Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[The DoggFather]

Is there any evidence that it did happen? Sometimes (& I'm not saying it happened in this instance) people who are putting a case forward on an emotive issue like this one will vandalise their own things & portray themselves as victims & say the other mob are bad mkay.

Only the no side does stuff like that...... lol

Fuckwits on both sides.

 

[Mr Invisible]

So.. when the gays win, will there be a "human centipede" style mass orgy down William Street ? A conga line of "cock > bum > cock" similar to a Goulburn Valley "peaches mango peaches" campaign??

(no voter sarcasm intended).

 

[EXPLORER]

I ended up voting no,
I wasn't going to vote at all,
At the start, I was going to vote yes,

I'm glad I waited.


If we change the laws for same sex marriage, what's next on the marriage equality argument?
Allowing multiple wives?

Then what, where does it end,

At some point, we have to hang on to some of our core values and not pander to every minority group.

Sorry gays, but life isn't always fair,
Live with it, make the best of it as you see fit,

 

[Mr Invisible]

I voted yes as I take everything on it's own merit. Voting YES for same sex marriage doesn't mean polygamy, or anything else is suddenly legal. If there was a push to make it legal either another vote would need to be called, or it would changed by policy makers without public consultation.

So it makes no difference to the SSM debate.

 

[EXPLORER]

I voted yes as I take everything on it's own merit. Voting YES for same sex marriage doesn't mean polygamy, or anything else is suddenly legal. If there was a push to make it legal either another vote would need to be called, or it would changed by policy makers without public consultation.

So it makes no difference to the SSM debate.

Yeah I don't agree,
Every time we soften our stance on any given topic, it tends to add weight to other changes.

 

[Flanagun]

Yeah I don't agree,
Every time we soften our stance on any given topic, it tends to add weight to other changes.

Sometimes those changes can be positive. At one stage black people in America weren't allowed to catch the same bus as white people. Life isn't always fair, but sometimes we can work to make it fairer and that isn't a bad thing.

You're entitled to your view, but I obviously disagree and I guess it's pretty clear I'm in the yes camp in this one.

We shouldn't be seeking to abandon our core values as a society, but some things do change and it is possible to adapt to that and still hold on to the core principles that are most important. We can't forget who we are but we can't forget society is always evolving and ever changing either. Some of these changes may not be constructive but some certainly are... My ersonsl opinion is that legislating to allow Sam would fall into that latter cayegory.

Anyway, votes are in... and if the yes side wins, the government isn't blind to legislate the change and if the no side wins, the yes side certainly isn't bound to stop working towards change....

I honestly think until the act is changed this is just going to go around in circles...

This whole plebiscite has just been unfortunate, ugly, wasteful and ineffective (in that it's not guaranteed to give a clear result one way or the other.) But it is what it is and I voted yes ... and certainly wouldn't change that if given the chance.

 

[EXPLORER]

Sometimes those changes can be positive. At one stage black people in America weren't allowed to catch the same bus as white people. Life isn't always fair, but sometimes we can work to make it fairer and that isn't a bad thing.

You're entitled to your view, but I obviously disagree and I guess it's pretty clear I'm in the yes camp in this one.

We shouldn't be seeking to abandon our core values as a society, but some things do change and it is possible to adapt to that and still hold on to the core principles that are most important. We can't forget who we are but we can't forget society is always evolving and ever changing either. Some of these changes may not be constructive but some certainly are... My ersonsl opinion is that legislating to allow Sam would fall into that latter cayegory.

Anyway, votes are in... and if the yes side wins, the government isn't blind to legislate the change and if the no side wins, the yes side certainly isn't bound to stop working towards change....

I honestly think until the act is changed this is just going to go around in circles...

This whole plebiscite has just been unfortunate, ugly, wasteful and ineffective (in that it's not guaranteed to give a clear result one way or the other.) But it is what it is and I voted yes ... and certainly wouldn't change that if given the chance.

You make a lot of good points mate.
You are correct, change is sometimes nessasary.

In this case, the change is simply allowing gays the right to be legally married.
Comparing it to the way blacks may have been treated in a time gone by is a bit of a false equivalence.

On one hand, change was needed so the blacks could live in society,

In this case, nothing changes, gays already have all the same rights, only one they don't have is to be legally recognised as married,

They still live a great long and happy life like everyone else can, with or without the legalisation of same sex marriages.

Whilst I disagree with you, I do agree, the argument will just go in circles till the yes voters get their way.

 

[south of heaven]

Didn't vote, doesn't bother me what way it goes

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Yeah I don't agree,
Every time we soften our stance on any given topic, it tends to add weight to other changes.

That's true. First we stopped allowing white people to own black people as slaves, then all of a sudden children are emancipating from their parents. Never should have released the slaves in the first place.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

For me it's just one main thing. If someone told me I wasn't allowed to get married because of who I am, I'd be pissed off. That's the only reason I voted yes.

I can understand people saying "no" if it had the potential to harm someone, or remove someone's freedom, but I can't fathom the concept of "You shouldn't be allowed to marry someone because I'm afraid that it will lead to animals marrying children". There's a reason they call the Slippery Slope concept a fallacy. 'cause it rarely ever happens and for good reason. 'cause we don't vote for what's may to be a concept in the future. We vote for the issue at hand.

 

[Raysie]

I ended up voting no,
I wasn't going to vote at all,
At the start, I was going to vote yes,

I'm glad I waited.


If we change the laws for same sex marriage, what's next on the marriage equality argument?
Allowing multiple wives?

Then what, where does it end,

At some point, we have to hang on to some of our core values and not pander to every minority group.

Sorry gays, but life isn't always fair,
Live with it, make the best of it as you see fit,

What are our "core values" exactly? Forced labour? Human trafficking? Stealing a country which is not ours? I laugh at what we consider "core values".

The whole argument about what does this change next bullshit is just ignorant and a lazy way to look at things. If something was to have a domino effect, it'll either be a positive change or if not as a population we will make a decision as it comes. Let's not let down our small amount of workmates, friends and fellow Australians who happen to be gay and want to marry one another just because it's easy for us to say no.

And yes life is unfair. But you had an ability to make someone elses life just that little bit fairer and chose not to.... because of "core values".

 

[Wolfmother]

There's a reason they call the Slippery Slope concept a fallacy. 'cause it rarely ever happens and for good reason. 'cause we don't vote for what's may to be a concept in the future. We vote for the issue at hand.

The issue at hand has a meandering path. Nothing political is simple

 

[Flanagun]

You make a lot of good points mate.
You are correct, change is sometimes nessasary.

In this case, the change is simply allowing gays the right to be legally married.
Comparing it to the way blacks may have been treated in a time gone by is a bit of a false equivalence.

On one hand, change was needed so the blacks could live in society,

In this case, nothing changes, gays already have all the same rights, only one they don't have is to be legally recognised as married,

They still live a great long and happy life like everyone else can, with or without the legalisation of same sex marriages.

Whilst I disagree with you, I do agree, the argument will just go in circles till the yes voters get their way.

I don't think it's a false equivalence really.... maybe it is. It's not a perfect analogy, but few are when you get down to it. I do see some parallels in terms of the persuit of human dignity.

Civil rights are not all about equality of life, they are about the right to human dignity too...and at the end of the day, Rosa Parks getting on that bus was about dignity...although admittedly given the context of the historical period, it was about a lot of other underlying social problems also.

But the right to dignity is important too, because people who are segregated from society to any degree will never feel fully at peace within that society.

It's hard to draw perfect comparisons between different historical periods, but I think dignity is important to the gay community, just as it was to Rosa Parks and all the people who supported her.

Anyway, it's easy to say a comparison is a false equivalency when you're not the one making it, because as I said, very few if any comparisons are perfect....

I think equating a relationship between two consenting adults with a relationship between numerous adults, or animals, children or any of the other slippery slope arguments employed by the no side are false equivalencies too.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.... but I do think the most important perspectives in this debate are those of the people who are directly impacted by the issue.... and I think those are the members of the LGTBQI community who don't have that right to marry.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The issue at hand has a meandering path. Nothing political is simple

This is true. But if you see gold 20 metres down a path and shit 40 metres down the path, would you leave the gold just in case you walk too far and step in shit?

We face each point as we confront it. If we worried about future decisions we had to make we'd all be living in caves throwing mud at each other. You can't move forward if you only worry about the future.

 

[EXPLORER]

This is true. But if you see gold 20 metres down a path and shit 40 metres down the path, would you leave the gold just in case you walk too far and step in shit?

We face each point as we confront it. If we worried about future decisions we had to make we'd all be living in caves throwing mud at each other. You can't move forward if you only worry about the future.

Fair points you raise
And I don't disagree

Just on this occasion, I don't think the laws needed to be changed

Don't get me wrong
I was originally a yes voter based on some friends I have that are gay,

But I swayed during the process
I am confident that sooner or later same sex marriage will be legalised

And I can live with it,

 

[Wolfmother]

This is true. But if you see gold 20 metres down a path and shit 40 metres down the path, would you leave the gold just in case you walk too far and step in shit?

We face each point as we confront it. If we worried about future decisions we had to make we'd all be living in caves throwing mud at each other. You can't move forward if you only worry about the future.

But are we moving forward or is Ssm an idealistic act to support our stand on equality.
I read on Facebook that some bloke in Britain was the first man to give birth... but it's not possible for a man to give birth because a man doesn't have female reproductive organs however because he has been living as a man he is classed a man.
So you see the meandering path? .. We are slowly redefining scientific classification for the sake of equality.

Are we all meant to unlearn?

 

[CaptainJackson]

I see the same slippery slope arguments haven't changed

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But are we moving forward or is Ssm an idealistic act to support our stand on equality.
I read on Facebook that some bloke in Britain was the first man to give birth... but it's not possible for a man to give birth because a man doesn't have female reproductive organs however because he has been living as a man he is classed a man.
So you see the meandering path? .. We are slowly redefining scientific classification for the sake of equality.

Are we all meant to unlearn?

The difference is that it's the media who reported "first man to give birth" while science says "woman dresses as a man gave birth"

It's progression in the sense that we're providing equality without harming anyone. If it was a question of paedophilia marriage, or incestuous marriage, or animal marriage. All of these harm someone. Instead we're saying that we shouldn't allow it out of fear of some theoretical future.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

 

[Dawgfather]

Fair points you raise
And I don't disagree

Just on this occasion, I don't think the laws needed to be changed

Don't get me wrong
I was originally a yes voter based on some friends I have that are gay,

But I swayed during the process
I am confident that sooner or later same sex marriage will be legalised

And I can live with it,

Careful with the whole ‘I was a yes voter and then changed to a no voter’ thing. A few snowflakes on here will turn into fortune tellers and tell you they know you better than you know yourself.