Carlton Supporters Club

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".