will come out with something to defend themselves and the man and woman only marriage thing..all day long. So there is no point going there because it's ingrained old school, fear based beliefs with 'well-meaning' and many not so well meaning people with such a pious view on their authority. I can hear the stampede running for their bibles now. Besides that I really am surprised at the amount of bigotry, mis-information and homophobic rhetoric and hatred that exists in Australia. It was prevalent there when I resided there in the 80's but it seems to have risen to new heights. It's a little like being in the bible belt of USA. How did this happen to a wonderful country like Australia? I wish you all well and will continue to visit on work related trips and holidays.

The bigot/homophobic remarks made to religious people is nonsense. You may as well say that Jesus Christ is a bigot too since he would not have approved of gay marriage.

I think marriage occurs both naturally in humanity and is also a very religious thing too. Societies that don't have any main religion realize that marriage contracts are needed, but God also has a say too , particularly in western countries (at least in the past), of how it's meant to be done. Jesus was the one to establish the one male to one female setup, lifelong commitment. So that is where western countries get their marriage tradition from.

People here are shutting their eyes to the problems occurring in SSM countries, likely to occur here as well. Conscientious objectors are compelled to do things against their own personal moral codes. This is what happens in communism (they control religion). e.g. We see in SSM countries they are compelling religious schools to teach gay sex. And some religious and conscientious objectors are likely to give up their jobs. And when they go after the religious people , they usually come after everyone else at some point later on.

We saw what happened to bishop Julian Porteous for merely upholding the christian belief. Imagine what they'll do later on when they have the law behind them.

The other point is that religious freedom and conscientious objection are key features of a democracy. They limit what a government can do, so vital for the protection of everyone (religious and non religious people). Also, it is against human dignity to force people to do things that are against their own interior moral beliefs.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Yes vote could go down according to social media.

https://theconversation.com/social-...se-result-in-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-84436

 

[PZ99]

You may be interested in this statement too.

Tony Abbott has hailed the rise of a new conservative movement prepared to fight for Western culture and religious freedom as a result of the same-sex marriage campaign and warned Liberals the “activated” voters will wonder “who will represent them in the years ahead”.

The former prime minister said the “nucleus of an organisation” had been created in just two months of campaigning for traditional marriage but there was no support from Malcolm Turnbull or conservative ministers.

He said the new movement, which could represent 40 per cent of Australians, could become a counter to the pro-Labor, leftist GetUp! movement which has been around for a decade and heavily funded by unions.

This week John Howard, a leading advocate for traditional marriage, also warned of the “fragmentation” of politics in Australia and is concerned about the lack of representation in the same-sex marriage debate for conservatives.

In a speech to be delivered in New York overnight to the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom group, Mr Abbott will say thousands of young people had sprung to defend marriage despite attracting “an instant social media storm and reputational death”.

“Such robust characters, once activated, are unlikely to fade away; and could continue to make their presence felt (even after marriage is no longer an issue) because they’ve had the guts to campaign for a cause they believe in,” he says.

“With the leaders of both big political parties, 60 large businesses and most of the major sporting codes all coming out on the other side — and no cabinet minister, not one, in the centre-right government prepared to campaign with them — they will understandably be wondering who and what might represent them in the years ahead.”

While he said he believed the result of the same-sex marriage postal survey could still “swing either way” because No voters were reluctant to answer poll questions, he said a 40 per cent vote would be a “moral victory” for marriage, demonstrating a core of conservative support in Australia.

“Win, lose, or draw, though, starting from scratch two months ago, the campaign for marriage in my country has mobilised thousands of new activists; and created a network that could be deployed to defend Western civilisation more broadly and the Judeo-Christian ethic against all that’s been undermining it,’’ he says.

“So far, the campaign to defend marriage in Australia has raised over $6 million from more than 20,000 separate donors, and fielded more than 5000 volunteers to doorknock and phone canvass.”

Mr Abbott said the political implications of the rise of a new “loose” conservative movement and the lack of conservative ministers supporting the No case was that in the short-term “the embryonic Australian Conservatives, the only national political party whose leader backed marriage as it’s always been” would be the beneficiary in electoral terms.

“In the medium term, these new activists are likely to mean that the long march of the left through our institutions is no longer largely unopposed,” he says and suggests there could be counter “solidarity” marches to protest marches from the left.

“If the traditional stance of the centre-right in the English-speaking tradition is to endure — to be pro-market and to be socially conservative — there has to be people prepared to stand up for beliefs; because if you don’t believe, you won’t fight; and if you don’t fight, you can’t win.”

Mr Abbott says “if the opinion polls are right”, the Victorian Labor government, which is preparing to give “doctors the right to kill some patients”, will be the “prototype” of the “next national government”.

“There is ... a massive job for these newly energised, potential conservative activists,” he says. “For every protest march, there must be a solidarity one. For every assertion of identity politics, there must be a defence of the social fabric. For every lobby on the counter-cultural left, there must be one on the commonsense right if even the sensible centre is to hold; for the values of centre-right party MPs can no longer be assumed and often need to be buttressed.

“Merely debating marriage has hinted at the risks facing cultural conservatives, the new dissidents in the world that their decency and tolerance has made possible.’’

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...k=e9bbac719df9f4e81c3347abd9650d30-1509568511

A lot of fine print to decipher there - not only on SSM but of Tony Abbott's future possibilities and the future of Conservatism in general.

 

[Tisme]

You may be interested in this statement too.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...k=e9bbac719df9f4e81c3347abd9650d30-1509568511

A lot of fine print to decipher there - not only on SSM but of Tony Abbott's future possibilities and the future of Conservatism in general.

I think he's correct in that the silent majority are looking for a party that isn't focused on social and gender engineering.

 

[Logique]

The poll on this thread has rapidly narrowed. It was running at 2 to 1 Yes in the beginning. Now just 55% Yes: to 45% No

 

[Value Collector]

 

[SirRumpole]

You may be interested in this statement too.

Although I broadly support social conservatism; ie support for traditional family unit, anti same sex parenting etc, Tony Abbott's brand of Conservatism comes with the baggage of economic and fiscal Conservatism; protecting the rich, more corporate power and less consumer rights which are abhorrent to me so I could never vote for a party that supports these principles.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a party that expounds both social conservatism and financial liberalism so I usually take pot luck or vote for independents.

One day my ideal Party may arise.

 

[SirRumpole]

What Oliver says about polls is pretty irrelevant these days with Trump and Brexit. Only those interested in the outcome will give a positive reply, once people have to vote they will usually go with their gut instinct which is towards conservatism, usually.

 

[tech/a]

Well its an important issue that affects more straight people than Gays.

Problem is the gay crowd don't see how it could possibly impact on straight
people. Straight people are beginning to understand the impact acceptance
of gay marriage will have on a vast number of other ---seemingly un related
areas.

As Trump says far too much political correctness in the world.

 

[Tisme]

What Oliver says about polls is pretty irrelevant these days with Trump and Brexit. Only those interested in the outcome will give a positive reply, once people have to vote they will usually go with their gut instinct which is towards conservatism, usually.

He's a personified cartoon, and actor and therefore cannot be believed as anymore than sideshow Bob.

 

[Tisme]

Well its an important issue that affects more straight people than Gays.

Problem is the gay crowd don't see how it could possibly impact on straight
people. .

They must do, because they told us they are just like us.

 

[Tisme]

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a party that expounds both social conservation and financial liberalism so I usually take pot luck or vote for independents.

One day my ideal Party may arise.

Corrected for my ideal.

 

[SirRumpole]

Corrected for my ideal.

Yes, I could go for that as well.