Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Realist90]

Sorry Nostradamus

History does tend to repeat itself does it not?
I bet everyone thought in Germany and Russia (innocent civilians) that their constitutional rights would have never been violated.

 

[Realist90]

My knowledge of Constitutional Law could change if people whine and bitch long enough?

Well it could if they decide to change the definition like many definitions have been changed in recent years lol. But no, I was saying if people bitch and whinge enough governments could fold and give in and change constitutional law.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Omg lol he didn't change his mind. He 'completed' the prophecy which was Jesus (God) coming to earth and saving us from our sins (Christian belief relax I get you believe it's utter rubbish).

That religion (Judaism) has not changed its views, it's still Judaism as it was thousands of years ago.
Christianity is the somewhat continuation 'new covenant' God made with all people's not just the Jews which was made with them due to Abraham passing the test which I bet you find sickening lol but are ok for parents to see their kids chop their balls off
A lot of Jews followed the teachings of Christ hence the apostles and first Christians all being Jews, but not all the Jews accepted the teachings of Christ which is why Jesus put peter in charge of building his new church which was meant for everyone not just the Jews.
Again just like learn to distinguish and stop being so stubborn on the matter, have an open mind (non richard Dawkins/other atheist that died from cancer mind)
And stop thinking you're right before you have the facts, especially on a religion you weren't born into or even know 10% of the actual teachings only what you've researched with a bias mind.

You just said he changed his religion but used the wording "completed the prophecy"

As I said mental gymnastics

 

[Freakzilla]

Bro you really need to learn to distinguish Christians from Jews. If we followed the marriage laws etc of the Old Testament and have to get circumcised we'd be Jews. But we are Christians, we don't get circumcised, we don't have many wives, this was because Jesus didn't come to change what he had said in the Old Testament but rather clear shit up as we all know humans like to distort things and aren't able to apply common sense.
We fully believe in what happened in the Old Testament and fully believe in the 10 commandments, but we don't follow Jewish customs as that would make us Jews.

Jesus never once said that you can only marry 1 wife.

 

[Realist90]

You just said he changed his religion but used the wording "completed the prophecy"

As I said mental gymnastics

Omg apply fucken common sense bro. The information is there for you to look at it if not that's fine but fuck up with your bullshit facts on a religion you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

In other news Israel Folau came out and respectedly said he is voting no to gay marriage. What a breath of fresh air, all week its been his voting yes, you must vote yes, the nrl is now a political machine and taking a political stance and supporting the yes vote.

 

[Realist90]

Jesus never once said that you can only marry 1 wife.

What he said was this, marriage was never for a man and many wives it was always meant to be between one man and one wife. Hence Adam and Eve, and become one. I forget the verse and chapter but you could have a look.
He pretty much said coz men were such horny *****, instead of sinning and committing adultery God allowed them to instead marry more than one wife I think lol but that was never the plan of God was always meant to be between one man and one wife which become one together.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

aside from all the good reasons to vote NO..

Who wants to go to the park for breakfast on Sunday morning, to sip on your coffee, with you kid on the swing, then to see a gay man running through the park in a wedding gown?

Me. I would laugh my arse off.

 

[Freakzilla]

What he said was this, marriage was never for a man and many wives it was always meant to be between one man and one wife. Hence Adam and Eve, and become one. I forget the verse and chapter but you could have a look.

No he never said that. It was changed to that at the Council of Nicaea. Jesus was Jewish and followed the teachings of Abraham. He didn't contradict Abraham.

 

[Freakzilla]

Anyways let's get of Religion before we start a shit storm in here.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What is your rational argument? You're saying us Christians are the same as Jews, so why not call us Jews and not Christians? Have you studied catholic canonical law? Even Jewish canonical law? I doubt you have coz if you did, you'd realise the differences, one little one being we believe Christ as the one God where as Jews believe Christ was no God rather a deceiver and blasphemer.

Sounds like something a Muslim would say...

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Oh you know more than google do you? This is google's definition of marriage:

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

And you know what @utility half? Australia is in that jurisdiction.

For now...

 

[Flanagun]

Oh you know more than google do you? This is google's definition of marriage:

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

And you know what @utility half? Australia is in that jurisdiction.

Definitions change and evolve. The definition of marriage in this country has already been changed/ amended once according to our act.....so you go ahead and keep sounding like a broken record. Just don't think it wins you the argument......and lol....Google is an authority? No, it certainly is not....it's a bloody search engine. :P

 

[Flanagun]

Like I said mate, "tip of the iceberg" - this is just the beginning.

Your iceberg of bullshit must run deep beneath the waterline then.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Well it could if they decide to change the definition like many definitions have been changed in recent years lol. But no, I was saying if people bitch and whinge enough governments could fold and give in and change constitutional law.

They technically can but it takes a lot to change a Constitutional Law. To change the law it first has to go through Parliament and receive approval from the majority of parliament. It requires that the majority of members of both major parties vote to pass it. If it manages to pass parliament then it becomes a referendum. A date is set and the people have to vote on it. If the majority of the people in each electorate vote for it then it passes.

To recap, the only way it can change is if:

- The pre-dominantly Christian Liberal National Party votes to remove religious freedom

- The pre-dominantly religious population of Australia votes to remove religious freedom

 

[Wahesh]

Definitions change and evolve. The definition of marriage in this country has already been changed/ amended once according to our act.....so you go ahead and keep sounding like a broken record. Just don't think it wins you the argument......and lol....Google is an authority? No, it certainly is not....it's a bloody search engine. :P

The definition of marriage did NOT change in this country. When the Marriage act was written, homosexuality was illegal, meaning the common sense approach applied. Considering that homosexuality is not illegal, the marriage act needed to be presented more clearly.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The definition of marriage did NOT change in this country. When the Marriage act was written, homosexuality was illegal, meaning the common sense approach applied. Considering that homosexuality is not illegal, the marriage act needed to be presented more clearly.

Yep. The definition changed. Regardless of the reason for it changing, the definition still changed.

 

[Flanagun]

The definition of marriage did NOT change in this country. When the Marriage act was written, homosexuality was illegal, meaning the common sense approach applied. Considering that homosexuality is not illegal, the marriage act needed to be presented more clearly.

No. You're talking shit again. Howard amended the act. Whether homosexuality was once illegal in this country is completely irrelevant. The fact is the existing definition was changed.....or narrowed. Your hollow attempts to rationalise and justify why it was done don't change that basic reality in the slightest. The fact is Howard amended the act and changed the written definition and he did it without the democratic process the No campaign seems to think it is entitled to. Your argument that homosexuality was once illegal does rather nicely support my earlier statement that definitions change and evolve over time in some cases though, so thank you for inadvertently supporting my point.

 

[patch445]

I am a gay man and I will be voting NO on this nonsense. I know that doesn't sound politically correct, I know that gay marriage is inevitable, but I simply don't agree with it and the reason I don't is because gay people seem to want the rights but not the obligations that go with those rights. Now what do I mean by this? I know several gay couples who are both on single benefits from Centrelink when under current defacto law they should be recognised as a couple and paid a couple rate of pension or benefit. Also why do gay people want the right to marry (when the relationship is now recognised as a defacto relationship thanks to changes made by the former Labor Government; a piece of paper doesn't show that the love someone (just look at the ridiculously high rates of divorce in this country). The only winners from this will be lawyers when the marriage breaks down and they need a divorce. Just stupid.

 

[Realist90]

I am a gay man and I will be voting NO on this nonsense. I know that doesn't sound politically correct, I know that gay marriage is inevitable, but I simply don't agree with it and the reason I don't is because gay people seem to want the rights but not the obligations that go with those rights. Now what do I mean by this? I know several gay couples who are both on single benefits from Centrelink when under current defacto law they should be recognised as a couple and paid a couple rate of pension or benefit. Also why do gay people want the right to marry (when the relationship is now recognised as a defacto relationship thanks to changes made by the former Labor Government; a piece of paper doesn't show that the love someone (just look at the ridiculously high rates of divorce in this country). The only winners from this will be lawyers when the marriage breaks down and they need a divorce. Just stupid.

If you're real gay man, then props to you for looking at It without emotion and looking at it for what it is. Political bullshit

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I am a gay man and I will be voting NO on this nonsense. I know that doesn't sound politically correct, I know that gay marriage is inevitable, but I simply don't agree with it and the reason I don't is because gay people seem to want the rights but not the obligations that go with those rights. Now what do I mean by this? I know several gay couples who are both on single benefits from Centrelink when under current defacto law they should be recognised as a couple and paid a couple rate of pension or benefit. Also why do gay people want the right to marry (when the relationship is now recognised as a defacto relationship thanks to changes made by the former Labor Government; a piece of paper doesn't show that the love someone (just look at the ridiculously high rates of divorce in this country). The only winners from this will be lawyers when the marriage breaks down and they need a divorce. Just stupid.

This part confuses me most. If gay marriage is allowed then a gay married couple will have the exact same obligations as heterosexual couples. That includes couple based finance. You seem to be arguing against gay marriage and for gay marriage at the same time.

The second part has been covered many times already.