You have certainly been misinformed. This is not the flaw the vote is trying to rectify. In most if not all Australian jurisdictions same sex relationships are categorised as de facto relationships and carry the same rights and obligations as relationships between heterosexual couples. If same sex couples want rights to organise the others affairs in a very recent relationship they can easily achieve this without "marrying".
Personally I think the push for same sex marriage is all about the use of the word "marriage". When the same word is used for such a union between heterosexual couples and same sex couples the message is that both are equally desirable from the point of view of society. It could well be that a new generation raised in such an environment will come to regard same sex and heterosexual marriages and relationships in general as equally desirable. If you believe this, you should of course vote yes. But please don't pretend there will be no social effect whatsoever. Perhaps it is just my upbringing, but I do believe that relationships between a man and a woman should stay society's norm.
I believe that there is great confusion generally between tolerating and promoting/endorsing. So far as same sex relationships are concerned I think that they should be tolerated but not endorsed or promoted. Same sex relationships should be free of stigma and those who engage in them free from discrimination. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a relationship with binding force they should be able to legally do so. If there are still Australian jurisdictions where they currently cannot then this should of course change. Respect and tolerance, yes. Promotion and endorsement, no. Think about why "marriage" under another name is not acceptable to at least some of these people?
I will be voting no. Even had I planned to vote yes I would now be voting no because of the disgraceful attempt to silence debate by those on the left who have adopted this as one of their pet causes.
Last edited by DB44; 30-08-17 at 07:03 PM.
So, if a same sex couple live together for a certain amount of time, are they considered a Defaco Couple?
As is done with a hetrosexual couple.
Then again, with gender confused people, what the hell is a hetrosexual couple anymore?
Last edited by ol' boy; 30-08-17 at 07:22 PM.
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
eaglem (31-08-17)
That's not what I said. I said "I don't see any gain voting no, just because you're sick and tired of the issue, or think it's a waste of time and money"
in other words, voting No out of spite, not because you disagree with same sex marriage, but because you're sick and tired of the issue.
Rick (31-08-17)
What's with all the slippery slope fallacies? Other countries have recognised same sex marriage for years and it hasn't led to any of those insane things.
No matter how this all works out, the left and right will continue lobbing for what they want to lobby for. Ticking yes or no isn't going to silence anyone about other issues, so I don't know why anyone would base their decision on that.
Last edited by Sektor; 30-08-17 at 09:54 PM.
@bob_m_54. Sorry if I misinterpretated the point you are making. In post 11 you did indeed use the above words. However, you went on to say:
I took this as making a correct point, that being that a negative vote is not likely to be the end of the issue, and then advocating that people who were sick of the issue should vote yes just so it would go away. The question mark is just that. It invites you to clarify your position. Are you simply making an observation that a no vote will likely not be the end of the issue, where a yes vote will? Or are you advocating a Yes vote by people simply to make the issue go away?If the vote turns out to be a majority negative, then it will just come up again and again anyway. Better off if the law is passed, the situation is resolved and let them get on with it.
I should have said over a decade, it's not quite decades yet.
There's more than 20 countries that allow same sex marriage and I shouldn't have to say this but you know they haven't all started demanding that we be able to marry animals.
If same sex couples want to marry each other, let them get married, it doesn't hurt you. If you don't want gay marriage, don't get gay married, simple.
Last edited by Sektor; 30-08-17 at 10:20 PM.
Uncle Fester (30-08-17)
Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The problem with this type of thin end of the wedge argument is of course that it is not readily apparent who is now lobbying for what in each of these countries and what further steps have been taken. And, of course, the time frame is simply too short to draw meaningful conclusions. Animals is a more extreme result. More likely the next steps will be polygamous marriages and marriages between adults and minors. There are groups in Australia and other western nations which support both, and there have been recent examples in the news.
And of course the thin end of the wedge argument applies to this type of situation as well:
Granted, the thin end of the wedge argument may not be the strongest, but nor should it be lightly dismissed.
VroomVroom (31-08-17)
@Sektor, you just broke a taboo here and mentioned other countries
That wiki list includes every civilised 'western' country I am aware of, even the USA, although I am certain Trump is grinding his teeth figuring out how he can reverse the ruling.
Australians are probably the most conservative lot in the world and totally frightened of any 'changes' and I would be very surprised to see a 'yes' as the result of this opinion poll.
The only instance where I saw Australia ahead of the world was the adaptation of Digital Pay TV (formerly via satellite) hence the creation of this forum
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
A link to this ALP commitment? I didn't see it in their platform at the time, but I will confess I'm not about to scan the thing again, for either party.....I couldn't stay awake.
i hope the 'no brainer' is mine (wouldn't be the first time)...otherwise we know where it resides.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Civilised Western Countries, as you call them, have proven themselves extremely susceptible to this type of politically correct bullying, often to their own very real disadvantage. I don't think there is much doubt what the result would have been in the United States had the matter been decided by its people rather than a judicially activist Supreme Court. Off the top of my head the only public vote on the matter I am aware of was in Ireland, where a large number of people didn't bother voting. Australians have much in common with the Irish and similar apathy may well prevail here. Overall 60.52% of the 62.07% voter turnout were in favour, or 37.56% of the eligible voting population. A similar result in Australia in a referendum would see the measure fail. A plebiscite turnout of only 62% will make any result less than convincing or even useful, though the SSM supporters will likely achieve a Parliamentary vote if they do come out ahead. If not, of course, they will lobby for a Parliamentary vote anyway. A referendum on inserting a definition of marriage into the Constitution would in my view be the best way to go. It would also mean the measure would fail unless it truly did have the extraordinarily high level of support that the SSM lobby claims it does.
Last edited by DB44; 31-08-17 at 09:56 AM.
It clarifies nothing. It clearly states that...
I wasn't aware that he was elected.....or, if you like, he stated what he will do but failed to get elected......on that issue and others.If Mr Shorten is elected, it is ALP policy to introduce a bill to parliament to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days of taking office.
Again...it isn't in the ALP platform either that I could see.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
ALP policy is to have a Parliamentary vote with ALP members voting according to their conscience - if a result has not been achieved by 2019 the policy changes to having a Parliamentary Vote but all ALP members must vote YES to same sex marriage legislation with no conscience vote - so conscience vote until 2019 then they must vote Yes.
It clarifies the ALP position at the last Federal election, the election in which you said SSM was not discussed and goes against your claim that we haven't had an opportunity to vote on.
You had said...
The link clarifies that is not correct. It was discussed and each party did have views on the issue that you and I ended up voting for.Originally Posted by enf
There's nothing about legislation in that link you provided. So, yes we had a vote and the ALP lost....
You said they said legislation would be introduced....
What I am saying is legislation to be introduced after winning, which they didn't do....although they will next election I'm sure....
I will be voting 'yes' by the way, although I fully expect a host of unintended ramifications to follow down the track that will be related to this.....occupying the nation with similar sideshows as it keeps going down the financial and employment toilette.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
It's right there:
"If Mr Shorten is elected, it is ALP policy to introduce a bill to parliament to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days of taking office."
As i posted, they intended to "introduce a bill within the first 100 days to make SSM law".
Obviously it wasn't introduced, the ALP didn't take office.Originally Posted by enf
But that's not what you said originally - you claimed that SSM wasn't an issue being discussed at the last election, which it clearly was. Further, each party had a view on how to move forward with SSM, and those views formed part of the platform that they went to the election with - that we all voted on.
So yes it was discussed, and yes it formed part of they way we voted at the last election.
Last edited by peteramjet; 31-08-17 at 04:12 PM.
Bookmarks