Why I am Voting NO

[enf]

.........................

Whilst I don't share Admins' total disdain for Bill Shorten, I do think that, in this instance, he has allowed political expediency to triumph over the public good.

I do, and yes he has....the total silence of the ALP on the violence and stupidity that they themselves have largely contributed to is a sad disgrace. The almost total silence of the Coalition (apart from a weak whimper or two from Turnbull) on the same issue is also a disgrace. I won't say any more for reasons you and I have talked about before.

A simple declaration of what each candidate would support immediately prior to the next election would have sufficed and cost nothing. BUT, they are terrified of the people.....

[admin]

Well where is Bill Shorten on this one protecting workers rights ? The ACTU ?



Its bad enough that this employer is crummy enough to employ an 18 year old as a contractor. To sack someone simply because they had a Facebook profile picture with a filter saying its ok to say No is in a word, disgusting.

I checked out the employer's facebook page and she has had comments removed by Facebook for "hate speech". So she engages in hate speech, bigotry, questionable employment methods and illegal sackings based on someone's right of religion, but the Yes crowd reckon that's ok ?

Fark me, you Yes people still going with this ? Can you imagine the boot on the other foot ?

A Christian employer who is scummy employs an 18 year old female as a contractor, sacks her because she had a Facebook profile picture saying its ok to vote Yes.

We would be hearing from Bill Shorten, Labor, The Greens, Sarah Hansen Young, the Human Rights Commission, Feminists, the ACTU, Unions would black ban the business, the business would immediately get a $12,000 fine, and then have to close down due to death threats after the a leftwing protest burns down the building.

But hang on, it is the other way around isnt it, nothing will happen.

Wake Up Australia before its too late.

[exited]

Sounds like a perfect reason to join a union

[enf]

Sounds like a perfect reason to join a union

Yep...complusion is the only way they can get members these days....what is it currently?...18% and falling or something?

[exited]

Yep...complusion is the only way they can get members these days....what is it currently?...18% and falling or something?

Compulsion????? Not in the 21st century mate.

These days it's all about FREEDOM of CHOICE... all 18 degrees of it

There are plenty of strong arguments for voting NO. The best one I've seen is if the definition of marriage is changed it rejects the legal and biological fact that children can only be conceived by a man and a woman. If you strongly believe this is your criteria for family, you should vote NO.

The YES alternative is to reject the limitations of civil unions in favour of being actually married - it's not the same.
Some organisations may not accept your partner as your next of kin in a civil union, which then affects the proceeds of a will. SSM removes this barrier. Some people would prefer to leave their things to their partner rather than their dickhead brother or sister.

My view is this... one of the positive underlying attributes to our advanced society is a higher degree of tolerance + freedom of choice and I stand by that creed with the only caveat being no individual, or group, is unfairly disadvantaged.

Freedom of choice is the way to go. That's why I'm voting YES, but if the NO gets up, that's fine with me.

We're probably all going to get blown up anyway so who gives a hoot?

[garrycol]

The best one I've seen is if the definition of marriage is changed it rejects the legal and biological fact that children can only be conceived by a man and a woman.

Yes children can only be conceived by an man a woman but this was happening well before marriage was even invented so if you can have children and not be married then this baby making aspect is not relevant to marriage.

[DB44]

@PZ. A well reasoned argument. One of the great advantages of technology and progress is that it does free us to some extent from the limitations of our biology. However, I don't agree with your reasoning for a yes vote in a couple of respects. As other posts in this thread have pointed out, there are virtually no such limitations as the ones you refer to on civil unions. Apparently there may be a few anachronisms in some states. If this is the case they can and should be easily corrected with legislation. The inheritance problems to which you refer have long past been addressed. A mousetrap will kill a mouse just as dead as a nuclear bomb, though the latter is not preferred for obvious reasons. There has also been more than adequate discussions on this thread of the likely "collateral damage" of a yes vote. Freedom of choice is great. I'd like to protect mine from the activist bigots who seem to be driving this crusade.

[DB44]

Yes children can only be conceived by an man a woman but this was happening well before marriage was even invented so if you can have children and not be married then this baby making aspect is not relevant to marriage.

Logically does not follow.

[garrycol]

So following your logic if a hetro couple cannot have children they should not be allowed to get married.

[ol' boy]

Can anyone see the problem with this Same Sex Marriage form?

[exited]

That's a pisser

Now I know why they're going to those funny "square" bar codes...

[VroomVroom]

besides the funny combination of letters ( in this case ) why would you even need a bar code on a simple Yes / No form? are they tracking who and where the returned votes are coming from?

[mtv]

are they tracking who and where the returned votes are coming from?

Of course they are.

It's no different to a postal vote in any election.

The only difference in this instance is it's not compulsory.

I'm guessing it may also be a security measure that received votes are actually from the person they were sent to, especially if people are reporting not receiving voting forms due to mail theft, so they are not 'seen' to be voting more than once, etc.

[ol' boy]

More when you Google

[DB44]

So following your logic if a hetro couple cannot have children they should not be allowed to get married.

Not at all. Just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. You start with the premise that before marriage came into existence couples who had children were not married. You then make the gigantic leap to saying that therefore the ability to have children is irrelevant to marriage. It simply does not follow from your premise. One, but only one, of the reasons why marriage came into existence was to provide a stable environment for having and raising children. Clearly "this babymaking aspect", as you put it, is very relevant. It is arguable of course that in modern society this aspect lacks the weight that it once had. Some people are of the view that "the babymaking aspect" is at the centre of the concept of marriage, or at least very important to it.

[Tiny]

The YES alternative is to reject the limitations of civil unions in favour of being actually married - it's not the same.
Some organisations may not accept your partner as your next of kin in a civil union, which then affects the proceeds of a will. SSM removes this barrier. Some people would prefer to leave their things to their partner rather than their dickhead brother or sister.

No it doesn't; any Will can be contested by family members, if they wish to challenge with valid arguments, even with opposite sex marriage.
Next of kin will always be a persons closest living biological relatives, marriage doesn't change that.

Example: Heterosexual married couple have children; they divorce, husband remarries & dies, the ex-wife has no grounds to contest the will, however the children from the original marriage can contest the will if they don't like the outcome, as they are blood relatives................


You can will what ever you want to what ever or whomever you want, charities, your pets, however dependants & relatives can contest these wills with valid arguments.

EDIT: Actually just about anybody can contest your will if they can prove they were dependant on you.

[Hillsbysa]

My sister Jenny married Tarryn in South Africa where same sex marriage has been legal for some years now. I did not know Jenny was gay until a year before she got married at the age of 37. Until then I had little exposure to gays as such and at that time I had a different view of the world.

Then I saw how natural their relationship was and how much they loved each other. In the end I couldn't see any difference between them and heterosexual relationships other than the obvious.

In March 2014 Jenny was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. She underwent chemotherapy, but sadly it came too late and she passed away in November 2014. Tarryn was by her side right to the very end.

There were over 300 people at Jenny's memorial service. She had been an accountant at Investec in South Africa for over 20 years. Everyone loved her personality and sense of humour.

Tarryn had given birth to Daniel 7 years earlier, and both Jenny and Tarryn were great parents. I saw a young boy growing up who was very well adjusted. He did well at school.

Daniel was very brave and gave an emotional speech about his dearly loved Mum. It brought tears to many eyes.

I'm voting YES

[Neddie]

Then I saw how natural their relationship was and how much they loved each other. I'm voting YES

Thank you for that, I think that is the reality, my condolences to the family.

I think those who are voting No just do not understand the reality of same sex relationships or are doing so (voting NO) due to the guilt they suffer about the pleasure they feel when banging their wife in the arse. They are worried that perhaps they are closet homosexuals, and by denying it, it will go away.

I'm voting YES also.

[Hillsbysa]

Next of kin will always be a persons closest living biological relatives, marriage doesn't change that.

Sorry mate, that just isn't true.

[cobra679]

The anus is for output not input. Female and Female, I have no problem with