Same sex Marriage - Will you be voting Yes or No?

[DB44]

And similarly by reading the posts in this forum one can inescapably come to the conclusion that there are those who are totally incapable of considering alternative points of view, and who, in their myopic ignorance, resort to the application of childish and meaningless labels on those with whom they disagree.

Same general idea, but once again put much more diplomatically than I did. Labelling someone is very easy and a nice technique to give the superficial appearance of plausibility to those incapable or unwilling to think and understand their own point of view and argue it effectively. People not so blinded have been known to both strengthen or abandon their point of view as a result.

[Thala Dan]

Same general idea, but once again put much more diplomatically than I did. Labelling someone is very easy and a nice technique to give the superficial appearance of plausibility to those incapable or unwilling to think and understand their own point of view and argue it effectively. People not so blinded have been known to both strengthen or abandon their point of view as a result.

Yes……….resorting to the use of emotive but meaningless labels is a well-worn tactic of those who are bereft of any effective counter-argument to the views of others.

It is a variation of the old “play the man, not the ball”, and is designed to throw the opposition onto the defensive, and divert the discussion away from the issue at hand.

These days this technique is increasingly used as a smokescreen by noisy minorities that seek to introduce significant social changes that may otherwise not stand up to detailed and impartial scrutiny.

[typan]

This site show a strong NO vote up to now but sum how I think the YES/NO vote count by the Gov. will be rigged to a strong yes vote

[enf]

This site show a strong NO vote up to now but sum how I think the YES/NO vote count by the Gov. will be rigged to a strong yes vote

I have always thought the poll would be a strong yes...but if you believe you should vote no then you ought to be free to

a) Say so.
b) Not get assaulted if you say so publicly by those preaching tolerance but instead demonstrate breathtaking hypocrisy with their attitude.

I do not believe that the government could or would "rig" the poll, which is meaningless anyway as it's binding on no one. We could have had a free poll if the politicians weren't sh*t scared of the people and, by extension, sh*t scared of true democracy.

[DB44]

This site show a strong NO vote up to now but sum how I think the YES/NO vote count by the Gov. will be rigged to a strong yes vote

You may well be right. Members of this site are not of course typical. Far more intelligent of course.

And careful of the mooning. Who knows what may happen, given the topic.

[typan]

Yeah I see the moon DB44 don’t know how that got there I’m sure I clicked on the questionmark icon.

[DB44]

Yeah I see the moon DB44 don’t know how that got there I’m sure I clicked on the questionmark icon.

Fair enough. Easy enough to do.

[lsemmens]

Yeah I see the moon DB44 don’t know how that got there I’m sure I clicked on the questionmark icon.

Are you saying that you are questionable?

[admin]

Some of you may have noticed the OLD thread I bumped on this very topic from 2009.

Amazingly, the results are almost the same !

[bazzy]

How has this anything to do with technology?

[bazzy]

I have always thought the poll would be a strong yes...but if you believe you should vote no then you ought to be free to

a) Say so.
b) Not get assaulted if you say so publicly by those preaching tolerance but instead demonstrate breathtaking hypocrisy with their attitude.

I do not believe that the government could or would "rig" the poll, which is meaningless anyway as it's binding on no one. We could have had a free poll if the politicians weren't sh*t scared of the people and, by extension, sh*t scared of true democracy.

It would also be good if the same respect could be given to the same sex couples but some how i doubt that will happen as gay people are still shouted at in the street and called fags for simply holding the hand of their partner.

and the reality is the people in the LGBT community has suffered far more abuse both physical and verbal, than you ever will receive. and if you where actually reading the bullying being received by LGBT people online, you would be embarrassed with your comment.

I have seen LGBT people targeted by Lyle Shelton folowers who have been told they are "unnatural" and "and abomination" that homosexuality should be outlawed and same sex couples should be put into prison charged the same as any sex crimes. comments claiming that "gay people worship the devil" another was a comment that someone made to me that "gay people have a hiss in there voice and that hiss is a snake demon that lives within them"

[DB44]

It would also be good if the same respect could be given to the same sex couples but some how i doubt that will happen as gay people are still shouted at in the street and called fags for simply holding the hand of their partner.

and the reality is the people in the LGBT community has suffered far more abuse both physical and verbal, than you ever will receive. and if you where actually reading the bullying being received by LGBT people online, you would be embarrassed with your comment.

I have seen LGBT people targeted by Lyle Shelton folowers who have been told they are "unnatural" and "and abomination" that homosexuality should be outlawed and same sex couples should be put into prison charged the same as any sex crimes. comments claiming that "gay people worship the devil" another was a comment that someone made to me that "gay people have a hiss in there voice and that hiss is a snake demon that lives within them"

No one here is denying that "gay" people have suffered abuse and violence which to some extent continues. But this does not excuse the appalling behaviour of some of the pro same sex marriage activists in their attempts to silence those on the other side of the debate. Nor does it mean that expanding the definition of marriage to encompass same sex couples is even a solution to the problem, let alone the only solution. Nor does the fact that particular groups have suffered or are suffering mean that society must give to them anything their self-appointed purported representatives demand. Must we ignore overseas experience in places such as Canada and the United Kingdom? Must we pretend that such a change does not have the potential to cause radical and far-reaching changes to aspects of our society quite apart from the institution of marriage itself?

[bazzy]

No one here is denying that "gay" people have suffered abuse and violence which to some extent continues. But this does not excuse the appalling behaviour of some of the pro same sex marriage activists in their attempts to silence those on the other side of the debate. Nor does it mean that expanding the definition of marriage to encompass same sex couples is even a solution to the problem, let alone the only solution. Nor does the fact that particular groups have suffered or are suffering mean that society must give to them anything their self-appointed purported representatives demand. Must we ignore overseas experience in places such as Canada and the United Kingdom? Must we pretend that such a change does not have the potential to cause radical and far-reaching changes to aspects of our society quite apart from the institution of marriage itself?

I find it very interesting that you claim that LGBT people are trying to silence you when the leading No campaigner has had more coverage than the three main campaigners on the yes side combined. see below link



I understand what you are saying regarding the abuse LGBT people are subject to does not give licence to bully however it is just blatant to imply that the no side is incapable of the same.

for example



and this is a uk paper but it happened here and this is a young kid.



this happened in the same area as the guy who attacked abbot



if you feel that equality supporters should be held responsible for these fringe groups that resort to violence then we expect no less than that from the no side.

as for the other countries you mention, when you actually look into these instances for example Canada you mention, i assume you are talking about the laws that "take away parental freedoms" i actually chased that up for myself. the bill of rights have been in play for 30 odd years and is nothing new. when new legislation passes that gets automatically applied. it is how there legal system works. it does not take from parental rights at all.

As for the UK you are no doubt talking about the gender fluidity. That is already in our schools and is actually being phased out so i really can't see how anyone can argue that it is a consequence of same sex marriage when we currently don't have that legal here.

to table that argument is a logical fallacy, pacifically the slippery slope argument and most people see through it. see below

[DB44]

I find it very interesting that you claim that LGBT people are trying to silence you when the leading No campaigner has had more coverage than the three main campaigners on the yes side combined. see below link



I understand what you are saying regarding the abuse LGBT people are subject to does not give licence to bully however it is just blatant to imply that the no side is incapable of the same.

for example



and this is a uk paper but it happened here and this is a young kid.



this happened in the same area as the guy who attacked abbot



if you feel that equality supporters should be held responsible for these fringe groups that resort to violence then we expect no less than that from the no side.

as for the other countries you mention, when you actually look into these instances for example Canada you mention, i assume you are talking about the laws that "take away parental freedoms" i actually chased that up for myself. the bill of rights have been in play for 30 odd years and is nothing new. when new legislation passes that gets automatically applied. it is how there legal system works. it does not take from parental rights at all.

As for the UK you are no doubt talking about the gender fluidity. That is already in our schools and is actually being phased out so i really can't see how anyone can argue that it is a consequence of same sex marriage when we currently don't have that legal here.

to table that argument is a logical fallacy, pacifically the slippery slope argument and most people see through it. see below

First of all, stop putting words in my mouth. That some activists on the Yes side have behaved appallingly and attempted to silence those with opposing views is a matter of public record. Of course not everyone on the Yes side should be tarred with the same brush. But the fact is that the tactics of these activists have actually succeeded on many occasions, bullying businesses to take their side and venues to deny use to anyone with a contrary view. Like it or not, they are the prominent public face of the yes campaign. And an ugly face it is indeed. Nowhere do I or other no supporters here claim or imply that "the no side is incapable of the same", as you put it. But the fringe unsavoury activists of the no campaign are not trying to silence their opponents, or, if there are in fact instances of them doing so, they are certainly nowhere near as successful at it. Don't bother quoting the Guardian. It is quite simply worthless on these issues and straight out wrong in this case.

As for the overseas experience, you should actually take the trouble to read this thread properly. You don't have to assume what I am referring to. It is set out for you. The thread of course focuses on the UK experience, and gives concrete examples, including the Jewish Girls School apparently under threat of closure because of its "inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment". Since then I have come across further terrible examples from Canada, including the example you refer to. It may interest you that one of the central arguments put in that case was that same sex marriage was now legal in Canada. Arguably this was an important consideration in how the Court interpreted the Bill of Righs, and in fact validates the concerns of no supporters in this regard.

As for the thin end of the wedge argument as a logical fallacy, I suggest you read your own link. This thread engages with the topic and uses examples which have now gone well beyond the hypothetical. Even articles on the Green's website by activists acknowledge that same sex marriage is only the beginning. Most of the examples given here are neither extreme nor hypothetical in the UK or Canada.

If you are going to continue to post I suggest that you actually read the thread and engage with the actual arguments.

[bazzy]

ah i thought you would reply like that. another very common tactic of the no side.

for the record, the information reported by the gardian there regarding the the campaign is just one of many i can quote and the data was reported from a media watch organisation that is impartial. you have the right to disagree but downright rejecting the sources i provide without backing up your claim with evidence is a failure on your part not mine. the reality is the yes side are not stopping you from voicing your views.

what should be noted however is this "debate" is about real peoples lives, and that is hurtful.

in essence what this "silencing the no side" is about is as follows

no side wants to debate if gay people should have rights or not under the law

Yes side finds the question offensive because it is real people and real families that are the subject of this debate.

no side only cares about the topics of debate.

it is that simple.

when you have a debate about peoples rights and relationships you will put the people who are the subject of that debate on the defensive.

then you judge them for being defensive.

[Thala Dan]

what should be noted however is this "debate" is about real peoples lives, and that is hurtful……..

Yes side finds the question offensive because it is real people and real families that are the subject of this debate.

That is true of any debate involving the structure and functioning of our society……..somebody is always going to be offended.

Should we also not have debates on Polygamy, Sharia Law, Abortion, Euthanasia, and the like, simply because some people may find said debate hurtful and offensive?

Such debates equally have the potential to affect real people and real families.

no side wants to debate if gay people should have rights or not under the law .

Yes.

It’s called democracy.

It is how the nature and functioning of a lawful society is determined.

It is how all social rights under the law in a democracy are determined….by debate and, ultimately, majority consensus.

when you have a debate about peoples rights and relationships you will put the people who are the subject of that debate on the defensive.
then you judge them for being defensive .

No…they are not being judged for being defensive……they are being judged for being aggressive, vitriolic, and intimidating.

Such actions should be called out no matter which side of the debate.

As for your claim of a “right”….in a democracy no “right” exists until it is agreed upon and lawfully granted.

That is the process in which Australian society is currently engaged.

[DB44]

ah i thought you would reply like that. another very common tactic of the no side.

for the record, the information reported by the gardian there regarding the the campaign is just one of many i can quote and the data was reported from a media watch organisation that is impartial. you have the right to disagree but downright rejecting the sources i provide without backing up your claim with evidence is a failure on your part not mine. the reality is the yes side are not stopping you from voicing your views.

what should be noted however is this "debate" is about real peoples lives, and that is hurtful.

in essence what this "silencing the no side" is about is as follows

no side wants to debate if gay people should have rights or not under the law

Yes side finds the question offensive because it is real people and real families that are the subject of this debate.

no side only cares about the topics of debate.

it is that simple.

when you have a debate about peoples rights and relationships you will put the people who are the subject of that debate on the defensive.

then you judge them for being defensive.

Thala Dan has left me little further to say on the issue. Your argument is basically an emotional one which is not only lacking in merit but downright dangerous for democracy. It places possible emotional upset to some members of a minority group ahead of sound public policy, free speech and the debate and public discussion which is so necessary to the healthy function of a democracy. You also show a regrettable lack of ability to engage on the actual issues. You ignore the experience in the UK and Canada and defend the hateful intolerant actions of contemptible activists as simply defensiveness. I'm not interested in the prattling of your fellow travellers in the Guardian or the Herald unless soundly backed up by reputable sources. The point you try to make, even if it was true, has no particular relevance. The advocates for the no case have clearly not succeeded in denying the Yes case access to venues or sponsorship or access to other forums. Clearly they could use some lessons in bullying from the Yes activists, who seem so expert at it. Please try to actually engage with the issues in future.

[bazzy]

Thala Dan has left me little further to say on the issue. Your argument is basically an emotional one which is not only lacking in merit but downright dangerous for democracy. It places possible emotional upset to some members of a minority group ahead of sound public policy, free speech and the debate and public discussion which is so necessary to the healthy function of a democracy. You also show a regrettable lack of ability to engage on the actual issues. You ignore the experience in the UK and Canada and defend the hateful intolerant actions of contemptible activists as simply defensiveness. I'm not interested in the prattling of your fellow travellers in the Guardian or the Herald unless soundly backed up by reputable sources. The point you try to make, even if it was true, has no particular relevance. The advocates for the no case have clearly not succeeded in denying the Yes case access to venues or sponsorship or access to other forums. Clearly they could use some lessons in bullying from the Yes activists, who seem so expert at it. Please try to actually engage with the issues in future.

Thats the issue. you reject anything that is given to you as being untrue if it conflicts with your viewpoint. while failing to provide actual evedence of the claims you make about the countries that same sex marriage has passed in.
I have done a lot of research on the claims the no side is making and when you actually take the time to look into it for example the UK and Canada these issues have nothing to do with marriage equality nor is there any evidnece they are a consequence of same sex marriage.

I am also not defending the actions of these people who are being agressive towards the no side. however if you take the stance that the no side is not guilty of the same sort of actions as it is clear by your post that you believe that. it is ignorance at its finest especially when i have provided cases that this has happened.

ABC have kept track of these events on both sides for your convenience. so have a look.



I personally have been on the receiving end of online bullying from people who follow Lyle shelton. i have some nice screenshots of some tweets i have received from people claiming to be "Christians" that are targeted and defamatory.

so to see this as the yes side being more aggressive than the no side is 1. incomprehensive outlook in the events 2. factually inaccurate. and easy to be proven wrong when you actually look at what is going on around you.

also there is no way two people being granted the rights to get married will in any way affect anyone else other than the two people involved. all the slippery slope arguments that people are pushing (the logical fallacy) is irrelevent because any additional changes to the institution of marriage will need to be discussed and will go through the same democratic process.

[DB44]

Thats the issue. you reject anything that is given to you as being untrue if it conflicts with your viewpoint. while failing to provide actual evedence of the claims you make about the countries that same sex marriage has passed in.
I have done a lot of research on the claims the no side is making and when you actually take the time to look into it for example the UK and Canada these issues have nothing to do with marriage equality nor is there any evidnece they are a consequence of same sex marriage.

I am also not defending the actions of these people who are being agressive towards the no side. however if you take the stance that the no side is not guilty of the same sort of actions as it is clear by your post that you believe that. it is ignorance at its finest especially when i have provided cases that this has happened.

ABC have kept track of these events on both sides for your convenience. so have a look.



I personally have been on the receiving end of online bullying from people who follow Lyle shelton. i have some nice screenshots of some tweets i have received from people claiming to be "Christians" that are targeted and defamatory.

so to see this as the yes side being more aggressive than the no side is 1. incomprehensive outlook in the events 2. factually inaccurate. and easy to be proven wrong when you actually look at what is going on around you.

also there is no way two people being granted the rights to get married will in any way affect anyone else other than the two people involved. all the slippery slope arguments that people are pushing (the logical fallacy) is irrelevent because any additional changes to the institution of marriage will need to be discussed and will go through the same democratic process.

The fact that you claim to have researched the claims of problems in other countries without addressing them here is meaningless. You might start with the Spectator article dealing with events in the UK and share with us whether they actually took place and why you consider they had nothing to do with SSM. Your one attempt to do that failed dismally with your glib and ignorant conclusion that the decision had nothing to do with SSM because it relied on the Canadian Bill of Rights. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights in light of Canada's introduction of same sex marriage was a central issue and counsel reportedly relied upon it in urging the Court to conclude as it did. Other issues in the UK include amongst many others the preclusion of some religious parents from adopting and the censuring and threatened closure of schools for not sufficiently promoting homosexuality and gender re-assignment, Your conclusion that there will be no flow-on effects is breathtakingly ignorant given the flow-on effects that have happened overseas which you are so reluctant to address.

[bazzy]

The fact that you claim to have researched the claims of problems in other countries without addressing them here is meaningless. You might start with the Spectator article dealing with events in the UK and share with us whether they actually took place and why you consider they had nothing to do with SSM. Your one attempt to do that failed dismally with your glib and ignorant conclusion that the decision had nothing to do with SSM because it relied on the Canadian Bill of Rights. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights in light of Canada's introduction of same sex marriage was a central issue and counsel reportedly relied upon it in urging the Court to conclude as it did. Other issues in the UK include amongst many others the preclusion of some religious parents from adopting and the censuring and threatened closure of schools for not sufficiently promoting homosexuality and gender re-assignment, Your conclusion that there will be no flow-on effects is breathtakingly ignorant given the flow-on effects that have happened overseas which you are so reluctant to address.

yes there are media outlets that report it that way but when you actually look into the facts, it doesn't add up.

the bill of rights gets applied to any legislation that is passed in Canada that relates to human rights.

as for the religious parents that only affects parents who are forcing LGBT children to under go conversion therapy or punishing them for being gay.

it is a form of psychological abuse, and religious families are the most likely to inflict it on gay people.

again, your referencing the UK schools and only going by what is reported in the media, I am shocked that you seem unwilling to research what is actually said in the media and accept it without question. it is very clear you have no interest in finding the truth.

A lot of Christians think that being gay is a choice, it is very clear you also do given the fact you say "schools promoting homosexuality" i am always boggled as to why people think and say that considering the difficulties LGBT people suffer in life is not something anyone would choose.