Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 200812 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 28 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #255 –
Quote from: crashlander – on
[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?
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?
 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #256 –
Quote from: Micky0 – on
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.....
This is now the longest premiership drought in the history of the Carlton Football Club - more evidence of climate change?

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #257 –
Quote from: tonyo – on
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!
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #260 –
Quote from: Mav – on
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?
I don't think it was wrong. I think that societies that descriminate against their citizens are depriving themselves of a considerable portion of their human resources, It is stupid.
I just find that we are NOT thinking of all of the consequences. In fact, most people in this debate are only thinking very short term and very local, There are other things that this means that people are not even conisdering. I think they should.
I don't have anything against ANY form of marriage. None of them is perfect, but all of them provide happiness for the people involved in them. Some work, some do not, as they are all made of contrary humans. That is fine. I would like to see most forms of marriage legalized. I would hate to argue against any form, especially on biblical themes. But I don't see that our society is ready for something that radical. It is going to take time and a lot of mature discussion, neither of which is present in any reasonable supply. Too much scare mongering and not enough ... sense?

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. 
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #261 –
Quote from: crashlander – on
.......................................................

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.

My wife watches this show - she says it's great. And the sex they have is forced, which makes it,...... starts with r, ends in e.

But I'm not sure I see a connection to the present discussion.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #262 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
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.
x2
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #263 –
Tony Abbott has been headbutted by a man wearing a yes badge.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #264 –
Despite words being twisted...

There is no push that I know of from any faction to allow different forms of marriage as an extension of SSM, nor do I believe that allowing SSM would then lead to further changes to the legal definition of a married couple.

The fact is however, that if people feel it is right to pass their opinion on one subject, even if that isn't in the form of a vote, then it is completely hypocritical to deny people the right to objectively decide on another.

And again.. I am in favor of allowing SSM. I have no qualms at all (and in fact encourage) the government scrapping this vote and just passing it into law.

But anyone who cannot see that if YOUR OWN opinion if you were asked on whether you believe that (for example) a brother & sister can marry is ANYTHING BUT YES, then you are without any doubt a hypocrite if you believe that people MUST vote yes.

It make NO DIFFERENCE whether there is any campaigns for further widening of the definition of either acceptable relationships or marriage. The ONLY difference between a society allowing an incestuous marriage to a Same Sex Marriage to a currently permissible Heterosexual Marriage is that there are laws not allowing it.

But the argument isn't that if you allow SSM it will lead to allowing incestuous marriage or polygamy.

The only argument is over whether society has a right to dictate parameters around whether or not 2 consenting adults can marry.

If society has the right to vote YES or NO in any relationship between consenting adults, then I am sorry they have the right to vote here.
It does NOT mean they should or would vote the same way in either situation, it means they can make up their own minds.

I personally think what Carlton Football Club done was a brave thing. It had to know it would come up for abuse, that was always going to happen. But it was brave enough to state that it believes in Free Speech.
I would have been disappointed if Carlton had campaigned either way.

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

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #265 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Tony Abbott has been headbutted by a man wearing a yes badge.

But that is okay, because he is voting/campaigning on the 'wrong' side and so it is okay for him to be subjected to physical/verbal intimidation/abuse.

I HATE Tony Abott, he is not only Liberal (enough reason in itself for me), but also probably my most disliked leader ever.
That doesn't in ANY way mean it is okay to assault him.

This is the ridiculousness that I have been against since it first started rearing its ugly head in the early days.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #266 –
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-says-he-was-injured-after-being-assaulted-by-same-sex-marriage-campaigner-in-hobart-20170921-gymerl.html

The Independent MP for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, released a statement on behalf of The Equality Campaign condemning the violence reported by Mr Abbott.
"We condemn the violence against Tony Abbott that has been reported tonight," the statement read.
"There is never a place for violence or abuse.
"Marriage Equality is about respect and dignity for every Australian. There is no room for any disrespect either physical or verbal in this national debate.
"Our campaign has always and will continue to call for respect and everyone involved in this debate to act in a respectful and dignified way."

No shirtfront ?

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #267 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Tony Abbott has been headbutted by a man wearing a yes badge.

I'd headbutt the pr1ck!  No, I take that back; I'd ask him to put the gloves on and go a couple of rounds.  I reckon he'd be lucky to survive the first round  :)
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #268 –
You do know he's a former boxer? :))

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #269 –
Quote from: Lods – on
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  :)
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!