Reply With Quotecobra679 (07-10-17),OSIRUS (06-10-17),VroomVroom (06-10-17)
I see. So you just ignore all of the content to the contrary in this thread and make an unsupported statement without any reference to the numerous examples to the contrary, let alone any attempt to explain why you are contradicting them. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as ignorant and uninformed as it is.Originally Posted by Sektor
Last edited by DB44; 05-10-17 at 09:44 PM.
cobra679 (07-10-17),OSIRUS (06-10-17),VroomVroom (06-10-17)
When this debate started a couple of years ago, I was inclined to vote Yes but after witnessing the bullying, intimidation and vilification of the No camp, by the LGBTIQ lobby and their leftist allies, I have decided to vote No. Furthermore, this debate is much more than SSM; its part of a broader leftist agenda to propagate radical gender theory including the disgusting safe schools program.
This is exactly 100% correct
That is exactly what it is about.
if there was a legislation that granted same sex couples the same rights as marriage under the law without it being marriage it would be fine too but it would mean having a duplicate of the existing marriage law with a different name. I think the government realizes there is no point in doing that.
I dont have any issues with people voting no, but i really think the lies need to stop.
you can not claim that this will affect schools in the form of gender theory when schools are already teaching that now. how can that be a consequence of redefining marriage when it has not been redefined yet and this is part of the school curriculum, further more that is being phased out.
My parents are devout Christians and have decided to vote yes because they recognize that there is a large percentage of people who are being married outside of the church and the the laws are being changed in civil society not within the faith.
It is not a religious issue, also a lot of gay people that i know are wanting to be married or at least have equal rights under the law, in whatever form that takes. It is not fair to deny them the same rights based on there sexuality, if you do, how far can you take it. one could argue they have the right to deny a gay person a job based on their beliefs or deny medical attention (this has started to happen in the USA) because their gay. one could also argue under the same logic that gay people should not be able to vote or serve in the government sector.
discrimination under the marriage law is still discrimination.
Also if you take the actions of the fringe extremists of the yes side and paint everyone under the same then unfortunately the same must be done for the no side. for example the bashing of gay and transgender people and the burning and defacing of LGBT flags, the obscene R rated NO banners being draped on overpasses in Brisbane. properties in Brisbane with LGBT flags having windows broken.
also the reality is, society is moving forward and will end up passing this in the future and not that far into the future. it would be better to do it under this government with the bill they put forward has protection for religion, and businesses. labor will pass it anyway when they get in power likely next election, and they will probably pass a bill that they draft rather than the one the LNP passed and i doubt it will be as balanced.
Sektor (11-10-17)
Your argument has merit, Bazzy. Sadly, I have seen first hand how the "YES" campaign has chosen to "defend" its case, and it ain't pretty.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Fascinating.
You have just rounded off on DB44 on another thread on this subject for engaging in a slippery-slope logical fallacy.
And yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.
"If you let this happen, then this could happen".........slippery slope.
Do as I say, not as I do?
DB44 (11-10-17)
Very true. Of course, it would appear that Bazzy did not read or at least failed to comprehend his own link on slippery slope arguments as logical fallacies. Not all such arguments fit this description. Only those which fail to engage by taking an extreme hypothesis with no evidence to indulge in a scare campaign. I maintain that my slippery slope argument involved neither an extreme hypothesis nor a fallacy, as it relies on what has in fact happened in the UK and Canada. Can Bazzy say the same?Fascinating.
You have just rounded off on DB44 on another thread on this subject for engaging in a slippery-slope logical fallacy.
And yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.
"If you let this happen, then this could happen".........slippery slope.
Do as I say, not as I do?
So why not give it a different name ? there is so much talent and creativity within the gay community I am sure they can come up with a respectable name which identify them in a same sex union with same legal rights as heterosexual married couples to apply. instead they want to use marriage so that they can hide their Homosexuality behind the marriage institution vale. For me marriage means your partner is of the opposite sex.
In addition there is no legislation in place to indemnify religious clergies and any others who refuse to provide services to gays because of their belief from being dragged into equal rights tribunals.
Only 47000 have declared themselves as being in same sex union according the 2016 sensuous. I can't believe Turnbull committed 120 million of tax payers money for this minority. It scares me how such a small monitory can reel so much power.
Please vote NO for allowing gays to use the word "marriage". I'd vote Yes if they ever decide to give it another name.
if you actually read my post and comprehend what i am saying. i am using it as an example to point out in a very obvious way that you are using the slippery slope argument. but now you are using this logical fallacy.
i find this very interesting. perhaps it is due to your argument having no real substance.
as i have said there is nothing wrong with you having your opinion however when you make claims i think you should be able to back them up with actual sourced evidence as i have.
and for the record, I feel this debate has turned the atmosphere at austech rather toxic. and it is a pity that you are not taking the same approach that Whirlpool has on the subject knowing there are people on both sides of this debate in your forums and it is a divisive issue that neither side will agree. this issue also has nothing to do with technology so in the context of this forum it is also irrelevant yet you can not come on this forum without being confronted by the banner giving the reasons why the Admin is voting no on the subject and this is again irreverent in the context of this forum. whirlpool recognizes this and will delete any thread started on the subject.
What would be nice is if people could have there vote silently without having people campaigning, with the no side putting up 3 tv ads per day and writing no in the sky and dropping letters into peoples mail boxes, and without the yes side making phone calls and texting and running rallies.
This debate is dividing the nation and stirring up hate on both sides that will take years to get over. the worst part about this is the people in Ireland warned us of what this debate would stir up yet it is people largely on the no side that demanded this debate. ACL even held the government at ransom saying that if they don't have this debate they will campaign against the government next election. as a result we are now locked in this debate that if far from civil wasting millions of tax payers money.
What is more frustrating to me is the fact that money could be spent on fixing the issues with the power grid to make sure we have power this summer but instead we are having this pointless debate that in the end regardless of what way it goes it has absolutely no affect on this being passed or not. reason being if we get a yes vote there is absolutely no guarantee it will result in a vote in parliament and will likely be deflected until the next election and if we get a no vote there is nothing stopping future governments to make the changes, and in fact labor has said they will be passing it within the first 100 days in office anyway regardless of the outcome of this vote.
also whatever way this goes there will be the other side calling fowl play. if we get yes, the no side will say it was rigged, if we get no the yes side will say it favored the no vote. that is the issue with voluntary votes. even the census is compulsory
in regard to the the census stating 42000 gay people in relationships, that fails to count the number of people who are gay but are not "out" and these people have the potential to be more open and have relationships.
i can guarantee there are more gay people in Australia than you think there are. this is largely because people see a stereotype such as the people who attend the gay parades, Most don't, in fact most gay people don't measure up to the stereo type at all.
Most seem like normal people. and if these said people are not "out" or "open" about it they are unlikely to indicate there relationship preferences in the census because it is intrusive. I know for a fact the result in that was inaccurate. if people say they are not when they are that throws the results out making it meaningless.
in regards to coming up with an alternative to marriage, i don't see why the yes side should make that proposition because that is not how a negotiation works. when someone proposes an idea and that gets rejected then the party that rejects it should come back with something that would be acceptable to them, in this case you haven't. in addition to this if you create something different for gay people other than marriage then that will only be recognized in Australia and is worthless on the global stage. for the sake of this lets call it a "Lifetime Relationship Vow" as no other western society has this lifetime relationship vow for same sex couples and a large number have marriage equality, it has no value outside of Australia. for example if Bill and Bob took there "relationship Vow" in Australia and then went over on holidays to US for example or Canada, that will be completely meaningless in that country. just as how marriage in other countries of same sex couples are completely meaningless here.
this will result in people getting married over seas and then having to get the "relationship vows" here despite the fact the legislation surrounding these "relationship vows" will be a mirror of Marriage law in Australia just with the prevision for same sex couples. that also means that any future changes for example if the government want to make changes to the marriage act in any way, and they do amend it from time to time, these changes would have to be made to two separate institutions that are basically identical with exception to one being exclusively heterosexual and the other being exclusively homosexual.
This also does not address the issue of people who are married overseas in same sex marriages that when they come back to Australia they can not separate if things fall apart, this issue was identified by the united nations by the way and they gave the Australian government 100 days to rectify this issue because it means gay people can not get out of these marriages if things brake down. the only way to separate is to move to a country that has marriage equality then live there for about 2 or 3 years assuming you are granted the right to do that and only then can you file for divorce. it is prohibitive and unfair. so at the very least that prevision will need to be included in the marriage act, like it used to be before 2004 before Howard removed it.
but i have only seen the proposals from the yes side rejected without any constructive input from the no side. if there is going to be an "alternative" this really needs to be worked out by both sides and given the fact key no advocates wont come to the table to sort this out it is very clear that nothing that grants gay people equal rights under the law regardless of what form that takes will be acceptable.
Don't get me wrong there are people who are happy to come up with the middle ground here and come up with another name for marriage of gay people but they are the minority on the no side and the argument the no side puts to the table such as education in schools, religious freedoms etc are universal in this argument and will be applied to this other institution that is agreed upon.
for example you can argue that radical sex education could be a consequence of the introduction of "lifetime relationship vow"
or if you grant the gay people rights to "lifetime relationship vows" schools will be forced to promote homosexuality.
or if you grant gay people the right to "lifetime relationship vows" cake shops will be forced to make cake for the ceremony even if they it is against the beliefs of the shop owner.
as you can see they are universal and they can be applied to anything that we come up with.
Last edited by bazzy; 12-10-17 at 12:37 PM.
Sektor (12-10-17)
Unfortunately it seems your knowledge of logical fallacies comes from your very flawed reading of a few websites. I have invited you to properly address the various examples in this thread as to what has actually happened following the adoption of same sex marriage overseas. You have failed to do so, and have failed to provide any reputable sources or indeed for most of your statements no sources at all.
We seem to be going around in circles and getting nowhere. Plainly we are unlikely to reach any reasonable level of agreement. Our statements remain here so other members can form their own conclusions. I don't intend to respond further to you in this thread unless you actually engage in a worthwhile way with the issues as I see them.
Please see also
Last edited by DB44; 12-10-17 at 01:54 PM.
in the other thread i have and you know it. and everything i provide you reject. i am surprised about this considering the last one was from a Canadian that provided the source from the Canadian government themselves.
but it is easier to ignore that than address it directly. so i am all for not debating this with you because you clearly have no interest in facts and will never change your opinion on the subject regardless of what evidence is provided to you.
you also did not address any of the points i bring up either and rather choose to ignore it.
i find that very interesting.
as for the logical fallacy, i have read them and completely understand them. considering the comments you are making about them it shows me your lack of understanding and the inability to recognize this in your own argument.
I also find it interesting that you despite me asking you to back up your claims with proof for example these court documents you talk of you have failed to provide them and instead avoid directly answering it. so that brings us back to .
bob_m_54 (14-10-17)
Typical lifty.. Money won't fix the problem. You need to cancel the emission reduction policies which brought us to this mess.
I have never used logical fallacy anywhere. I did not post this link.
You are making an assumption without solid evidence. Nowadays in Australia homesexialty and being in a same sex gay relationship is 100% legal. If they have not come out by now, they won't come out if the yes vote would have won.
Sure but as the census indicated only 47000 have stated that they are in same sex relationship, and so they are the once for whom the yes vote is relevant.
I wonder why the census didn't have a question about sexual orientation I guess it's politically incorrect.
Your referring to negotiations sounds like trying to reach a settlement between 2 opposing warring factions. If you have the gay pride to come out, what is wrong with using a different name like "same sex union" to be legislated as same sex couples. Once registered the exact same laws currently in place for heterosexuals will apply providing an outcome which is 100% as Married couples. What is clear to me is that the yes campaign wants to change the definition of the word marriage so that they can hide their Homsexualty behind the marrage vale..
Current legislation which applies to Gay couple is exactly the same as applies to de facto couples once you live with someone for over 2 years. Gay couple who wish to have the same legal rights as married couples can register themselves as same sex union.
Last edited by B52; 12-10-17 at 03:30 PM.
What is the marriage vale? Marrying someone of the same sex doesn't hide homosexuality, it literally makes it public record.
Marriage grants some legal and financial rights not recognised by a union but those problems could be fixed with more changes to the law. Using any other word than marriage will have less social and emotional significance. You can say emotional significance is irrelevant but marriage is a declaration of love and commitment, so emotions are somewhat important. Using another word would be an unnecessary distinction that will just highlight the inequality.
ok.
i know this is inaccurate because i myself am in said relationship and i know i said no on the census as did my partner. reason, at the time we where not out about it to my family. that is why i know FOR A FACT that is wrong. i also know there are many people who are in same sex relationships behind closed doors. and the reason for this especially in my family was vocal opposition from a very religious family against people like myself.
I can tell you first hand how damaging this is as i have lived it.
secondly your not taking into consideration the fact said "union" would only be recognized in Australia and would become invalid as soon as you leave these shores resulting in the very same level of inequality when you step foot in other countries with marriage equality. it also fails to address the issue of people who are married in other countries. the thing is if the law was changed to allow people who where married over seas to be recognized under Australian law but stop at that you will still resolve a lot of these issues anyway.
Ignoring that point will not make it go away mate.
Last edited by bazzy; 12-10-17 at 05:16 PM.
Sektor (12-10-17)
Yes it does.. Since the beginning of time being Marriage was and is between a man and a women and so when you say "I am married" it is assume that your partner would be of the opposite sex. It has always been that way. Given that fact when you are saying to someone that you are married would you also mention that your partner is of the ss as you ? I don't think so, You'd definitely stay silent to avoid any embarrassment or any possible backlash for being homosexuals, and so the marriage institution would provide you with the camouflage for hiding your sexual orientation.
The Census process cost a lot of money, It is put in place so that the government can make or amend certain legislation to accommodate the nations needs including ss couples. So they say…
You are well aware the information you provide to the census is confidential and can never be accesses by any your family, friends etc.. and so when the Government gave you the opportunity to be included in the same sex statistics you are informing us here on Austech that you are in a ss relationship but you have elected to stay out. This is entirely a matter for yourself, but then the whole argument your are putting up is flawed.
Change the marriage act has huge legal ramification for homosexual, religious clergies, Immigration, schools, and it doesn’t end there. What about Threesome and Polygamy, should we change the marital status to accommodate them as well ? The centerlink already recognize Polygamy, less benefits payout then for single mothers.
What ever happens even if the outcome is NO… you’ll see legislation going through parliament to introduce same sex union which will provide the legal base dealing with inheritance etc… to be the same as married couples once the ss couple register themselves. About applying your legal rights in other countries, it can only be relevant to countries which have legalised ssm. If the need arises you can always get married in any these countries.
Last edited by B52; 13-10-17 at 12:22 PM.
The marriage act was amended 10 years ago to give same sex relationships the exact same status as marriage.
You are quoting a post that has already been proven incorrect in this thread. Running a disprove and incorrect claim a second time doesn't make it correct.
Most people would. Every no voter I know would vote yes to that proposal.
But that's no fun is it ? You're not raining on someone else's parade.
5-10 years ago the gay community was referring to marriage as an outdated institution they didnt want to be part of. Now anyone who doesn't agree with the hijacking of marriage is abused and attacked.
To make sure the yes vote gets through, the plebiscite was blocked (No would have prevailed in my opinion) forcing a non compulsory vote of which the Yes campaign has engaged in mass vote collecting.
Even more disgusting than the yes campaigns abuse and hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with them is the fact that the Labor Party has said it will over turn a no vote if they are elected. And what isn't being reported is that the Yes camp are pushing for anti discrimination laws to be added under section 18C......you wont be able to fart in this country soon.
They can impose it all they like. The fact is at least 40% of the population will not recognise gay marriage, and even a reasonable percentage of Yes voters now wish they had voted No adding to that.
DB44 (13-10-17)
Beauty. Lets stop the vote now and all gay people who want to commit to each other can have Garriage. Hetrosexuals can keep having Marriage.
Of course that would never happen, because it's simply no fun at all. You dont get ruin something that belongs to someone else, you dont get to march in the street, you dont get to bitch and complain, you dont get to force important issues off the board.
But shortly the yes vote will prevail (how can it not, its geared to be one sided) and the lefties will then find themselves sitting around bored. They will then move on to their next loony left campaign.
This is the standard spin line that is being promoted by the Yes camp.I dont have any issues with people voting no, but i really think the lies need to stop.
How about some of the Yes lies ? There are plenty of them, particularly "don't listen to the NO camp, there will be no discrimination repercussions", while at the same time pushing for 18C amendment.
I could sit here all day replying after reading some of the very obvious fake/false/misleading/outright garbage. I'll leave it to others to add more.
Plebiscite wouldn't have been binding either, it's only a referendum that is binding but that isn't required to change the marriage act, so a referendum was never going to happen.
A referendum couldn't have happened...SSM is not a constitutional issue.
A plebiscite would have been morally binding in that any party who defied it would be in serious electoral trouble. BUT, being sh*t scared of the democratic process, politicians came up with lame arse excuses to avoid it. And the apathetic fell into line as always.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks