Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 114242 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #360 –
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.  

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #361 –
Quote from: mateinone on

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.

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.
 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #362 –
Quote from: PaulP on
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.

Interesting choice of words Paul, just because the irony is that society would of course cease evolution and existence is everyone was to be in a Same Sex union  ;D

@Kruddler

You are right there are animals that have sex with the same sex, but that doesn't change the fact that a man's sexual organs are naturally created as a fit to females. I am I don't think there is a necessity to argue that point is there?

I agree, same sex relationships are here and they are here to stay and people are right the sky isn't falling.
Society is turning into a bit of a depraved place, but that same sex relationships are not even close to the problem.
I think again it comes down to constant education in what SSM means for people, to help understand the pros and to alleviate concerns around any perceived negatives.

This is where the $122 million would have been much better spent. Propose the change to the law and let those elected make the change and then spend the money in education.

Also.. An argument doesn't need to make sense to you. If it makes sense to the person having that point of view, then in my view you need to at least understand why someone feels a certain way to have any chance of them changing a point.

So when people state "I don't understand why people would vote NO", I think.. I do.. Well I think I do.
I don't really agree with their points, though I strongly believe (ironically) in ensuring religions are not impacted and enforced to marry couples they believe contradict their churches teachings.

But, no I understand..
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #363 –
Quote from: kruddler on
..............................

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 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.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #364 –
I think anyone who could even contemplate voting 'no' needs to stand in front of a mirror and have a good hard look at themselves.

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #365 –
Quote from: mateinone on
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"

She was an author, former school teacher and devout believer in one of the Abrahamic imaginary beings.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #366 –
Quote from: mateinone on
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.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #367 –
Quote from: kruddler on
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.

It's hard to present a logical argument when your position is based on faith rather than facts.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #368 –
Quote from: PaulP on
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.  ::)

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #369 –
Quote from: kruddler on
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.  ::)

Fair enough.

I reckon the Abbott household must be a jumping little joint at family get togethers. His sister is gay, his daughter did an ad campaign supporting the yes vote. And with Tone the pugilist around, sparks will fly sooner or later.

The episode of Gruen that just aired talked about the ssm issue. They spoke very favorably about the AFL and how they handled the issue.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #370 –
Quote
The slippery slope to incest, bestiality or worse.
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
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #371 –
Truly bizarre commentary MIO.

Weird ++

stick to the footy would be my advice.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #372 –
Quote from: kruddler on

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.

Not real well! You don't get any puppies :(

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #373 –
Quote from: flyboy77 on
Truly bizarre commentary MIO.

Weird ++

stick to the footy would be my advice.
It is okay fly, I don't commentate to be approved by the masses.
I make my comments based on my beliefs, so am comfortable with you not understanding or agreeing with what I am saying.

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.

That is the absolute core of the discussion, anything else obfuscates that core situation.

As I have said what seems like 100 times.. If people are allowed to pass a judgment based on that core situation in any circumstance, then they are able to determine what constitutes a valid marriage in their opinion.

So once that is true, then understanding that due to ones upbringing/life exposure etc, there will be people who don't believe that 2 women or 2 men shall marry.
It doesn't mean that another person, having a different upbringing will agree or that either party is 'correct'.

I look at religion. I don't believe in any of the religions at all. To me it is absolute utter nonsense. That is based on the life I have lived and my way of interpreting that life. I don't for a second believe it is impossible if I lived in different circumstances for me to have grown up believing in any of the religions.

So whilst I don't believe at all, I do understand why people do, I understand that your upbringing.. your education, your family and your general environment play a part.

I raised the scenario of a particularly distasteful, frowned upon & illegal situation (which homosexuality remember once once also) as a hypothetical comparison.
I didn't raise it to say there should be a push for such a scenario and debating such is simply getting off topic.
It is simply just that it is a situation where people would make a judgment call based on their own upbringing and morals on what makes an acceptable marriage.

If there was a plebiscite 40-50 years ago, make no mistake the results would also likely to be maybe 95% or higher against SSM.
It would have been considered distasteful and frowned upon by most, as that is what they would have learned during their upbringing.

I am only stating that people are making their judgment based on the fact they have come to understand and respect same sex couples and this has come through normalising in society. Which is okay, in fact that is good. But it then the logical conclusion would be that there will be people where there has been less normlisation of same sex couples in their society and as such it goes against what they believe in.

I don't get how that is hard for people to understand.

But again... (broken record)
If the government believes SSM is the right thing for society, does it matter whether or not everyone agrees?
Surely like any change of a law people will just move on with their lives.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #374 –
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!

Personally, the LGBTI people I know are more likely to rescue / defend a child than abuse them!
The Force Awakens!