Skip to main content
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 114230 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #390


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.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #391
Wall to wall soy lattes and tuna tartare with pomegranate gratin and a balsamic reduction.

Don't say you weren't warned.

I need to lose weight, should I turn gay?
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #392
I worked with a bloke whose father had eight wives.

He's welcome to them, one is more than enough for me.  ;)
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #393
I need to lose weight, should I turn gay?

No, just support ssm. This will give the LGBT community license to spread their crazy dietary ideas everywhere.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #394
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.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #395
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.

Yes you are right.
The ONLY relevance it has is to show that people do have opinions on relations between adults.
That it is ignorant of most to suggest that they don't judge 2 consenting adults, when I think that most would in the situation I have put forward.

IMO only by understanding that we do in fact judge, can we then begin to appreciate that people may form a different judgment than ourselves.
We assume that because we would vote "YES" if pressed, that it shows we are choosing to have no right to judge 2 consenting humans.
In fact it shows that we are judging and choosing validation in an specific scenario.

My only part in this debate has been to show that people pass judgment based on their own compasses and their own morals on the subject and that is okay.
Having an opinion is okay.

Intolerance towards people having an opposite view is of course bigotry.

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.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL


Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #396
I'm not seeing a problem here.

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?
The Force Awakens!

 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #397
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.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #398
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?
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #399
Are you asserting they pick and choose their battles?

There's a hard core among our political elite who will do everything that they can to preserve the status quo, their tactics to that end change as circumstances demand.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #400
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.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #401
That's probably as good a place as any to leave the silliness for now I'd say.

Quote from: Macklemore
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!



No wonder I'm confused! :o
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #402
But he is an old white dude, 35 I believe, pretending to be a young white dude!



No wonder I'm confused! :o

35 is not old LP; it is very young  :)
“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 #403
35 is not old LP; it is very young  :)

Yet he's old enough to be dad for most of his fans, and a brother to many of us old white dudes!

Luckily though, I'm beige!
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #404
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

No, i am quoting 'arguments' that i have heard on the topic.

NO voters have used that argument. I'm pointing out that there isn't any real correlation between the whole thing and the argument is invalid. I'm not talking sides one way or another.

I've already mentioned that cultural upbringing is relative and different forms of right/wrong exist based on this.

I've also already pointed out that older people are were the majority of the no-voters would be coming from....for the reasons you've mentioned.

However, in all of the above, some of it is illegal, some is not. In this country at least, taking the next step in something that is legal, is an easy step to make.
Voting yes makes a lot of people happy.
Voting no, makes a lot of people unhappy. Those that are happy are basically unaffected by it one way or another.