Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Hacky McAxe]

This brings up an interesting question. As a Christian, we believe voting No is the ethical and moral decision. Do you respect that?

This is all it comes down to in the end. Many Christians are voting no because of their morality. Many others are voting yes because of their morality. People just need to understand that people have different morality.

 

[Wahesh]

But you said it yourself. The "Google" definition (which is technically the Oxford definition) states "The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)"

There's no change to the definition there. "Union of two people as partners". A man and a man are two partners. What they want to do is to change the marriage act.

Our jurisdiction is specific though. It was from day dot... but needed to be tweaked.

Let me go into a little more detail about this.

Laws cannot be (at least shouldn't be) contradictive right? So back when the act was brought in back in 1961, it was illegal in this country to be gay. The act stated that marriage was the unification by 2 people, correct? Great, we're all on par. This obviously meant that, considering it was illegal to be gay back then, the idea of 2 men or 2 women getting married was not covered in this act as it was illegal to begin with.

Now if it was NOT illegal to be gay back in 1961 (and I personally think that it being illegal is BULLSHIT because that's not a choice you make) then the act would have stated a man and a woman back from day 1. It was tweaked as it needed to state the obvious, not because the idea of marriage being the act between a man and a woman was not clear back then.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Marriage is not a right.

However, I agree that if there are any actual rights that gay people are denied, this should be resolved by fixing the various pieces of legislation that deny them rights.

However, definition of marriage should remain unchanged.

segregation
the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.

The very idea of having marriage belong ONLY to one group of people is segregation.

Marriage vs de facto, pretty simply concept.

Heterosexuals - marriage and de facto

LGBT - de facto only

Do you want me to break it down further?

The UN legislation on human rights and whether marriage falls into this category is largely based on "The court observed "that marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another"."

they took the cop out version.

I'd also question the UN human rights council and whether their findings are void of appeasement of certain cultures, especially when the head of the UN human rights council is Saudi Arabia.

WA and NT do not recognize de facto relationships, again lack of rights.


Further to this SSM, since religious people profess that this is a religious union and the core idea of this union is to pro-create, I expect to see movements against the marriage of :-

• Atheists
• people who are incapable of having kids
• Old people who've gone past their menopausal stages

 

[CroydonDog]

So when I vote "No", does that make me a homophobe?

Honest question

More depends on your reasons I guess.

 

[Wahesh]

Surely we're not going to vote against same-sex marriage out of fear that lawyers will get more money.

lol no, but my reasoning for voting no stems far deeper than a bunch of ambulance chasers mate.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Our jurisdiction is specific though. It was from day dot... but needed to be tweaked.

Let me go into a little more detail about this.

Laws cannot be (at least shouldn't be) contradictive right? So back when the act was brought in back in 1961, it was illegal in this country to be gay. The act stated that marriage was the unification by 2 people, correct? Great, we're all on par. This obviously meant that, considering it was illegal to be gay back then, the idea of 2 men or 2 women getting married was not covered in this act as it was illegal to begin with.

Now if it was NOT illegal to be gay back in 1961 (and I personally think that it being illegal is BULLSHIT because that's not a choice you make) then the act would have stated a man and a woman back from day 1. It was tweaked as it needed to state the obvious, not because the idea of marriage being the act between a man and a woman was not clear back then.

If the SSM act gets through, parliament is going to be review all of Australia's legislation pertaining to this matter and make the necessary adjustments.

So what I'm getting at is when being gay was made legal, parliament of the time took a look at the legislation that needed amending and amended it as such.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What should society do if it instantly recognises every single time that someone or a class of people feel victimised? Should we stop society and focus our attention on compensation abd making these people feel warm and fuzzy?

That's why we have anti-discrimination laws. But it's not for people who "feel victimised", it's for people who are actually victimised. People who are targeted because of their race or sexual preference. People who are segregated and told that they can't have what everyone else has because of the colour of their skin or who they like to bone.

 

[south of heaven]

My parents never told me who they were voting for ever.they said it's none of my business.
These days you have an over opinionated fool on twitter that feel like they need to express their point, back up by another over opinionated fool who will argue the point.
Every **** has a right to vote whatever way they want without being persecuted.
Saying that a lot of ***** need to shut there mouth and just vote the way they want to vote without drawing unnecessary attention to themselves.
Eg izzy on twitter ok you blah blah respect every one but you cant vote yes.
Do you really need to drag it out in public? Your votes your vote no need to tell the world.
Ps is des sacked yet?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So when I vote "No", does that make me a homophobe?

Honest question

Nope. If you vote no and scream "I don't want to catch gay" then that may make you a homophobe, but voting no won't.

 

[Wahesh]

This is all it comes down to in the end. Many Christians are voting no because of their morality. Many others are voting yes because of their morality. People just need to understand that people have different morality.

Christian morality is against it. If anyone is a Christian and supports it, they obviously are not as down to Earth on their faith as they should be.

Now celebrities such as Mark Wahlberg support gay marriage, yet Wahlberg is a daily mass attendee (yes, he goes to Church every day). In my humble opinion, I think Mark Wahlberg only supports gay marriage because to come out against it publicly would almost certainly end his career. This is why I have newfound respect for Folau.

 

[CaptainJackson]

ok, let's both agree for a second that classes of victims as you define them, exist.

What next?

What should society do if it instantly recognises every single time that someone or a class of people feel victimised? Should we stop society and focus our attention on compensation abd making these people feel warm and fuzzy?

My point is, everyone is a victim or victimised at different points throughout their life. If society paid attention to each and everyone of them, our quality of life and society as a whole would go absolutely no where.

I was victimised at school. I was victimised at uni. Did I create a group of people who went about shouting and protesting? No, I got on with my life and made something good out of it.

In fact, most of the people in this LGBTIAFDhJfFh clique claiming to be victims, are more than likely guilty of victimising other people throughout their lives.

Does that mean we should or shouldn't be listening to them?

Victimhood is a pointless pursuit.

the main difference you're missing is, institutionalized victimhood/oppression/persecution. That's whats being discussed

 

[CaptainJackson]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The Gay couples you speak of are obviously lying to Centrelink.

And of course heterosexual couples would never ever do this, their morality is so much higher than others

 

[Dawgfather]

That's why we have anti-discrimination laws. But it's not for people who "feel victimised", it's for people who are actually victimised. People who are targeted because of their race or sexual preference. People who are segregated and told that they can't have what everyone else has because of the colour of their skin or who they like to bone.

So three or four people who want to get married are victims and being discriminated against right?

Because they prefer to 'bone' more than one person and what the government to recognise this.

You see the logic of victimhood? There isn't logic, because all we do is go round and round in circles with everyone trying to be the biggest victim.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I must say, I had a go at Israel Folau when he signed with AFL and said it wasn't about money, but I respect him now more than ever!

View attachment 3769

If anyone is seriously confirming their morality because a football player agreed with him, I'd question the relevance of that persons opinion.

 

[Wahesh]

If anyone is seriously confirming their morality because a football player agreed with him, I'd question the relevance of that persons opinion.

 

[Dawgfather]

Polygamists are being victimised.

#voteyespolygamousmarriage

 

[The DoggFather]

Why is that so funny?

Plenty of churches are supporting SSM.

Oh Yeah, name them.

 

[The DoggFather]

Same question can be asked of the NO campaign ... but you'd never bring that up as it's not suiting your agenda.

I can honestly say I haven't seen the no side advertising

 

[The DoggFather]

TV spend on the No campaign has been 5x the spend on the Yes.

But the no campaign of course wouldn't spread misinformation would they?

One of the things that I find funny is the FB temporary profile pictures from no voters, that says "It's ok to vote no" - it's playing a victim card and makes them just look sad. Awww.... it's ok Timmy, you CAN so no to those mean homos.

Makes you wonder who the "snowflakes" are sometimes...

There are plenty more worse than the above. All completely distracting from the core question being asked in the postal survey.

Its like the republican debate from all those years ago - bring in a heap of irrelevant shit because you don't have much to argue on the actual point of discussion.

Is this in the MSM like all the yes propaganda?

 

[The DoggFather]

Cool story bro.

You are a homophobe. You are taking the piss out of a gay person.