Carlton Supporters Club

I can't even begin to show my disgust with what is happening in this country/world.

There was something on sunrise about whether Father's Day should be special persons day.
F@rk off with all the bullsh1t.

I am completely sick of the crap spewed up.
I don't even celebrate days like Father's Day anyway, as the kids know I am not into designated days for stuff like that.
But seriously... Why would someone remove a day that celebrates Dads or Mums and change it to some whitewashed version?

Why would an ad be pulled that shows a song I used to sing my kids to sleep with when they were babies?

The PC world can honestly fark off.


And this is me not starting  ;D :o

Sorry, this crap annoys me so bloody much

Wouldn't we be more inclusive of them if the lbgti community simply just stopped segregation and identity by group but rather by person?

The equality debate is one that annoys me.

People don't get equal treatment on any level and that includes gender.  Not all guys are part of that distinguished boys club that get all the benefits.

We won't get equality by ensuring everyone is represented equally.  We get equality by seeing people rather than what subset they belong to and give everyone equal opportunity.

I think in terms of the discussion at hand, what the LGBT community want is marriage equality, not "overall equality". Also, they weren't the ones that pulled the ad, or demanded that it be pulled. Although reading that article it seems as though that Dads4Kids and the LGBT community have issues with each other in the past. If you read the article, Dads4Kids are not as innocent as they make out.

Gender disorientation pathology anyone ?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

My point is coming from a place where I see a Carlton lbgti supporters group created, and wonder why in 2017 is this necessary??

You wear navy and irrespective of whether you like Arthur or Martha you are a Carlton supporter and part of that group.

The point being that people are accepted for who they are, not whom they screw.

It's a social group. Necessary doesn't come into it. People intersect, interact, and bond with each other for many different reasons and interests, and this applies particularly to minority groups. On one level, I could be part of a larger group because we support the same team - I could form a subgroup within that larger group for CFC supporters who are Brad Pitt lookalikes. Why ? Because I can, and because I want to, and because others want to as well. I could be part of my local residents action group, many of whom may hate football, or be Bomber of Pies supporters, but we're united on a particular cause, yet we can still retain our previous likes, dislikes, biases etc.

We have had in the past the Wog AFL team of the century, the Italian team of the century, Greek team of the century etc. Why ? Are they not all AFL/VFL footballers ? I'd say because the Italians who support AFL want to have a little fun. I don't poo poo a particular player because they're not Italian. Many things can coexist quite happily and quite easily, even though they may seem pointless, contradictory, or counterproductive.

Anyhoo, as to the Ad itself, it's not a great ad. That Dads4kids group and the LGBT community clearly don't like each other, and the Dads4kids group made a submission to the government in 2014 which contains dubious ideas from the 1950's. Clearly a group to keep an eye on.

Sure I respect all of that, but isn't this an example of accusing people of not being inclusive and then deliberately excluding yourself?

I don't think there is a Carlton Greek supporters club, or an Italian Carlton supporters club et Al for arguments sake.

Fwiw my argument comes from a place of acceptance not bigotry which is why I'm raising these questions.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

My point is coming from a place where I see a Carlton lbgti supporters group created, and wonder why in 2017 is this necessary??

You wear navy and irrespective of whether you like Arthur or Martha you are a Carlton supporter and part of that group.

The point being that people are accepted for who they are, not whom they screw.

And while I'm here, happy Fathers day to all the dads out there. I hope you all have a fab day.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/companies/not-everything-is-about-samesex-marriage-fathers-day-ad-deemed-too-political-for-tv/news-story/08f5f7bea0357def1bea39858fe70dbd

What is going on in this country?

Reckon it is fair enough - this isn't a "community service announcement", in light of the SSM debate we should have this sort of rubbish clearly identified. That goes for both sides.

Doesn't matter that they have run it for 15 years, the SSM debate has seen it have more scrutiny and it doesn't pass muster - they need to identify it for what it is. That's all they have been asked to do.

As a Dad I don't need this sort of sh1t on TV today anyway.

It may be crap for you, what those that its not?

So I wonder how much more of this if every father said.

Actually we DON'T WANT a Father's Day.
We will encourage our children to not shop for us on this day and ask them to show their respect for us as their 'Special Person' by not spending a cent.

I wonder then how much traction this gets.
I don't celebrate as I have said, but I hear a lot of ads telling consumers to buy dad this gift on Father's Day.

Imagine the next step is a complete boycott of Christmas. Another day that people (kids) are made to feel bad about celebrating that happens to hold up the retail economy.

I still to earlier, those people that want to change this country should move to a country where they don't celebrate the days we do here. I am fairly sure they will not be missed

What a minefield.

The way I read the decision is that due to the dads4kids organisation having dodgy motives, their ad was dumped. Seems to me that this organisation is a fundamentalist christian group/cult that is opportunistically attempting to subtly skew public opinion to fathers and mothers and not father and fathers - a political comment in disguise.

I don't see any PC stuff here, just a pack of extremists with a homophobic agenda (in disguise) being told to FO.

Fathers Day must and will remain, regardless of the sexual orientation of the bloke. Plenty of ripper straight and gay dads about the place and, sadly, there are straight and gay c0ckheads as fathers also.

What a minefield.

The way I read the decision is that due to the dads4kids organisation having dodgy motives, their ad was dumped. Seems to me that this organisation is a fundamentalist christian group/cult that is opportunistically attempting to subtly skew public opinion to fathers and mothers and not father and fathers - a political comment in disguise.

I don't see any PC stuff here, just a pack of extremists with a homophobic agenda (in disguise) being told to FO.

Fathers Day must and will remain, regardless of the sexual orientation of the bloke. Plenty of ripper straight and gay dads about the place and, sadly, there are straight and gay c0ckheads as fathers also.

Should we consider moving it to a different date?

Irrespective of why they did it, odds are the ads being pulled scored more points for the no vote than it did for the yes vote, and had it gone to air, no one would have batted an eyelid.

Other than that, I hope they get this bill passed and we can move on, because if its no this time, it will not dissapear, this debate will rage for the next 100 years until there is a yes vote irrespective of what the public want, which is why personally the people Im most angry about are our government.

Wasting billions on a vote, that is frankly not necessary.  Allow them to marry and lets get on with it.  Everyone moans about lack of leadership, but fork me did our government have simply run away from this contest.

26 January perhaps?

Thry I was going to say this when the LBGTI Supporters group post was made but feared the backlash by people who took it the wrong way. IMO, creating such a separate group is actually anti logic and creates further division which should simply not exist. Happy for someone to explain why it would not. AFAIC, we are all one people not matter what race, religion, sexual orientation etc. I just dont get why in 2017, people just dont get it. Whats important is peace, love and respect for one another.

As for the fathers day add banning, these PC kents can GAGF as it has gotten beyond the joke.

Very sensible NM. Nice post.

yes, agree. Gutless non existent leadership.

yes, agree. Gutless non existent leadership.

They're all spineless.

Get paid a lot of money to posture about things and then whittle away our tax dollars on crap.

We could have rolled this plebiscite into the next election at a discount if they were so hell bent on showing how weak they are.

I'm their leader - I must follow them.

But in this case, the idea isn't that the Coalition wants to follow the people; the idea is to frustrate the will of the clear majority of the electorate which supports a same-sex marriage amendment.

.........................

I was indifferent to the whole idea, I don't see how a piece of paper matters so much that we can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on such an issue. This isn't like the right to vote!

Especially when the country has so many other more important issues that could be easily addressed with that money.
........................

Do you blame them for going out of their way to attack people for their views or beliefs?
Isn't that exactly the thing we should be fighting against?

Getting the sh1ts doesn't allow for people to be ar$eholes.

I am sticking by not voting for all the reasons outline Paul and the moment I thought it was
A) Binding
B) Done without prejudice for or against peoples right to vote based on their own guidelines.

Then I would vote yes.

There are no excuses for physical or verbal abuse.

Two wrongs do not make a right, leave that to the anarchists!

Good lord. Somebody called somebody else a bad name. The Constitution is collapsing.

The conservative lobby hold most of the power. The playing field is not level at all. But sure, let's "debate" this topic for another 100 years. We don't want to rush any decisions.

Yes they did, it's called bullying, and the very side doing the name calling claims they are victims of it!

There is an old, a very old saying; "The smeller is the fella!"

Paul

On neither side is bullying an okay practise and I agree that those fed up have often been bullied along the process, but you can't take that out on someone expressing an opinion.

Their is a platform to try and facilitate change and it can be done respectfully by all parties.
Otherwise people are going to get their backs up.

If this is handled correctly the change will occur (I think it will regardless), but there is absolutely no excuse for bullying at all.

There's no excuse for it, but i can understand why it happens. And tbh, I empathize with them.

I understand why it happens also, but I don't respect or empathise.
A cause starts to lose people once it loses moral high ground and attacking people and their livelihood was enough to do it for me

Well hopefully they win the vote and they can stop hijacking Father's day and my Facebook page.

Your FB page must be quite something.

Paul
Not all groups are represented equally and they won't whilst the distribution in the population isn't equal.
But here is the thing, all polls point to most Australian's agreeing with the cause, but like every cause, it has to follow process.

It doesn't matter if it was equal or not equal.
Because people have been bullied in the past (or now) it doesn't excuse passing that to another person.
As for the 'fight' being fair. You are right, it isn't, but not in the way you are stressing.

It isn't poo pooing as you call it over name calling. It is bullying and it is specifically trying to impact peoples lives for their views. A gay couple apparently come out against gay marriage and was apparently hounded with calls of being homophobic etc.
What if it was to turn into a slanging match on both sides? There is nothing dignified and respectful about that.

Nothing can be said that justifies the attacks on people for their views. It is unnecessary and ridiculous.

Sorry not my page, my news feed.

+1 its irritating me to the point of madness.

The other thing that is irritating me, is the fact that the "no" vote boosters are getting no right to campaign (I don't care what basis is used to justify that, its wrong).

You can't have a proper election by silencing one side so why would this apply in a discussion which is ironically promoting marriage equality?

It seems to have missed the point somewhat and the meaning of the word.

I doubt there are any genuine, legal or other impediments stopping the no voters from campaigning. They probably realize they need to operate by subterfuge because their position is untenable nonsense.

Is it though?

Should I just believe you because you are telling me it is?

I dont like being told what to believe.

It reminds me of living in a fascist dictatorship.

Can I assume that as a self declared practicing Christian, you'll be voting no, assuming you do indeed vote ?

You are on a slippery slope PaulP, why introduce religion?

Thry has the right to hold any religion and belief he likes as long as it operates within the laws of the land, and nobody better than yourself should know that!

All you need to go over the edge is introduce racism!

It's a very simple question - I have no power over Thry or anyone else on these forums - if he declines to answer, that's ok by me.

You ask that question with motive.

It's not a relevant because as you know there are people on both sides of the argument in every valid religion.

Not sure why this was put to a vote when they should have just implemented it and then on the other hand we have disgraceful councils scrapping Australia Day off their own bat.

Can I assume that as a self declared practicing Christian, you'll be voting no, assuming you do indeed vote ?

Thry, that's a pretty impressive and heartfelt post. Thanks for replying.

No worries.

As you can see, I seek only to understand with my questions.

And plus, as Jerry Seinfeld put it, "You have no idea how your life is gonna improve as a result of this. Food tastes better. The air seems fresher. You'll have more energy and self confidence than you ever dreamed of."

Nothing can be said that justifies the attacks on people for their views. It is unnecessary and ridiculous.

My main reason for not voting Kruddler is the personal attacks on people for their views and as for question time. I see that as an 'arena' and those that enter politics too, they go their to fight it out and to attack and defend.

I see that as far different to attacking anyone with a different opinion.
Oh and even though the draw away from the "Yes" vote is quite strong because of my perception for the way it is playing out. I would never vote against to be spiteful, so the best way to 'voice' my opinion is to not take part

I won't go into how often I do or do not vote, but yes I have been fined for not voting before, because I won't vote unless I feel there is a genuine reason for me to.

I straw polled my own children today, 1 was for, 1 was against.. Both are teenage boys. I certainly didn't feel the need to pull the one who was against aside and tell them that they were wrong for thinking so. I let them have their opinions.
That is all that I wish was happening across the spectrum.

TBH Krud, I can't really see any negative, as long as it doesn't then become a situation where a religion is challenged for refusing to marry a couple because it is against their beliefs or the likes (that has to be considered a legitimate possibility), then that is fine. I don't think most people care if a couple same sex or heterosexual are married or not and I can't see how it will have any significant impact on society at all. Positive or Negative (and I think the same about hetero sexual marriage also).

I heard Magda Szubanski speak on the subject on The Project. She told a story of how a friend of hers was denied access to their dying partner in hospital because it was "next of kin only". This story resinated with me more than any argument I have heard on the SSM debate. Explain to me how this situation could be deemed acceptable.

Curious as to what the 'no supporter' used to back up his opinion.

I suspect as a teenage boy he isn't yet ready to embrace the idea. At 15 I would not have been either.
If you had asked a 15 year old me, I would have firmly been in the no camp, I know I would.
I think a lot of teenage boys are still 'against' homosexuality no matter what we teach them.
I found homosexuality something strange and not something that I was exposed to at all.

I believe the 'no supporter' as put would likely turn their views around, but I will let him come to the conclusion in his own time.
Of course that wouldn't be the case if he was hateful in his opinion.

As I have said I am happy to let both my children form their opinions (as long as they are also respectful of others) and feel free to talk through them without me picking them apart.

I heard Magda Szubanski speak on the subject on The Project. She told a story of how a friend of hers was denied access to their dying partner in hospital because it was "next of kin only". This story resinated with me more than any argument I have heard on the SSM debate. Explain to me how this situation could be deemed acceptable.

I suspect as a teenage boy he isn't yet ready to embrace the idea. At 15 I would not have been either.
If you had asked a 15 year old me, I would have firmly been in the no camp, I know I would.
I think a lot of teenage boys are still 'against' homosexuality no matter what we teach them.
I found homosexuality something strange and not something that I was exposed to at all.

I believe the 'no supporter' as put would likely turn their views around, but I will let him come to the conclusion in his own time.
Of course that wouldn't be the case if he was hateful in his opinion.

As I have said I am happy to let both my children form their opinions (as long as they are also respectful of others) and feel free to talk through them without me picking them apart.

My son is also 15, he would vote yes. I just asked him.

I reckon as a 'group' 15yo's may think that way, but generally as individuals they wouldn't have anything against it. Personally, i know that i wouldn't have had a problem with it at that age as my cousin (who i looked up to and is part of the reason i'm a blues fan) had a best friend who was gay at that very age and i was fine with him.
Incidentally, i knew instantly that he was gay, despite being 15 at the time and it never crossed my mind to say anything about it to him. I found out almost a decade later that he 'came out' to my cousin who was absolutely shocked. I reckon i was more shocked that he was shocked! 

BTW, i'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong. Hell, try telling a 15yo me what to do and i'll do the opposite.
Just trying to work out what kind of reasoning he may have used.

All of this because of a (lack of) piece of paper.

I suspect as a teenage boy he isn't yet ready to embrace the idea. At 15 I would not have been either.
If you had asked a 15 year old me, I would have firmly been in the no camp, I know I would.
I think a lot of teenage boys are still 'against' homosexuality no matter what we teach them.
I found homosexuality something strange and not something that I was exposed to at all.

I believe the 'no supporter' as put would likely turn their views around, but I will let him come to the conclusion in his own time.
Of course that wouldn't be the case if he was hateful in his opinion.

As I have said I am happy to let both my children form their opinions (as long as they are also respectful of others) and feel free to talk through them without me picking them apart.

In your opinion.  Others hold the opposing view.  Does that make either party wrong- a terrorist is a freedom fighter viewed from the other side.

Any chance we can get back to discussing football, sick of hearing about this quite frankly.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

Yes well, in respect of your first sentence, the fact that it may not be real for most folks is in itself part of the problem. I thought as a scholarly summation it was very good, and well worth knowing and reading.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, except it sounds a bit alarmist to me. The thin end of the wedge is the same logical fallacy that is always used in situations like this. No doubt there were some in the past who thought giving any rights to indigenous people meant that we would all end up in loincloths, carrying spears, and eating worms.

Not all gay people want kids, and those that do are mostly just normal folks who will in all likelihood choose conventional methods.

You're going off on a tangent, LP.  That's an argument about the ethics of cloning, IVF, and research into reproductive techniques.

Clearly, I must live in some kind of Paully bubble, because I'm amazed that voters actually need to be turned. There seems so little in the way of proven adverse consequences to gay marriage, I'm scratching my head as to what there is to think about.

Yes, but for much of the population none of that is real.

However, playing the devil's advocate, having listened to some of my old associates. Genetics and nature is very real, and the rules apply to every mammal, there is absolutely no natural way interaction between two same sex mammals can result in offspring.

For some the same sex marriage vote is viewed as the thin end of the wedge, primarily because they are already aware of scientific research that allows an ovum to be fertilized by a partners skin cells creating a baby with genetics from two females. The research is being undertaken under the guise of allowing infertile men to have genetic offspring, but the sex of the DNA donor is irrelevant, and allegedly the major organisation funding the research is basically a LGBTI political think-tank sponsored by some rather wealthy LGBTI patrons.

Even worse for the rest of us, well the famous and wealthy anyway not so much me, in the US there have already been concerns raised about the technique because it appears that DNA coming from incidental contact could be recovered and used to fertilise an ovum. There is already allegedly a bank of genetic material being illegally compiled, stuff like celebrity hair or nail clippings, glasses, coffee cups, door handles even!

I don't know if any of this is as real as it is implied, but it's fears along those lines that have some people looking to vote "No" as some sort of tipping point.

Reality is far stranger than fiction! :o

PaulP, you don't have to turn voters and in general you cannot turn most decisive voters, you have to convince swinging voters, again no pun intended!

Any negativity, mistrust or tension that exists will force swinging voters to favor the status quo. It's the very same mechanism incumbents use to retain power when a war breaks out, or when some children get thrown overboard.

When under duress, perceived or real duress or threats, voters and society will reject change. It's the old "It's not a good time to be trying something new" argument, and it works!

If the Yes lobby keep coming across as bullies they will lose, Abbott knows the louder and more aggressive the Yes lobby get the less the chance of their Yes success. He will be doing his very best to calm and quiet the far right No crowd. Abbott would have been alarmed about that recent Father's Day Ad, he doesn't want the right to be perceived as bullies, he wants the status quo to seem safe.

Yet even if the right do bully, the Yes lobby cannot win by pointing the finger at the far right and calling them bullies, that is perceived as bullying and will lose the swinging voters.

Ever read Roald Dahl's "My Uncle Oswald" LP?

That's all well and good, but I'm still flummoxed as to why they need are on the fence. What is there to think about ?

Risk PaulP, some people think any change is risky, while some people think not changing is the bigger risk!

You find the exact same scenario in the climate change debate, it has nothing to do with the actual issue under debate, and everything to do with human nature.

If you think their indecisiveness is offensive, and you get aggressive about it while arguing the case, you will reinforce their personal beliefs and they will vote exactly the way that makes them feel safe. Which more often than not is to retain the status quo!

Most people live obliviously, they want the path of least stress.

btw., It is a false sense of security they have, that the status quo is safe, but it's very real to them!

No I can't say I have, but I've have seen references to it in blogs about DNA theft.

I gather it has some relevance?

Clearly, I must live in some kind of Paully bubble, because I'm amazed that voters actually need to be turned. There seems so little in the way of proven adverse consequences to gay marriage, I'm scratching my head as to what there is to think about.

I was watching The Project last night and Waleed won't speak on the issue.

There's not much to say, or maybe he doesn't want to be perceived as a bully.

To be fair , his Muslim faith is clear on its views so there isnt much to explain....

To be fair , his Muslim faith is clear on its views so there isnt much to explain....

Your post prompted me to have a quick look on google, but I can't find anything where he specifically states his own personal support for gay marriage. He may or may not support it, but I found nothing.

I've never watched even a second of The Project, but I'm guessing that he is a more progressive or moderate Muslim. Either way, it matters not.

I'm interested more to see if he would vote at all....would Muslims and other religions for that matter recognize the question/document presented to them
and abstain as it goes against their core beliefs/teachings? Would that actually help the Yes vote?

I don't know Elwood. It would only help the yes vote if the abstainers intend to vote no.

Religious people take different things from their chosen religion. He doesn't come across as hard core to me, but then, as I stated, I don't watch him. He certainly took Margaret Court to task for her views on gay marriage, but never really gave away his own feelings.

He's not as moderate as he let's on.

I'm hoping he gets found out one day.

He's not as moderate as he let's on.

I'm hoping he gets found out one day.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/its-not-okay-to-be-homophobic-canberra-contractor-sacked-for-vote-no-facebook-post/news-story/26c5289ba4415f4b2531baa181d410b8

Sacked for voting no, this is exactly why Donald Trump is the leader of the free world and Pauline Hanson gets more powerful every year.

People are sick of the bullying left.

.... I say that this issue is a basic human right and should not be a matter of debate.

...but haven't the government created this problem themselves by holding the plebiscite in the first place.

This issue and others that will surface in coming weeks and months are the very reason why so many opposed the vote.

The gutless politicians have chosen an anarchist path in preference to leading!

If this vote is close either way, things will get very bad!

I'm assuming that the figures will be released. I'm expecting a 90% vote for yes. Although, it is a little hard to predict what some of our northerners who vote for Pauline and co will do.

I think it's highly unlikely that the vote will be as definitive as you think, in the political circles the scuttlebutt is that it's going to be line-ball!

In the political circles, they mix with political types. Have the been polling their individual electorates? Or just their mates?
I suspect the largely rich white folk who are in politics would be very split on who to vote.
However, there are not many average citizens that i know who would even entertain the thought of a no vote. These are the same people that politicians overlook.

I can honestly say that i have not met one single person who has said they are 'no' voters. Nobody in my (extended) family, no matter if they be 18 (cousin) or 80 (grandfather) or anywhere inbetween are voting no. Nor any of my circle of friends, colleagues or acquaintances.
However, all throughout facebook and the like there are countless yes voters. Rainbow flags are up in business windows, and even some houses.

As i said, i cannot predict what the northern states are going to do, but unless there is a hidden state of no-voters out there i can't understand how it would even come close to 50-50

My experience is similar to yours Kruddler although one Christian friend is probably going to tick the 'no' box.

I can honestly say that i have not met one single person who has said they are 'no' voters.

I suspect the largely rich white folk who are in politics would be very split on how to vote.

I think it's a little ironic for you to apply those stereotypes, I suspect that is exactly what Abbott's right leaning conservatives want you to do very publicly!

Regardless I'm happy to be proven wrong!

Well my reason for doing so is because they would be the type of people (like Abbott) that I have very little dealings with personally. More traditionalists who are set in their ways.

It might be worth noting that, at least in my experiences, religion is becoming less a part of younger peoples lives nowadays. That is, less religious people around now than say 20-30 years ago. I think the recent census backs that up.

FYI I know a lot of no voters and yes voters, and most of the no voters have scattergun arguments.

What about Waleed Aly, how will he vote, is he your traditionalist?

Does age have anything to do with it?

27% of the population are over 55, almost 50% are over 40.

Only 30% of the census population stated no religion.

I can see you feel optimistic on this issue, but history and analysis suggest this issue is even less clear than proposed euthanasia bills which are regularly a 60/40 debate!

I'd be curious to know what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the same sex mob were the majority, and the heterosexual minority were not allowed to marry, and they used exactly the same arguments against us.

I'd be curious to know what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the same sex mob were the majority, and the heterosexual minority were not allowed to marry, and they used exactly the same arguments against us.

Never have been married, have no plans to be married, girl was married and divorced before we met.

It's all an expensive charade, and a hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on a meaningless piece of paper.

Remember when everyone thought that Donald Trump would never be president?

Guess again everyone.

FYI I know a lot of no voters and yes voters, and most of the no voters have scattergun arguments.

Paul
My example isn't one that I or anyone I know I think would ever support
But you see I can openly say that is where I draw the line personally on why I consider acceptable vs not acceptable.

That means I am potentially drawing a line that impacts people personal relationship. Also remember much like in the SSM debate, I am talking purely consenting adults.

So if I or others find it acceptable to draw that condemnation of a consensual relationship. Don't others have the right, especially when backed by current law and the environment they have grown up in, to determine what they do or do not support?

It is purely a devils advocate scenario.
But it shows there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy.

What about one a little less distasteful... polygamy.
Arent those wanting to marry multiple partners restricted by laws passed making a moral judgement on their non traditional relationship?
I wonder what the vote would be there?
Regardless I am fairly sure it would not be 100% in favour

@MIO...

Been waiting for that argument to be raised.

I wouldn't have chosen incest exactly, perhaps multiple wives. I noticed you later included the term adult in there....that crosses off another alternative. All of which are 'right' and 'wrong' depending, basically, on which country you grew up in.

Its a valid argument on each individual basis. Like you said though, it should not be used as scaremongering tactics because one does not lead to the other.

In regards to the human rights issue...
In this country what is being proposed is an extension of what is currently legal.
All other connotations are not.

I think that is the major difference.

In other countries it might be different, but we have no say in that.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a few more wives, and despite requesting a harem for my last few birthdays, my wife keeps saying no.........

I could see a case being made for such a relationship between consenting adults, but not without an enormous amount of debate, information etc. beforehand. Nowhere near as straight forward.

So Paul.

That is EXACTLY The point.
People have to be allowed to debate, learn more information etc beforehand.
You say that the current situation is more straight forward (and I agree), however is that not just because we have lived in a situation where we have become more accustomed?
If we have the right to debate one non-traditional marriage, doesn't the country therefore have the right to debate another?
If only to help confirm that the world won't end?

The debate needs to be initiated by those who want that type of relationship. If they believe they have a case, I'd really like to hear it, to start the process. The process won't get started by straight couples, or gay couples, or anyone else.

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

Isn't that what is being demanded, is there irony in aggressively touting people to be respectfully attentive to someone desires?

Yeah right. People voting no are not in any way influenced by religion, family, decades of indoctrination etc. It's all down to some loony in a rainbow onesie in a car park.

Penny Wong has been on Q+A about a dozen times over the last decade, each time debating exactly the same points, giving the same facts, the same answers, each time to a newly minted conservative, expressing exactly the same views, opinions etc. Rather tiring wouldn't you say ? At the same time, mental health issues and suicide attempts have spiked in the wake of the plebiscite.

Meanwhile, Abbott has declared climate change to be a third order issue, and has threatened to cross the floor if the government introduces clean energy targets.

But no matter what happens, we must at all times tip toe through the tulips very quietly, very daintily, very respectfully, and most of all, very slowly. Never must we even attempt to rush anyone, or say anything that may even slightly upset the apple cart. We must hear everyone's opinion, then debate, the hear those opinions again, then rinse and repeat. And proceed slowly at all costs. There is much thinking to do. Apparently several decades of climate science and several decades of gay equality isn't enough. there is still much thinking and much debating and much respecting of one anther's opinions, still to occur.

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

Could you imagine if that young girl was fired for voting "Yes"?

Yeah right. People voting no are not in any way influenced by religion, family, decades of indoctrination etc. It's all down to some loony in a rainbow onesie in a car park.

Penny Wong has been on Q+A about a dozen times over the last decade, each time debating exactly the same points, giving the same facts, the same answers, each time to a newly minted conservative, expressing exactly the same views, opinions etc. Rather tiring wouldn't you say ? At the same time, mental health issues and suicide attempts have spiked in the wake of the plebiscite.

Meanwhile, Abbott has declared climate change to be a third order issue, and has threatened to cross the floor if the government introduces clean energy targets.

But no matter what happens, we must at all times tip toe through the tulips very quietly, very daintily, very respectfully, and most of all, very slowly. Never must we even attempt to rush anyone, or say anything that may even slightly upset the apple cart. We must hear everyone's opinion, then debate, the hear those opinions again, then rinse and repeat. And proceed slowly at all costs. There is much thinking to do. Apparently several decades of climate science and several decades of gay equality isn't enough. there is still much thinking and much debating and much respecting of one anther's opinions, still to occur.

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

There is one part of the equation that I think is missing in the SSM debate.

The definition of marriage can be very different for many people.

A lot of no people seem to view marriage as being one thing, and this attempt to create equality regarding marriage meaning that the fabric of what people believe about marriage is being attacked/changed.  Now whether or not it needs to change is a different debate, but in an effort to appease these people, shouldn't we label it something other than Marriage, apply the same rights, such as a civil union, rather than marriage, and then move on with our lives??

THE Carlton Football Club prides itself on being inclusive, and a leader in engendering equality and a deep sense of belonging.

The issue of 'same sex marriage' is essentially one of equality; and so the Club encourages all of its people to have their say in this important national vote.

As a Club, we respect that this is about personal choice, and as such don't intend to campaign on the issue, but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination.

It will happen. Catholic school teachers for e.g. are being told to be careful with what they put on social medial about the SSM debate.

My son and his girlfriend are both non Catholic primary teachers in the Catholic school system and am happy to report
both have said there has been no direction on how to vote or debate on the issue.

I can't agree with that Thry.  Marriage is defined in law and that legal definition is all that will change.  People's beliefs about marriage need not change at all.

A person I know very intimately and shall remain nameless was told be their principle what I typed above and that it was a memo from the CEO.

Jamison, who left the club at the end of last season after 150 matches, suggested it wasn't good enough.

"You can fence sit when you are debating whether to have a twilight grand final not when it comes to equality," he wrote on Twitter.

Carlton AFLW star Darcy Vescio has also been a prominent campaigner for same-sex marriage.

Good statement from the club, no need to join the bullying campaign.

Sure, but that's not the point I am making DJC.

What we think about someone else's idea of anything is quite irrelevant (Ironically what we are being asked to vote on is somewhat the same).

The fact is, that some people really cherish and treasure what it might mean to them, and they might see the idea of Marriage being redefined by this action devalued accordingly (which I don't quite understand, because my relationship with my wife will not change as a result of this vote irrespective of legislation changing regarding it).

It's a little bit like ideological change.  You can't push it on people, and then wonder why they get upset about it, and on top of that label them facsist nazi bigots to go with it.

Again, fight this stuff with facts and debate, not a sacking on the back of saying, it is ok to vote no or coersion.

My point is that marriage isn't going to be re-defined if the 'yes' vote gets up and parliament passes legislation.  All that will do is to take things back to how they were before Little Johnny Howard re-defined marriage to suit his values in 2004.  That was done immediately after the UK Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.  Of course, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was replaced by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.  It's ironic that our society is more conservative than the 'whinging Poms' we like to deride.

I usually have the ABC radio on when I'm in my workshop and I hear all sorts of people trying to justify their position on marriage equality.  It's not really a debate; one side argues for equality, the other side talks about the evils of the Safe Schools Program or tries to invent a biblical prohibition on same-sex marriage.  One f-wit went so far as to suggest that Hitler did the right thing when he sent homosexuals to concentration camps  :o

I grew up in an era in which homosexuals were vilified and 'poofter bashing' was an accepted form of amusement.  My views have changed and I have LGBTIQ friends and family members who are no threat to me and my way of life.  I can't say that about the religious right and their intolerance of anything that doesn't conform to their narrow view of the world.

I have watched Penny Wong debate Cory Bernardi and cringed at his despicable insinuation that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality.  I also heard on the news today that a man was convicted of marrying a 14 year old girl despite welfare officers telling him, the child and the child's mother that it would be illegal.  The faith of those involved wasn't disclosed but I think that I am confident in believing that it is one that is opposed to same-sex marriage.

And what about the young couple whose marriage in a Presbyterian church was cancelled because the bride to be posted something in favour of marriage equality on Facebook?  How dare that so-called minister destroy the hopes of a faithful young couple because their views are more progressive than his warped sense of what is right?

I think that people have every right to debate this issue; but with facts, not bigoted, sectarian tripe  >:(

missed the point I was trying to make entirely.

I can't communicate it well enough.

The bullying left are already attacking Carlton for fence sitting.

The bullying left are already attacking Carlton for fence sitting.

Thank God the right doesn't bully.  They just stand up for Christian values and defend their cultural heritage.  It's not their fault if people who try to move Australia out of the 1950s get hurt in the process.

As for fence-sitting, that's as strong an endorsement for a 'yes' vote as you can have without actually coming out and saying "vote 'yes'". 

A disgruntled AFL fan has written a scathing letter to the Carlton Football Club saying she will cancel her membership after the release of the club's stance on same-sex marriage.

The Blues released a statement on Twitter on Wednesday that failed to endorse the yes campaign on marriage equality, as Australians vote in a nation-wide postal survey on the issue.

The controversial stance has already been met by a flood of backlash with AFL fans taking to social media to dub it "weak", "hollow" and "disappointing" while others labelled it an attack on equality and human rights.

The AFL has backed the 'yes' campaign as have Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Collingwood in the past fortnight, joining long-term campaigners Sydney and St Kilda - who pioneered the annual pride game - on the issue.

Lifelong Carlton supporter Rebecca Hanley said she had been a paid-up member of the club since 2004, but she vowed this year would be her last and she would be terminating her membership.

"I'm a lifelong Carlton supporter and have been a Carlton member for 13 consecutive years," Ms Hanley wrote in a letter sent to  Fairfax Media.

"I will not be renewing my Carlton membership in 2018 or future years due to the club's public statement on same-sex marriage.

"To call Carlton a 'leader in engendering equality' was a hollow statement in light of the lack of action on this important social issue.

"Now is the time to stand up. Now is the time to speak out."

In a short statement, the Blues declared themselves to be a "leader in engendering equality", but fell short of recommending a yes vote.

"The issue of 'same-sex marriage' is essentially one of equality and so the club encourages all of its people to have their say in this important national vote," it stated.

"As a club, we respect that this is about personal choice, and as such don't intend to campaign on the issue, but we do strongly reinforce our club's absolute commitment to equality – and a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

Ms Hanley, from Rathscar in central Victoria, told Fairfax Media that she would remain a Carlton supporter - like her father before her and her daughter after - but could no longer in good conscience contribute financially to the club.

She said she was shocked and disappointed with her beloved team's statement, which "wouldn't have satisfied anyone really, yes or no voters".

Other Carlton fans said the club had lost their loyalty and they were "embarrassed and shocked" by their stance.

"This is terrible," one fan posted on Twitter. "I am never supporting Carlton again."

Another Carlton fan, Michael Wilkinson, accused the club of being backward in its attitude to same-sex marriage when compared to other AFL clubs.

"The most disappointed I have ever been as a Carlton supporter," he tweeted. "Such a poor statement while other clubs and the AFL are getting it so right."

Former Carlton defender Michael Jamison has also hit out at his former club over the statement.

Jamison, who left the club at the end of last season after 150 matches, suggested it wasn't good enough.

"You can fence sit when you are debating whether to have a twilight grand final not when it comes to equality," he wrote on Twitter.

Headline on Sunrise, carlton refuse to support same sex marriage.

Do not try and end the bullying, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no bullying. Then you'll see that it is not the bullying that ends, it is only your choice.

Pedantic perhaps, but it's not a plebiscite.  The Government's plebiscite bill was rejected in the Senate.

The exercise underway now is an $122M opinion poll conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

What was wrong with Carlton's statement?

Our club's position is the same as the AFL's except we're not forcing it on anyone.

Somehow it is being twisted into Carlton doesn't support equality.

What was wrong with Carlton's statement?

Our club's position is the same as the AFL's except we're not forcing it on anyone.

Somehow it is being twisted into Carlton doesn't support equality.

To be honest, there is NOTHING wrong with Carlton's statement. We simply are NOT pushing someone else's bandwagon, but giving our people the choice they should have.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-would-prevent-3000-teen-suicide-attempts-a-year-say-health-groups-20170920-gyl2hf.html

Whatever the "bullying left" does, they must not be seen to be giving the no voters a bit of a nudge,  a few gentle words of encouragement, to get them to think that a yes vote may actually make a meaningful difference to young people's lives. No siree, we must just sit back, and let the tragedy unfold before our very eyes. Because we mustn't tell anyone that they may actually be wrong, or making a very poor judgment. Tut, tut. We don't want to upset anyone, or be perceived as patronizing, or god forbid, paternalistic. It's all about my feelings, my opinions, my rights.

As I have learned many times over the journey, sometimes my feelings, opinions and beliefs may actually be wrong, or may have been right at one time, but not in the present.

Most of those teen suicides are caused by bullying!

How does a marriage certificate stop that, kids don't give a stuff about marriage it's a dying institution?

It's a public acknowledgement that it's ok to be gay and married. The research quoted in the article makes that quite clear.

Is marriage a dying institution ? I'm not sure that it is, but I have no figures ready to hand.

The reports extrapolates figures from the USA and assumes they apply unequivocally here.

Reminds me of America pointing the finger at Australia and calling us racist!

It's a public acknowledgement that it's ok to be gay and married. The research quoted in the article makes that quite clear.

Is marriage a dying institution ? I'm not sure that it is, but I have no figures ready to hand.

The figures quoted are seen as relevant and accurate by several local organizations. I think I'll take their word over yours.

"The groups, which represent both the frontline and clinical side of mental health, say a "yes" result will "undoubtedly" change thousands of young lives for the better and avert as many as 3000 secondary school suicide attempts each year.

This claim draws on peer-reviewed research by some of America's top adolescent mental health experts, published in JAMA Paediatrics, that showed a strong correlation between same-sex marriage policies and high school suicide. The introduction of state same-sex marriage was associated with a 7 per cent relative reduction in suicide attempts."

In the USA most states require people to be 18 or 19 to marry, are they included in the figures of "teen" suicides, in Australia marriage can now be as young as 16.

The use of the term "teen suicide" is clearly designed to build an associative bridge with the reports we read about school children, but in the SSM debate it's adults using this for political purposes.

How about they leave it out of the debate, as it's clearly an issue in it's own right that needs dedicated and specific intervention!

Gay teenagers tend to become gay adults, at least they did the last time I looked. Why can't teenagers be interested in and care about what lies ahead ?

Sad really. So much of this could have been avoided had we not had this little yet highly toxic element in the LP led by Abbott, and Turnbull grew a pair... but that's the nature of slim govt, minute factions can actually set and control agendas and make the majority dance to their perverted tune.

Are you implying you are happy for LGBTI adults to leverage teen emotion in this debate?

I was surprised about the backlash to the recent "No" ads, especially given one of the mums in the ad identified as LGBTI until into her mid twenties. She attributes finding her current partner saved her life, and she now speaks about about her toxic past.

So it seems that toxic behavior isn't just restricted to heterosexuals, LGBTI people can do it too, who'd have thunk that it might be a human issue!

I've been down this road with you before. When the mood takes you, you lead all threads into a discussion of your favorite topic, namely political maneuvering and behind-the-scenes skullduggery. Whether or not it's true, it is of no interest to me. ssm is a very worthy issue, and any groups affected by it would have an interest in the outcome. It is completely presumptuous on your part to assume that vulnerable teens are being used solely as political pawns by the evil ssm lobby. They may actually be glad that their are now in the discussion, and that their issues have been given air time.

Come on PaulP, stop playing the altruistic innocent bystander.

You involve yourself in this debate this because you have a preferred political position!

There is no evil side to this debate, both sides are human, neither side is innocent!

I involve myself because I see contradictions on both sides of the debate.

I would be the last person to be called a bystander on this issue. My position has been crystal clear from the get go. The only vote that makes any sense and has any decency behind it is yes, and that, for mine, is where our sole focus should be. As you seem to have a morbid fascination and certain self proclaimed expertise in Machiavellian back room dealings, I will leave analysis of such things to you.

................. It is completely presumptuous on your part to assume that vulnerable teens are being used solely as political pawns by the evil ssm lobby......................

PaulP, don't you see you are as completely Machiavellian as those you accuse?

Who stated that, I know who it was, it was you!

Are you implying you are happy for LGBTI adults to leverage teen emotion in this debate?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-would-prevent-3000-teen-suicide-attempts-a-year-say-health-groups-20170920-gyl2hf.html

Whatever the "bullying left" does, they must not be seen to be giving the no voters a bit of a nudge,  a few gentle words of encouragement, to get them to think that a yes vote may actually make a meaningful difference to young people's lives. No siree, we must just sit back, and let the tragedy unfold before our very eyes. Because we mustn't tell anyone that they may actually be wrong, or making a very poor judgment. Tut, tut. We don't want to upset anyone, or be perceived as patronizing, or god forbid, paternalistic. It's all about my feelings, my opinions, my rights.

As I have learned many times over the journey, sometimes my feelings, opinions and beliefs may actually be wrong, or may have been right at one time, but not in the present.

Paul you introduced the whole suicidal teenagers issue to this debate, 2.5hrs earlier, why?

You know, I really can't figure out which one of us is the bigger idiot - you, for your seemingly non existent comprehension skills, or me for falling for your sh1t time and time gain. In all honesty, it's probably me.

My position is as blunt and clear as can possibly be - if you vote no, you're wrong. How exactly is this Machiavellian ?

In regard to your second question, don't be a smart ar$e.

And there it is, when was it I bullied you PaulP?

Herein lies the issue.

Irrespective of whether or not you agree, one side is not "right", and the other is not "wrong".

They are ideological differences and remind me very much of the capitalist vs communist debate.

It isn't validated by a vote majority either, because the only thing that matters is how an individual views the world and society.

People can assert that their position is right, but as far as I am aware, that doesnt make anyone more correct.

Hitler thought he was right, and so did much of his nation.  Look how THAT turned out.

Are you on drugs ?

Thry, I'm actually a "yes" voter.

But that vote and the vote of others has to come for the right reasons not because of being guilted or bullied into it!

If people vote for the wrong reason, things will become very bad because they don't really believe it!

I also think people have the right vote anyway they choose, which seems to grate some.

LP, I don't really care which way you want to vote.

I have a different scenario for an outcome that I am much happier with.

I will be filling out my form ticking zero boxes and sending it back to our government.

The reason:  To make a statement.  Initially I was going to vote No, and then I swung around to Yes, and of late I have decided that this is a tiresome debate, and a message needs to be sent to our leadership that will actually have an impact.

Why??

Voting No achieves nothing. The status quo will remain, and the push for SSM will rage for the rest of my lifetime.  I personally believe we have much bigger issues that we need to be concerned about than whether or not this community can get married.

This made me start to think about voting Yes.  Get it over and done with, but I don't like the way this has gone.  Particularly the backlash towards Carlton for remaining Switzerland on the debate and being attacked for it.

I have decided the best way for me to make a statement on the issue, is to vote nothing.  I will send back my form blank, so I can make a statement that is more in line with where I sit on this subject, and that is for our government to make that decision so we can get on with it.  If they see fit to change legislation do so, but ensure that people's ideologies are protected.

Hawthorn Football Club embraces and welcomes all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality or cultural background.

The club celebrates diversity and demands equality, and also respects the rights of individuals to make their own personal choices and form their own opinions.

Hawthorn sees its role as providing an environment of respect, diversity and inclusivity where people can embrace their differences and unite in their love of the club and the game of AFL.  

Feel free to answer the original question!

Hawthorn's statement, where is the outrage???

“A club by coming out is saying this is the view we think all our members should have, and not even political parties are making that decision,” Koch said on Sunrise.

“(The process) should be, OK do you represent all your stakeholders and are you meant to be representing them in something like this — you’re a footy club.”

sure, I'll answer.

I don't think you will, you seem too emotionally invested to make a objective assessment.

I'm a man of my word.

I've been on this forum and its predecessor for over a decade, and in that time, you are the only one who misconstrues what i say. This isn't the first time it's happened. It's happened several times before. I strive for clarity and economy of expression with everything I type. Whether I get there is another matter. And out of the dozens and dozens of regular posters we've had over that time, only you seem to constantly twist what i say into something it isn't. Why is that do you think ?

LP, I'd also like to apologize to you for my reply #224.

There is perspective, reason and motive behind every word ever written or spoken, that is implicit.

And perspective, reason and motive are not just inherent in humanity's communications but are present in the actions of all living things. You cannot divorce yourself from that state of affairs, and others are free to infer or imply whatever they like in either the written word or the perceived meaning.

Read some Tolstoy even if you don't like him, if you have already done so, then maybe read him again.

I've never read Tolstoy. Given the times and country in which he wrote, he may well have a extra fondness for reading between the lines.

I don't think you need to apologise, if you think you need to then I accept it.

If I have cause you offense I apologise unreservedly.

I certainly do not want to cause you any duress. I have conversations like this sitting watching the football, in the bar at half-time or after the game, and in the car or train on the way home.

All I do ask is that if you want to call me an idiot, privately or publicly, you should do so explaining the error of my ways and accompanied with suitable supporting references that are neither ambiguous or selective.

It's always the gray areas of a debate that will polarise.

His unique and very very special gift, was the ability to show the reader the world from another perspective, even if it was a dog!

Any particular book I should start with ?

The archetypal novel is Anna Karenina, at 860 pages it's more of a tome though!

It proves one thing, no matter how many great authors I read, my English is still shizen!

860 pages ! Good Lord ! Any chance I could start in the toddler's department, then move on to the boys, then graduate to the men's ?

Hang on a minute. I'm sensing a sub text here, a hidden agenda. Aha ! You want to keep me off the forums for a few years.

I'm onto you LP.

Seriously, thanks for the tip.

[3] I don't have a problem with gay people being married, nor on their getting the lefal rights and obligations that go with it. However, once you start changing something as basic as marriage has been for us, where do you stop?

I thought the statement the club issued was fine.  Of course one of the first people to comment on it was 'outraged' by the club and how dare they not support her wanting to marry her partner... the outrage was unjustified and from there the matter grew and grew.

The club cannot speak on everyone's behalf - apparently not all board members are voting Yes.  They said they are for equality - that is saying in the eyes of the club everyone should be treated equally, but they are not saying you must vote yes if you are with us.

Personally I am a yes voter, as are my family.  I'm not in the least disappointed with the club for putting out their statement.

And I feel this entire thing is an embarrassment and a huge waste of money.  Just make it equal ffs and let's get on with the problems in this world that all this $$$$$ could go towards to help fix.

Bravo.  If our so-called leaders in Parliament had the balls to make a decision in the first place, then we wouldn't be leaving it up to football organisations to try and set a social agenda.....

Yep!

I voted YES.

This is the Forrest Gump argument.  He started running and then kept on running.  Right across the USA.  Then all of a sudden, he decided to stop running.

Just like Forrest, we can stop whenever we want.  We don't experience what chess players know as zugswang - a compulsion to move. 

Allowing ssm merely means that monogamous marriage is open to all.  It can hardly open the door to polygamous marriage, or marriage to children, animals or inanimate objects.  If there is any such tendency, then it was set in motion by the introduction of marriage between heterosexuals.  Maybe we should ban marriage altogether?

There was a ban on whites marrying blacks in the US.  Conservatives supported that law when the Supreme Court was considering overturning it (which it ultimately did).  Was it wrong to do so?  Was it wrong to overturn bans on ssm on the grounds of equal rights?

.......................................................

Banning marriage: have you seen any of "The Handmaid's Tale"? This is about as dystopian a society as I have come across before. Marriage is useless, as few, if any of the wives can bare children. Women who can concieve are handed out to the powerful to provide them with offspring and the sex they have is extremely ritualistic and totally free of passion.

It's a disgrace. What a massive waste of money.

Politicians get voted in to make decisions....this one should be a no brainer.

The religious right in the Libs must have some very embarrassing photos of Malcolm!

And I'm voting yes.

Tony Abbott has been headbutted by a man wearing a yes badge.

Tony Abbott has been headbutted by a man wearing a yes badge.

You do know he's a former boxer? :))

Yes, and he's a few years younger!  I concede that I may have to have a few sessions with the sides of beef first  :)

Some further reading, for those who may be interested :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/margaret-court-marriage-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-so-literally/8583412

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304

A caller to Jon Faine on the ABC:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about, my wife and I have been having the same sex for 60 years!"

Thry, this is an article I linked earlier, discussing briefly those Leviticus passages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

Just on the bible not being meant to be read so literally, I think you'd have to tell that to the Atheists first before convincing most Christians.


Irrespective of that, hear are some quotes from the bible:

 Leviticus 18 & 20

Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:

There is a bit of creative interpretation there though Paul.

It assumes that the man lying with another man is married, when the verse doesnt actually say that in Leviticus.

Therefore, the ABC article is simply one interpretation of things, and a lot of religious people will dismiss it, if it doesnt fit their IDEOLOGY.

Which is what I alluded to earlier, and not the religion being the issue.



Irrespective of that, I am debating the argument.  Religion is not going to be the reason why people have arrived at their conclusion irrespective of how wrong people think religion is.  Its become the scapegoat, and has nothing to do with why people are going to vote the way they are.

Thry, while I am certainly not an expert on scripture, my concerns with these two passages is that they are talking about male homosexuality be detestable and punishable by death.  They don't talk about marriage.  Chapter 18 talks about a whole heap of people that a married male shouldn't bonk (most of who we as a society agree with).  It also doesn't talk about female homosexuality.  It does however, seem to accept that your father and mother might have daughters to different partners (18:6-10)  - part of the Robyn Whitakers article that Paulp references.  There is an abundance of Christians espousing "Yes"

I haven't looked closely into what the Bible says about marriage, which this is all about.

For me, similar to you, there are ultimately two commandments of Jesus - Love me with all your heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbour as you love yourself.  This is far more important, then a few verses here and there as they aren't open to nearly as much interpretation and updating for the times.

@PaulP.  I think people reject homosexuality and the LBGTI community as part of their ideology of how they see society and their real world view, but I dont want to expand too much on that, as its hurtful.

Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

Yes, but gay people exist. Gay people in long term relationships exist. Gay people with children exist. You have gay work mates, gay neighbors etc. Gayness is here to stay. And if I've followed your logic, you're saying the non-religious no voters will vote that way because they reject gayness in its entirety, or that they're trying to send a message / teach gays a lesson. All of which is beyond disgusting.

Thry, thanks for your post.

To put what you are saying into blunt language, the non religious no voters are voting that way because they don't like poofs and dykes. Whether the dislike is based on fear, lack of education, incorrect information, laziness, social convenience etc. I can't say. Maybe they all play a part. I'm not in any way suggesting that such people are bad, but if the possible reasons I list here are valid, their position on this issue most certainly is.

I agree Thry - ideology is the driving force, which is not easily changed. I have had some quite long conversations with some no voters, talking about homosexuality as being immoral. These people are otherwise very good, rational thinkers, who i respect.

Yes, Paul - agree and that to me is where some of the 'argument' is being lost because passages about homosexuality in the Bible are about that and not marriage.

Interesting that there are some Biblical scholars that are talking about the society then no having the sophistication to know about LGBQTI, which makes it much harder to understand when trying to put it in today's context.

@PaulP I am directing this this question respectfully to you as you seem to be very passionate about this debate however if anyone else can chime in and answer it, I would be grateful.

Can anyone tell me what arguments/rationale (non religious) the "no" voters have put up? I cant say I have followed every debate on this topic as I think its an utter wast of time and money, but I have not heard a single, rational argument that is non religious supporting a "no" vote.

Not trying to be a smart ass here, just asking a question as respectfully as I can. I appreciate everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just havent heard any supporting a no vote.

The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.

Yet nothing happens about Rudds God son who got beaten up.

..........................

I think you will find the issue for the LGBT mob is not nomenclature, but rather equal rights and choice. Gay couples have no choice, and I'm sure not all of them wish to marry. Heterosexual couples are at least able to choose one or the other.  And heterosexual de facto couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

No doubt there will be gays out there who will vote no. No group, once it reaches a certain critical mass, will ever have 100% consistency in the opinions of its constituents.

No comment from me on the rest of your post.

You are wrong on all counts, Paul. I suggest you consult a partner in a law firm. One of my kids is.

They will tell you that De facto and gay couples have all the same rights as married hetero couples. The only real difficulty faced by a gay couple, is in adopting a child. As far as making medical decisions is concerned, another furfy brought up by the gay lobby, as long as one of the partners signs a medical power of attorney, just like some heterosexual couples who are not married have to do, they have the same rights as married couples. And even with married couples, the hubby may not want the missus to make medical decisions on his behalf so he can do the same and sign an enduring medical power of attorney, authorizing someone else to make the decisions.

People need to check the ACTUAL law rather than listen to the bullcr@p.  This no equal rights stuff is propaganda and untrue. By the way, living together for 6 months is enough for one partner, to make a claim on the other. Used to be 12 months.

The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.

Nothing to do with ssm, supposedly.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-samesex-marriage-anarchist-dj-who-headbutted-tony-abbott-speaks-out-20170922-gymu2z.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920

The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.

It seems that he's not a 'left wing nut job' but an anarchist whose actions had nothing to do with Abbott's homophobic opposition to marriage equality.

Never let the facts get in the way of cheap point scoring MBB  :)

It seems that he's not a 'left wing nut job' but an anarchist whose actions had nothing to do with Abbott's homophobic opposition to marriage equality.

Never let the facts get in the way of cheap point scoring MBB  :)

Yes voters will take him at his word.

No voters will suspect that 'Yes' folk have been in his ear all day telling him the damage he has done to the cause and that he needs to deny it has anything to do with the SSM plebiscite.

I've NFI

Don't worry. neither does anyone else.

Sure he's not, just like you're not.

It seems that he's not a 'left wing nut job' but an anarchist whose actions had nothing to do with Abbott's homophobic opposition to marriage equality.

Never let the facts get in the way of cheap point scoring MBB  :)

Wasn't he actually wearing a SSM Yes badge at the time?
If you are campaigning/publicly supporting a cause at the time and you attack a prominent campaigner for the opposition to your cause.
You can't then say oh, actually I attacked him because of his industrial actions (or obviously anything else).

It doesn't really matter anyway. Outside of this as well bullying, physical violence, intimidation etc by either side should be met with serious condemnation from those on either side as well as fence sitters.

Not sure if its been mentioned previously, but Darcy Vescio was at the VFLW GF (albeit injured and not playing) to support her GF winning Darebin Falcons. She was sporting a rainbow jersey with her #3 on the back.

She was also apart of the AFL's 'yes' photoshoot where they replaced the AFL logo with 'YES'.

So while the club has been sitting on the fence, they have not had a problem with their AFLW marquee player being at the forefront of the YES push.

A 122 million dollar waste of money and an exercise in divisiveness...............................

A 122 million dollar waste of money and an exercise in divisiveness.
Folks are getting their "knickers in a knot" over an inevitability.

If the YES vote is successful we'll have a vote by MP's and SSM will be legalised.
If the NO vote is successful a private members bill will be introduced in a short space of time. A vote will be taken and SSM marriage will be legalised. It will pass because enough LNP members will cross the floor to support it.
Failing that a Labor government will pass SSM marriage within a short space of time once elected.

So why a plebiscite?
The conservative opponents aren't as dumb as some folk reckon.
In fact they're quite smart politically.
They knew that in any plebiscite the passion and the emotion of YES voters would be far greater than that of NO voters. It means so much more to the YES folk.

As a result the "extremism" was always going to come from that side of the debate, not the NO side as was first thought.

Their hope (and it may still be realised... because it is trending that way) is that the behaviour of the YES campaigners would be enough to turn the swinging /non committed (there are lots who don't feel strongly either way) voter.

So a 60/40 or 50/50 is where the vote will end up...but in the end it will make no difference and SSM will be "Done an dusted" within eighteen months. ;)

Agree entirely.....its going to happen regardless, what we dont need is a 122 mill waste of money, a lot of wasted time in Parliament and focus lost
on more important issues.

So a 60/40 or 50/50 is where the vote will end up...but in the end it will make no difference and SSM will be "Done an dusted" within eighteen months. ;)

I agree, this plebiscite should never have occurred. It was a weak option by a weak government.
I don't care if this ends up 20/80 in AGAINST SSM (which it obviously will no). SSM is as you put it, inevitable and this is a waste of tax payers money.

I think it will get up with 55-60% of the vote and Turnbull is hoping that he will be able to emphatically declare it as his win as he has listened to the people speak.

Yet in the process it has caused far more angst and divisiveness than this country every needed.

Their hope (and it may still be realised... because it is trending that way) is that the behaviour of the YES campaigners would be enough to turn the swinging /non committed (there are lots who don't feel strongly either way) voter.

A 122 million dollar waste of money and an exercise in divisiveness.
Folks are getting their "knickers in a knot" over an inevitability.

If the YES vote is successful we'll have a vote by MP's and SSM will be legalised.
If the NO vote is successful a private members bill will be introduced in a short space of time. A vote will be taken and SSM marriage will be legalised. It will pass because enough LNP members will cross the floor to support it.
Failing that a Labor government will pass SSM marriage within a short space of time once elected.

So why a plebiscite?
The conservative opponents aren't as dumb as some folk reckon.
In fact they're quite smart politically.
They knew that in any plebiscite the passion and the emotion of YES voters would be far greater than that of NO voters. It means so much more to the YES folk.

As a result the "extremism" was always going to come from that side of the debate, not the NO side as was first thought.

Their hope (and it may still be realised... because it is trending that way) is that the behaviour of the YES campaigners would be enough to turn the swinging /non committed (there are lots who don't feel strongly either way) voter.

So a 60/40 or 50/50 is where the vote will end up...but in the end it will make no difference and SSM will be "Done an dusted" within eighteen months. ;)

Shhh Lods,...................it's supposed to be a secret! :o

PS; You forgot to mention the differences between the Inner City, Outer Suburban and Regional voters! ;)

The media debate is dominated by Inner City suburbanites, while the Outer Suburbs Aussie battlers barely get a mention and the Regional voters are basically left invisible! I won't go into the demographics here, because I'll either get labeled a homophobe or racist!

Demographics

Bankstown has one of the most ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Bankstown is considered as one of the most multicultural areas in the country with over 60 different languages spoken by the people of this suburb.

In the 2016 census, Bankstown recorded a population of 32,113 people: of 50.7% female and 49.3% male.

The median age of the Bankstown population was 32 years, 6 years below the national median of 38.

37.1% of people living in Bankstown were born in Australia. The other top responses for country of birth were Vietnam 14.1%, Lebanon 6.2%, China 5.3%, Pakistan 3.1% and Bangladesh 2.1%.

17.7% of people spoke only English at home; the next most common languages were 21.1% Arabic, 19.0% Vietnamese, 4.9% Mandarin, Urdu 4.0% and Cantonese (3.6%)

The religious make up of Bankstown is 28.9% Islam, 17.7% Catholic, 12.9% No Religion, 11.1% Buddhism.[1]

I heard a young woman on the ABC radio yesterday.  She earnestly explained that if marriage equality was introduced sex education in schools would be changed to teach children how to engage in homosexual sex.  When questioned on her statement, she maintained that is what has happened in all countries where same sex marriage is allowed.  ::)

I should have added that the young lady's call was followed by many others, including one from Ireland, pointing out that sex education in schools does not involve lessons in sexual technique; either heterosexual or homosexual.

This NO campaign has not been run on bullying & hate from most of what I have seen. It doesn't mean what they are campaigning for is the right cause, but in the main most people I have seen showing any inclination of voting no, have done in a respectful manner, the same can't be said for those on the other side of the campaign.

Perhaps. From what i can tell its based on lies and mistruths.

I think the bullying from the 'yes' side is because they are fed up with 'logic' (read - complete lack of logic) from that side. Certainly doesn't make it right. But its like arguing with an idiot...

Perhaps. From what i can tell its based on lies and mistruths.

I think the bullying from the 'yes' side is because they are fed up with 'logic' (read - complete lack of logic) from that side. Certainly doesn't make it right. But its like arguing with an idiot...

Is it though Kruddler
Again take the Sydney Uni example... They are saying "It is okay to say no". Now they have a right to campaign and actively state they want people to vote no. But it isn't getting to that and people are actually threatening to stomp on their head...

Or an 18 year old is exercising her right to say also it is okay to say no and the employer fires her and brags to the world about having fired this bigot for "hate speech".
Only to backtrack when she realises that she might have broken the law.

I don't buy that argument Kruddler, because I don't see sensible engagement in discussion and allowing each side to voice their opinions.
And, I think almost everyone can see that those campaigning on the side of yes have been the worst in this plebiscite.

The yes side has shown no real interest in hearing any discussion on the topic. It is 100% parochial like it as a sports event.

Surely the easiest way (if forced down this road) is to allow those that are against to speak and to shut down actual arguments with facts and logic.
The YES side don't need to change the minds of those that are hell bent on NO. They need to persuade those who are unsure or leaning slightly away.
This could (I would have thought), been done through logic, regardless of whether or not the no side is being illogical.

In my circles, it's mixed. My brother and my parents-in-law voted no. Parents at my daughters school, a few neighbors, and people I see out and about all voted yes.

In my circles, it's mixed. My brother and my parents-in-law voted no. Parents at my daughters school, a few neighbors, and people I see out and about all voted yes.

So have your brother and parents-in-law posted their intent to vote no online?
And have they made those posts public?

I am not saying they should, I am just interested in the response if they have.
I am yet to see companies (for example) come out saying they don't support.
That isn't because no business owners are voting "NO".
It is because they are not going to risk their business through being accused of being bigoted, calls to boycott etc.

The number one reason I believe people will vote NO, will be simply their belief (whether religious or what they consider to be right) that marriage is a union between man and woman. Now to my knowledge people are allowed to feel like that and historical context suggests that this has been the case thought basically every society since the dawn of time.

Which as i said earlier, is based on lies and mistruths.

Their 'belief' may be that, but the reality is far different.

Something i heard on the radio the other day disproved this logic/argument and highlighted the changes that have been made to the marriage act both here and abroad.

As for the debate, in all honesty i don't actively seek it out. But i read on facebook, i hear it on the radio. It might be talked about on the TV. I know its been mentioned on Q+A a few times. That, together with friends/family discussions paints a very different picture to what you have been painting.
Sure, i stay away from news shows, deliberately, and the newspaper. No doubt i've missed a lot of things because of it, but i've also missed a lot of biased reporting in regards to it as well.

As for trying to have this debate among family/friends, there is no debate to have. Everyone is so pro-yes that its not even worth discussing as nobody disagrees with any of it. We don't go campaign for it. We don't force our views on anyone. We are pretty curious as to how anyone could be against it and are pretty gobsmacked that there is even a 'debate' to begin with.

I just want to hear one solid, non-religious argument from someone who has/will vote no. I respect peoples entitlement to their opinion and hence can vote however they like. Just help me understand.
For me, the big issue is the lack of leadership by Turnbull. Its a huge waste of money and has created division and angst. He just should shown some nuts and changed the marriage act, like Little Johnny did, and made a hero of himself. Even if he got the ass over it, he could have looked back in years to come and be able to say "I made a difference".

Which as i said earlier, is based on lies and mistruths.

Their 'belief' may be that, but the reality is far different.

Something i heard on the radio the other day disproved this logic/argument and highlighted the changes that have been made to the marriage act both here and abroad.

I am genuinely interested.
You are saying that traditionally marriages have been same sex?
I know that certainly going back to ancient Greece, Egypt, the Middle East etc that it was very clear that Same Sex unions were completely acceptable.
I was always generally of the belief that whilst this was the case, generally a relationship would be between an older and younger male and the relationship would almost be one of mentor and mentee. I also believe that these were not actually "official unions" and that in these cases the older man would also have a wife.

Now I don't claim to be an expert or even someone reasonably well read on the topic at all, so if that is not true, then more than happy to hear otherwise and that is the type of information that should be the information used to help persuade.

That is the type of sensible discussion that could have an impact, however name calling certainly won't.

No, well not from what i head, but as you pointed out it could have been possible.

I was only half listening, but i believe the debate centered around the rights of marriage have always been the same and should never change.
IIRC, it used to be ok to marry a 16yo. Obviously now, that is no longer the case.
I think there was a couple other variations along the same lines.

Essentially the debate of 'You can't change what a marriage represents as its always been the same' was debunked because it was an ever shifting landscape that has indeed been changed previously.

Changing it to include same sex is the next incarnation of it, just like the change to remove 'kids' from it was previously.

I don't think people would be arguing that a marriage law can't change parameters, that would be very easy to shoot down as society changes.
No I think more, there will be people who believe that marriage has and should represent a union of man and women. That traditionally it has (throughout most/all societies historically) and that biologically man and women are meant to be together, whether determined by God or just through evolution.

But an argument to the strict interpretation of marriage within Australia wouldn't make any sense, for the reasons already pointed out.

There seems little doubt that either for legal, religious or social reasons, a "marriage" has always been defined or thought of as man and woman. There has never been any society where a marriage was possible as same sex union. Certainly a few historical societies had on the side male-male relationships, but many of these were men who were married.

Time for the next evolutionary step people.

..............................

The most 'logical' argument against SSM that i can understand it is people want the word 'marriage' to be between opposite sex only. If there was a gay equivalent to the word marriage, that yielded all the rights of marriage, but simply went by a different name, then thats about the only argument against i could accept. Still don't agree, but accept.

Anything else doesn't make sense. to me.

Yeah that is a good point about not going into techniques etc
I know that I certainly don't remember the school teachers every going into actual details on performing different sexual acts when I was at school, but then that was a very very long time ago.

I think the lady who called in has either been the victim of the scaremongering or is herself making this information up with the intent of scaring others into voting "NO"

But, no I understand..

Well, do tell...

I know i don't have to understand them, but i understand that the arguments i've heard are based on lies and mistruths.

I'm not sure if i'm articulating it well enough, but lets put it this way.

I don't understand why some people still believe the earth is flat. It clearly isn't and there is a multitude of examples to prove otherwise, yet people still believe it. They can believe that if they want, but their reasoning for doing so is based on lies and/or ignorance of the facts. If they had some genuine argument for doing so, some weird inter-dimensional thought experiment akin to people being nothing other than holograms, then let me hear it. But it isn't there. Whether i understand it or not, i want to know its based on something

Now i'm not suggesting no voters and flat earthers are one and the same. I just want to hear why it is they think the way they do and i want to hear an argument for it that can no be 'disproved' with facts. Currently, i have not. As i said, i haven't been actively seeking out this information, but i certainly haven't come across any as yet.

I think for some gay couples, the nomenclature is important. I think they want to say they are married, they want to refer to their other half as "husband" or "wife", as the case may be.

I reckon it would be too.

What i'm saying is IF no-voters are voting no because of their opinion on the nomenclature, then thats about as solid of an argument as i've heard.
I don't agree, but i can accept that as a reason for their vote.

As opposed to...
Voting no because its a slippery slope to incest, beastiality and worse. - Sorry, bollocks.
Voting no because it would piss off the church - Gay people don't have to get married in a church, so its a non-issue. Religion is supposed to be 'accepting' of people.
Voting no because Tony Abott said so - Purlease.  ::)

The slippery slope to incest, bestiality or worse.

As for biology....pretty sure its widely accepted that animals can also be gay.
Hell, i used to have 2 male german shepherds that were always mounting eachother when i was a kid. I'm not sure how well that worked out for them though.

Truly bizarre commentary MIO.

Weird ++

stick to the footy would be my advice.

This "Thin End of the Wedge" argument is a real problem for the "yes" campaigners.

There is no real connection between the marriage equality issue and stuff like cultural child brides, cultural incest, etc., etc., it seems there is a clear perception among some that a connection exists!

If the situation is broken down, I have said that this is the discussion on whether or not the public have the right to determine whether or not 2 consenting adults of sane mind may or may not marry.

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

Ah, so by extension... You therefore agree that the public would have no right to a view on a marriage between siblings?
Or the right of a woman to marry two different men in a polygamous relationship?

To be clear as well LP
My commentary in no way advocates incest or polygamy or anything else.
I also don't for one second believe that it is a natural conclusion that allowing SSM means society will end up forced to allow other forms of marriage that are not defined.

My only commentary is that we as humans always pass judgment based on our experience and knowledge and what makes sense to one, might not make sense to another.
That it is laughable to me that some people (not stating here), don't believe that people have a right to feel differently to what they do.

If there are other minority groups not out there, yes they might use this as a platform, but we are humans and boundaries can be drawn around what is acceptable to maintain society and so SSM doesn't lead to other forms.

I use the examples purely to show a hypocrisy in the debate (again, more in the public forums than here).

I specifically stated that I have no objection "provided that such relationships don't adversely affect a third person or society as a whole".
This would rule out consanguinity, as the risk to children born of such a relationship is well documented.
Polygamy also affects a third person, although whether adversely or not is open to debate in some circumstances, but as far as I'm aware no one is proposing to legitimise polygamy so it's a red herring as far as the SSM issue is concerned.
What no one of the contrary opinion has been able to explain to me is how a same sex couple marrying will have any adverse effects on anyone else's marriage or how they live their lives, as far as I can see it would have none whatsoever.
Religious dogma is well and good for some people, but I fail to see why the rest should also subscribe to it or be governed by it.

I specifically stated that I have no objection "provided that such relationships don't adversely affect a third person or society as a whole".
This would rule out consanguinity, as the risk to children born of such a relationship is well documented.
Polygamy also affects a third person, although whether adversely or not is open to debate in some circumstances, but as far as I'm aware no one is proposing to legitimise polygamy so it's a red herring as far as the SSM issue is concerned.
What no one of the contrary opinion has been able to explain to me is how a same sex couple marrying will have any adverse effects on anyone else's marriage or how they live their lives, as far as I can see it would have none whatsoever.
Religious dogma is well and good for some people, but I fail to see why the rest should also subscribe to it or be governed by it.

People were arguing that, and yes it is easy to shoot down. Just like it is most of their arguments. Its the fact the majority of them don't listen to and/or believe the alternative view that is the problem.

If people want to believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, that is their right.
They should be well aware that despite that, same sex couple can and do exist. Same sex couple are also entitled to similar type 'benefits' to married people.
As for biology....pretty sure its widely accepted that animals can also be gay.
Hell, i used to have 2 male german shepherds that were always mounting eachother when i was a kid. I'm not sure how well that worked out for them though.

The most 'logical' argument against SSM that i can understand it is people want the word 'marriage' to be between opposite sex only. If there was a gay equivalent to the word marriage, that yielded all the rights of marriage, but simply went by a different name, then thats about the only argument against i could accept. Still don't agree, but accept.

Anything else doesn't make sense. to me.

I have bolded the point above as I find it particularly interesting as an argument.
Are you suggesting that because environmentally or genetically?

It is almost like this discussion is too hard a discussion to hold in a forum as I don't believe intentions are easily portrayed.

Genetically, the adverse effects are well understood which is one reason why the practice isn't adopted in any culture which comes to mind.

See I believe it is okay to say that the reason why there shouldn't be incestuous relationships is that I don't believe it is "right" or I consider it "wrong".

Genetically, the adverse effects are well understood which is one reason why the practice isn't adopted in any culture which comes to mind.

I think it gets down to prejudice, religious conviction and conservatism.
As I said earlier, I'd like to hear anyone of the contrary opinion explain how a same sex couple marrying will adversely affect either themselves, their own marriage or society as a whole, because I've yet to hear an argument that holds water.

Wall to wall soy lattes and tuna tartare with pomegranate gratin and a balsamic reduction.

Don't say you weren't warned.

I worked with a bloke whose father had eight wives.

I need to lose weight, should I turn gay?

I worked with a bloke whose father had eight wives.  Apart from having to remember the names of a great many siblings, he didn't seem to have any issues arising from his father's polygyny.

That practice has died out now as it was effectively the old men controlling access to the women and denying the younger men access.

For what it's worth I agree with you, but surely incestuous relationships or possible marriages are wholly irrelevant to the current debate, as no one is proposing any change to the law in that regard, nor is it foreseeable that any change will be proposed in the future.
I have no problem with people opposing SSM for any reason which they see fit, the ability to hold an opinion is at the heart of a free society.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

But it is also a reason that the debate should never determine the validity of marriage.
That has to be done through the method that generally all laws are changed.

Oddly enough I don't recall any debate when Howard changed the marriage act, nor can I recall any public consultation.
Furthermore, when a bill to allow SSM was before parliament in 2013 all Liberal and National Party MP's were obliged to vote as a bloc, so the current fashion in favour of public opinion leaves me somewhat bemused.

Are you asserting they pick and choose their battles?

How many jars can a man open in one day? :o

Think about the hot water bill!

What happens when they all enter menopause and start arguing over the thermostat, and if they don't agree about the choice of the Bachelor/Bachelorette?

I'd need to buy extra lawnmowers, vacuum cleaners, irons, washing machines and install a bigger kitchen!

There could be some advantages, hopefully some of them like painting!

What would happen if they discover I'm a misogynist?

That's probably as good a place as any to leave the silliness for now I'd say.

I'm getting hate from old white dudes!

But he is an old white dude, 35 I believe, pretending to be a young white dude!

(https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/59501b3ccbe9a65c4275f05f/master/w_790/Macklemore_Photo%20by%20Joerg%20Koch:Redferns_GettyImages-692035490.jpg)

No wonder I'm confused! :o

35 is not old LP; it is very young  :)

You do realise that right there you have suggested that incest is a downward slope from same sex marriage right?
That in the very essence of that comment, you are stating that incest is 'wrong', which is based solely on a judgment you have made on what you have been taught is acceptable as a relationship between to people.

So... how is that more or less acceptable, than a person who has been raised in a rural area, or an older person who doesn't "waste their time online or at cafes", who isn't part of the latte and smashed avocado generation and thinks that gay marriage is wrong as it normalises a relationship they believe is unnatural and and demeans a union they consider sacred?

We are all so judgmental, because we have been raised in an online politically correct generation, we are online and we all have friends who are openly homosexual. But that doesn't represent everyone and the older generations, plus rural areas have been raised under different circumstances.

My sister's grandfather if he was alive would have voted "NO".
I could be 100% certain of that.
He didn't believe in relationships out of marriage, he would never have met an openly gay person and wouldn't accept that as a legitimate relationship. He would not even leave the tv on if two people were kissing.
We was a wonderful man, but he would never have believed in SSM.

No that isn't based on lies or mistruths.
It is based on their upbringing, exactly the same way we are drawing out conclusions now

The links between homosexuality in the animal kingdom and humanity are as tenuous as saying that SSM will open the floodgates for homosexual propaganda in schools.

Animals do display homosexual behaviour, but are not exclusively homosexual and we would at best be projecting human behavioural patterns onto animals rather than actual observed homosexuality as the reasons behind it are widespread and varying but ultimately have almost nothing to do with sexual preference but are sometimes related to gratification.

I.e. two male dogs hump each other, and this is about dominance, not gratification nor homosexuality.

IMHO the animals are irrelevant in this circumstance because you will analyse every species and get different answers as to how we as humans should behave, when we are discussing completely different biology and evolutionary influences.  See the Sea Horse reproductive system for reasons why it's irrelevant to the discussion.

If you want to vote no, vote no, but make sure the reason you are doing so is a legitimate one, not based on propoganda.

I suspect folk will vote NO for whatever reason they want ;)
Don't get worked up about it because they wont put any weight on your suggestions.

That's the thing...I don't believe there are many undecideds in this...but there are a lot of "not votings"
By now everyone's just about made up their minds.

Don't get the furore over this Macklemore character.

See if i was sitting on the fence, and one side of the debate was trotting out BS like that, then it would make me vote against that and vote for the opposition.

Yes, people will vote no for whatever reason they want. I guess my point is, should this plebiscite end up being 50-50 and politicians choose to stick with no, its because of all the lies being told that have swayed people.

I just don't like ill informed people making judgements on peoples lives that will have no effect on themselves whatsoever.

The 1st is that the reason people will vote no is because of lies. Which by extension suggests that the only true conclusion anyone could come to is that they must vote "YES". That if they were not deceived they would all vote yes. Whether that is your intention or not, that is as equally deceptive as that poster.

The 2nd part I highlighted is a reality of life. What percentage of people are actually in a position to determine how this will affect society with any degree of certainty?
Almost every person who is commenting on this subject is ignorant, only the degree of ignorance changes.

I agree though in the 2nd part that people uninformed shouldn't be making this decision, but that goes both ways. In fact whichever side gets more of the vote will in fact have the higher number of ill-informed people.

And that is why the government should have made this decision, or commissioned a study and based decisions on that information.
The problem with the study is that it can be heavily bias one way or the other.

For the nth amount of time I agree with Lods.
This is an absolute foregone conclusion and should just be passed through parliament

"Politicians are voted in to make these decisions and they don't have the balls to do so.

Now, [Ian] Roberts is two things. I have long held he is the toughest footballer to pull on a boot, at least that I have seen. His view is, he is also among the gayest men who ever lived, having never felt the slightest flicker of sexual interest in females, ever. It was the way he was born and when he declared his sexuality in 1995, while still playing, it was enormous news. To this day he remains the only male professional footballer in Australia to have done so.
...

"It will save lives," Roberts said. "Simple as that. It will save lives."

His point is a beauty. For all those troubled teens, alone in the dark as he was all those years ago, agonised over their sexuality, the lesson of that anthem being sung on that occasion, is clear. You are not alone. And not only do many people feel an attraction to their same gender, and not only should it be no big deal one way or another, but even the most macho of sports recognises that. And in short order, the state itself will likely pass legislation to say you'll have equal rights in marriage, too.

How far we've come.
...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ian-roberts-weeps-as-workingclass-fans-go-wild-for-macklemores-nrl-show-20171001-gys8gk.html

BOB Hawke has launched a blistering attack on Malcolm Turnbull’s $122 million gay marriage postal survey calling it the “worst economic decision made by any Australian Prime Minister”.

“I genuinely believe that the decision by Malcolm Fraser to have this postal vote is the worst economic decision made by any Prime Minister since Federation,” Mr Hawke said.

Great to see that Bob is still right on the ball.

But the timing of the much-publicised event does feel awkward.

Obviously, the celebration triggered by FitzSimons seeing his wife in the white dress she wore to the 2015 Logies and asking her to remarry him on their 25th anniversary was planned years ago.

But the fact their happy day landed as millions of Australians have a piece of paper in their kitchens effectively asking them to pass judgment on the value of other people’s relationships (and lives) does feel poignant.

The Wilkinson-FitzSimons festival was broadcast to anyone with a smartphone by dozens of married, heterosexual guests, sharing images of what it means to a loving couple to be able to openly celebrate their love and have it recognised.

Yet around the country are so many couples who have been in relationships the same length of time, or longer, who do not have the basic civil right to do similar.

Anyone get the feeling this result may be close.
My Facebook friend list is pretty much a cross section,
I have some extreme religious folk and some folks with strong left wing views and it's breaking about 50-50
One of the interesting aspects is a group of Labor stalwarts who also have a strong Christian background who are voting NO.

Anyone get the feeling this result may be close.
My Facebook friend list is pretty much a cross section,
I have some extreme religious folk and some folks with strong left wing views and it's breaking about 50-50
One of the interesting aspects is a group of Labor stalwarts who also have a strong Christian background who are voting NO.

I don't think it will be close, and that's the reason the Christian conservatives are desperately trying to postpone the inevitable with alternative bills and warnings of threats to religious freedom.  I'd like to see the issue taken a little further and give folk freedom from religion  :)

I was listening to a Liberal MP on the radio a couple of days ago and he is expecting at least 60% in favour.  Anyway, it's only a couple of days until we will know for sure.

I've mentioned this before and I stand by it, a 60/40 vote either way is the worst outcome that could possibly occur.

In my opinion anything that suggests a result with a margin that falls in a range that is even remotely reversible will rip the country apart with protests, riots and persecution from both sides of the debate. Neither side has a monopoly on extremists. The problem is the surveys shows more than 20% of the voting public are undecided, that leaves any 60/40 vote within the reach of a draw regardless of which way it falls!

This plebiscite is perhaps the most gutless pole ever conducted by parliamentarians in the history of the nation!

For example if having a pole was such a good idea on this sort of issue, why didn't Howard give the public a vote on guns, will the gun lobby demand a pole in the future to reverse Howard's laws, and if they don't get it would it lead to protests, radical agendas and extremist actions?

Think you'll find that 80% is a bloody good sample size! And if that's 60/40 you can bet the 20% of undecided would also fall 60/40.

As for gutless? Absolutely agree. Cowardice 101.

Anyone get the feeling this result may be close.
My Facebook friend list is pretty much a cross section,
I have some extreme religious folk and some folks with strong left wing views and it's breaking about 50-50
One of the interesting aspects is a group of Labor stalwarts who also have a strong Christian background who are voting NO.

I have met 1 and only 1 person who is a 'no' voter. A semi-retired 60+ year old bricklayer. Not surprised of his vote.

Even the church i drive past on punt road is spruiking 'yes'.

I don't know if the rest of australia is thinking very differently to melbourne, but i still can't see it.

I have met 1 and only 1 person who is a 'no' voter. A semi-retired 60+ year old bricklayer. Not surprised of his vote.

Even the church i drive past on punt road is spruiking 'yes'.

I don't know if the rest of australia is thinking very differently to melbourne, but i still can't see it.

I have met 1 and only 1 person who is a 'no' voter. A semi-retired 60+ year old bricklayer. Not surprised of his vote.

Even the church i drive past on punt road is spruiking 'yes'.

I don't know if the rest of australia is thinking very differently to melbourne, but i still can't see it.

A 60-40 result would be a massive, massive win.

Happy to come off the long run tomorrow once the result is known.

We have duck shooters, road hoons and religious fundamentalist as senators, the regional vote will have more impact than people credit!

I think a 60/40 Yes vote it's the most likely result, but you'll be surprised how much trouble that will cause.

I suspect a lot of older voters are openly saying they'll vote "Yes", which privately means "No"!

A lot of youth are all for Yes, but cannot be stuffed voting, they see it as a non-issue! An enormous proportion of 18 to 25 years olds have no interest in this, they want real jobs and a future.

A 60-40 result would be a massive, massive win.

Happy to come off the long run tomorrow once the result is known.

Mix with a lot of No voters and dont care voters at work who said they didnt vote...I think the Yes voters are passionate about the issue and took the time
to vote.... I reckon the dont care vote would be high...

Ironically the non religious guys I work with voted no but my Catholic family and friends voted yes or not at all. The Catholic church gets painted as the real bad guys in this debate but in my circles they are far more tolerant than my orthodox friends who are in the "hell no" cap. I think the yes vote will get up 60-40.

The official word from the Catholic Church is to vote no. Individuals within larger groups will always have a broad range of opinions, and will embrace the official orthodoxy to varying degrees.

https://www.catholic.org.au/plebiscite

An interesting and very good result.

I wouldn't have predicted that the Yes vote would be lowest in NSW  :o

Why?

NSW holds more right wing factions and fundamentalist religious groups than any other state. Some of them are quite large like the Exclusive Bretheren, or West Sydney's large Islamic population.

I fear that the 58%-42% result in NSW will mean this is far from resolved yet, I think the sh1te is yet to hit the fan!

In Blaxland, 74% voted no.

In Melbourne Ports (my turf), 82% voted yes!

Why?

NSW holds more right wing factions and fundamentalist religious groups than any other state. Some of them are quite large like the Exclusive Bretheren, or West Sydney's large Islamic population.

I fear that the 58%-42% result in NSW will mean this is far from resolved yet, I think the sh1te is yet to hit the fan!

Not sure why Calwell and Bruce had such high "no" votes in Vic(Above 50%), bit nothing like two or three divisions in NSW that were above 60% "No". I had expected some redneck voting in Qld, and I am presently surprised!

Calwell and Bruce are both heavy migrant areas. You already hit the nail on the head with Islamic voters, and Calwell comprises all of Dallas, Coolaroo, Broadmeadows etc, plus areas like Taylors Lakes and Keilor with high proportions of European influence. All in all, not surprising at the No votes there.

Anyone get the feeling this result may be close.
My Facebook friend list is pretty much a cross section,
I have some extreme religious folk and some folks with strong left wing views and it's breaking about 50-50
One of the interesting aspects is a group of Labor stalwarts who also have a strong Christian background who are voting NO.

Just quoting myself here... ;)
The regionality of the plebiscite seems to have had a big influence of our perceptions of how it would turn out.

I thought Kruddler was being wildly optimistic with some of his predictions but he was probably in one of those high '80+' Yes electorates.
My own was about the 60-40.
The Labor folk I referenced above were from the Liverpool region where strong Labor electorates voted emphatically NO

I think that's called "hotcoxing"  ;)

It's generally considered poor form to quote yourself ;D
As my grandmother used to say..."It's a rotten stick that cracks itself!" ;) :))

I think the yes vote will get up 60-40.

Just quoting myself here... ;)
The regionality of the plebiscite seems to have had a big influence of our perceptions of how it would turn out.

I thought Kruddler was being wildly optimistic with some of his predictions but he was probably in one of those high '80+' Yes electorates.
My own electorate was about the 60-40.
The Labor folk I referenced above were from the Liverpool region where strong Labor electorates voted emphatically NO

I wonder why Abbott abstained ?

Because he is a weak pr!ck?

I wonder why Abbott abstained ?

Anyway it's done and dusted after far too much angst, unnecessary debate, time wasting and wasting public money. Perhaps our politicians might start thinking about important policy issues now  :-\

The same reason the conservative Libs kept proposing amendments knowing that they would be voted down.

Apparently Abbott did have the main proponents of the bill in his office to help empty his bar ... and he did make a comment about his sister now being able to marry her partner.

I can't believe I'm defending Abbott.

Anyway it's done and dusted after far too much angst, unnecessary debate, time wasting and wasting public money. Perhaps our politicians might start thinking about important policy issues now  :-\

You nailed it right there, DJC Old Son. So many put through so much so unnecessarily at ridiculous cost - psychological, spiritual and financial cost that is.

I'm one who was very critical of the plebiscite (postal survey).
I still regard it as a waste of money given that a same sex marriage bill would have passed through parliament anyway.

Watching the debate yesterday though I do wonder whether some of the amendments proposed would have passed if there had been no emphatic plebiscite YES vote.

We still would have had the legislation but in maybe a slightly different form.

Apparently the ABS managed to conduct the same sex marriage opinion poll for $80M or thereabouts.  Well done ABS, but it's still $80M that could have been put to better use.

Agreed but at least we got something out of it not like the $1b spent on not building the East West link.

Well, after all that..........

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-legalised-in-australia-as-parliament-passes-historic-law-20171206-h00cdj.html

Welcome Navy Maven, and I expect an invite !  ;D

Haha thanks Paul, guess i’m going to have to start saving now....I have no more excuses  :)

Good for you if you tie the knot NM :)

The wedding industry will be rubbing their collective hands together in anticipation of a windfall ... but not just your nuptials  ;)

The wedding industry will be rubbing their collective hands together in anticipation of a windfall ... but not just your nuptials  ;)

Haha yeah I've got a mate who's a marriage celebrant, her booking have just tripled.  I'm most excited for friends who have been with their partners for 20 odd years, they can finally get their moment just like everyone else.

On the other side of the coin, I heard about one couple, who must have married overseas, who are overjoyed that they can now legally divorce  :)

Yep, until I was married I didn't know how to put the milk in the fridge properly!  ::)

Yep, until I was married I didn't know how to put the milk in the fridge properly!  ::)

Yep, until I was married I didn't know how to put the milk in the fridge properly!  ::)

There is a possible flaw in the correct use of the term "properly", because it's clear not all fridges are the same!

Let me know how that goes if you decide to argue your case!

I long ago abandoned arguing my case.

Reminds me of that scene from the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

"Chicken Sh1t" or "Pussy"?

I have no idea if this belongs here, but sometimes resistance is futile :

I guess it does highlight the hypocrisy of the religious right Paul.  Old Beetroot Head nearly busted a boiler with his clumsy pronouncements about the sanctity of marriage and, at the same time, he was having it away with a young staffer.

I feel sorry for his wife and daughters if they did learn about his infidelity and impending fatherhood through the media.  But what a weak bastard not to tell them himself.

As for the cries about respecting privacy, I'm afraid that your right to privacy evaporates once you stand for public office. 

I wonder if Johnny Depp is keeping up with this  :)

Yep, Beetroot Head has got himself into a bit of a pickle so to speak ::)

Why can't I think of responses like that?  ;D

Yep, Beetroot Head has got himself into a bit of a pickle so to speak ::)

Jenkins is not suggesting such behaviour is solely the preserve of males. But it is mostly males who engage in "conversion" attempts. And I'm sure if I bothered to check, statistics would back me up.

Your experiences are simply that, myopic and singular. In terms of a broad overview of the problem, I'm betting Jenkins is in a better and more knowledgeable position than most.

Finally, men and women are free to attempt courtship with anyone they choose, provided they don't cross the line into harrasment, and as far as I have experienced, the same actions, attention or whatever you wish, only constitutes harrasment when its unwanted and you cannot find out its unwanted until you declare it.

.............

Another good example was discussed in the media recently, in some limited circles(not surprisingly higher education facilities) males are being label sexist for opening the door for a female.

............