the postal vote/survey/plebisite

[Bruce]

I reckon its terrible that we are to be given a vote on something with as little consequence as same sex marriage when I REALLY want to have a vote on immigration numbers and also on paying the dole with a card instead of cash. ( the card could limit the amount of alcohol and drugs bought with taxpayers money).

 

Alas, no vote on these matters.. but wait, they could be added to the marriage vote with very little extra cost.

 

Here's why I reckon same-sex marriage is not such a big deal. The couple could have a ceremony where they signed wills, powers of attorney and guardianship to each other. They could do this now. Then have a reception.

 

Not that I will be voting against SSM , its just that there are more important things.

 

 

[octave]

since the sixties the homosexual percentage has risen dramatically

Has it? how would one intelligently and rationally know that there are actually more gay people or more people feeling that society has advanced to the stage where they can come out. Can you substantiate your claim that the number of people who are attracted the same sex has increased dramatically

 

Will lots of closet doors suddenly open after it's passed.

FFS you would rather people be desperately unhappy repressing who they really are???

 

My sister is in a same sex relationship, she has been gay all of her life. Something that has massively negatively affected her life is the fact that for most of it she has had to deny her sexuality. She is 60 years old and been with the same partner for 25 years, I am just wondering if her being able to marry would detract from your life at all?

 

I was told I'm indifferent & don't talk to them, but do they initiate a normal conversation with hetro's/

How do you know you don't talk to "them"? You probably interact with many gay people, you just don't know it.

 

Eric Abetz claimed that passing SSM would "open Pandora's box" if this were true wouldn't the intelligent argument to use be to highlight how terrible it has become in all those many countries that already allow SSM. If it will be soooo terrible, give me examples.

 

SSM will pass, either now or with a new government, In the future when we think back, those who opposed will be likened to those who opposed interracial marriage

 

 

[spacesailor]

Of course I talk to them!.

 

but on at lease two occasions I was nearly Kissed on the lips, Both were well known to me, but that's taking liberties, (Liberace he wasn't)

 

spacesailor[ATTACH]48900._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Marty_d]

Of course I talk to them!.but on at lease two occasions I was nearly Kissed on the lips, Both were well known to me, but that's taking liberties, (Liberace he wasn't)

 

spacesailor[ATTACH]2446[/ATTACH]

You must be a good looking bloke! (Unless this was in prison??)

 

 

[Bruce]

octave, I am really sorry that your sister has had such a hard time. Society was indeed cruel and it is good to see things changing.

 

We have an old school-friend who is a lesbian and quite open about it and everybody I know accepts it as normal.

 

 

[storchy neil]

take a look at Canada crap neil

 

 

[storchy neil]

google this thepublicdiscourse.com

 

the witherspoon institute public discourse warning from Canada same sex marriage erodes fundamental rights

 

 

[octave]

google this thepublicdiscourse.comthe witherspoon institute public discourse warning from Canada same sex marriage erodes fundamental rights

OK I read this article (unlike you with the links I post). I could spend far too much of my time refuting many of the points made, so I will confine myself to just a few.

 

Dawn Stefanowicz says this "

 

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

 

by Dawn Stefanowicz on April 24th, 2015

 

Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

 

Just my opinion but that statement sounds like hysterical nonsense.

 

The article mentions this - 'Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?"

 

This is a false dichotomy, these things are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest that both of these things are important and we do not have to sacrifice one in order to preserve the other. This argument could (falsely) used against many areas of extension of rights.

 

The article says this -"Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada"

 

Ah yes, the old cake makers argument. Personally, I am more than happy for a cake maker to deny a same-sex wedding cake or for an Islamic taxi driver to deny service to a blind person with a guide dog as long as they advertise it publicly beforehand and are happy for people to support or boycott their business and those grounds. Apart from that, I am sure you would understand.I will obviously support my gay sister and the friends I have who happen to be gay than the nations oppressed cake makers.

 

The notion presented in the article suggests that gay parents must be bad parents is interesting Firstly there is much research in this area that would contradict this assertion (beware of the article that sights only a few of the many studies) But the main point is that gay people have been raising children for many years in de facto relationships. Allowing gay marriage will have little effect on the numbers of children raised in gay families, if that is the concern then you would have to ban gay people from raising children.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well, I can think of quite a few hetero married couples who are totally unfit to raise children. Maybe the only answer to this is to bring back eugenics. Bring in a permit system to restrict breeding to people capable of demonstrating their ability to raise children in the "proper" manner.

 

Regardless of gender of the applicants

 

 

[Bruce]

But how could you trust those administering the scheme to be competent? Maybe they would stuff it up so badly that the wrong people got to do all the breeding and the good guys were castrated.

 

Something similar was argued about letting headmasters sack teachers at will. Well thinking back to my schooldays, most of those headmasters would have sacked the best teachers... it was the headmasters themselves who needed to be sacked.

 

 

[old man emu]

But how could you trust those administering the scheme to be competent?

Obviously it would be administered by social workers from Family and Community Services. You know, the socially in-tune people who look dress like the rest of us, like this:

 

 

The life cycle of the typical social worker:

 

 

OME

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

My reason for a no vote is that marriage has always in the past involved a man and a woman. I don't care in the least if two men or two women live together, but I do object to the meaning of words that have been in our vocabulary for as long as most people can remember being changed to suit political correctness.

I believe that for most folks in the western world, marriage had nothing to do with the church until recent centuries- the local priest might have been the only one literate enough to record their union. Over time the religious establishment progressively got their claws into too much of our way of life; we are now in the process of throwing off those shackles.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Wasn't it FRED (Niles) who got the boot,spacesailor

He's been there. I'm sure I saw a larger-than-life Fred Nile statue in a Madi Gras.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Just an effigy: He's not god!.

 

But why is Australia the only country in the world with a segregated Madi Gras.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

AND so it starts:

 

"Australia's Catholic church is threatening to fire teachers, nurses and other employees who marry their same-sex partner if gay marriage is legalised, in a dramatic move led by the country's most senior Catholic".

 

 

[Geoff13]

The Gay minority will probably not get my vote.

 

Not because I don't think it is time and there are far more important things our pollies should be doing,

 

But because of the negative and oft times abusive attitude to anyone who disagrees with them.

 

In most cases minority groups are fine with you having an opinion so long as it agrees with theirs, and anyone who disagrees is either a Bigot, a Homophobe, Racist or any of a dozen other terms trotted out when the have no other response.

 

 

[Marty_d]

AND so it starts:"Australia's Catholic church is threatening to fire teachers, nurses and other employees who marry their same-sex partner if gay marriage is legalised, in a dramatic move led by the country's most senior Catholic".

Wow, what a surprise.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Hi Geoff.

 

I just can't make up my mind, give them the what they want, but what will they winge about when the church doesn't marry them in a nice white wedding.

 

And will they let the rest of us join their MadiGrass.

 

And the church will sack their workers for "coming-out".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kgwilson]

Well, I can think of quite a few hetero married couples who are totally unfit to raise children. Maybe the only answer to this is to bring back eugenics. Bring in a permit system to restrict breeding to people capable of demonstrating their ability to raise children in the "proper" manner.

Regardless of gender of the applicants

Great idea. This should rule out all politicians, car salesmen and lawyers. Eventually this would result in a much more egalitarian society. There are a few others I could add to the mix as well.

 

 

[Marty_d]

So... under "reasons for not letting two people who share a loving and committed relationship, sometimes for decades, marry each other if they want to", we've got:

 

1) - it'll lead to polygamists and paedophiles wanting marriage equality

 

2) - the bakers and flower arrangers will be dragged to court when they refuse custom

 

3) - the population will plummet

 

4) - because they call us names when we don't agree with them.

 

Is that the best we can be?

 

Can I just point out a couple of things:

 

1) Polygamy, paedophilia, bestiality and whatever else you think it'll lead to, are illegal. Same sex relationships are not.

 

2) People getting married won't be going to judgemental service providers, they'll go to people they feel comfortable with.

 

3) Let's look at the logic here. So... a percentage of the population are currently not allowed to marry. This percentage of the population currently do not reproduce, because, well, they can't. But if we let them marry, then that same percentage of the population will suddenly not reproduce more than they didn't reproduce before, leading to a reduction in the population. Have I got it right?

 

4) Yep, seems perfectly fair to punish the entire cohort that want to marry, just because some activists might insult us. Hmmmmm.

 

Has ANYONE got a real reason? Love to hear it!

 

 

[Cosmick]

There is no reason to 'Vote No', except that you don't like the idea. "I'm going to stop people doing what I can do because they are different" If your that righteous than its not going to affect you anyway is it, well not until your loving grandchild or other progeny comes out of the closet. What right do we have to tell another person what they can and can't do simply cause we don't like it.

 

 

[old man emu]

Australia's Christian heritage comes basically from two places. Protestant from England and Catholic from Ireland.

 

In 2013 British parliament passed a law which would legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales the following year. In 2014 the Scottish parliament passed a similar bill.

 

It was 2015 that Ireland became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote. The majority Catholic country voted in support of same-sex marriage with a majority of 62 per cent.

 

Using the warped logic of this debate, it must be that those who oppose SSM must be either non-Anglo-Irish or atheists.

 

I suppose, too, that the failure of politicians to respect the opinion of the majority of the electorate shows that government by popularly elected persons is inherently flawed.

 

OME

 

 

[Yenn]

I still think No is the way for me.

 

For all my life I have known married couples and they were a man and a woman. they didn't go around saying look at us we are married, they just got on with life and lived together. maybe some didn't get on together or live together. Now I am asked to say yes to gay marriage, which to me is just changing the meaning of husband or wife. I have been happy knowing gay couples live together and also they can inherit and look after each other. It is all just a storm in a teacup, brought on by the media.

 

The best thing probably is to keep it going and let the media cackle away lije Joh's chooks for a bit longer.

 

In the meantime our pollies can't make decisions, unless they are to go to war against N. Korea fighting another lost cause for the Yanks.

 

 

[facthunter]

Having a simple majority doesn't give them the right to do whatever they like to the 49.999% (potentially) who voted the other way. Minorities always need protection (unless they have other powers, like religious alliances lots of money and force of arms). "Poofter bashing" was a manly sport not long ago. Women didn't get to vote either till not so long ago. If a woman teacher married she had to resign her job in NSW even in the late 50's

 

The "must produce children" argument . What do we then do with people who are infertile? The church regards good honest lust as no reason for copulating. You are only supposed have a relationship and to do that when you want babies. Well how far does THAT go in reality? Dare I mention churches who put celibate men in a power relationship with children, as well as other organisations who don't have the celibacy aspect. Which clearly have gone horribly wrong in any instances. No one wants to FORCE church people to perform religious ceremonies on people who offend against "their" concepts of godliness, but to not cater for, allow in a taxi, on a bus, in a hospital, in a shop. (where do you stop) to be part of your workforce is straight out discrimination and should be called out for what it is, same as treatment of women in some countries we are well aware of. MOST Religions are PATRIARCHAL Funny that. Many societies are, Clubs, Businesses. Tony Abbott was the minister for WOMEN's affairs in a cabinet with hardly any women in it. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

In some places we are definitely going backwards. Lately in the USA many Republicans have opposed marriage of their children to Democrats. One Trump family person said openly, He regarded people who didn't vote for Trump as " NOT HUMAN".

 

Re the MAN/ WOMAN requirement in the marriage act, that's one of HOWARD's edicts. That requirement was inserted in the last 20 years. Prior to that it was "TWO persons". Nev