Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Hacky McAxe]

PS the lbgtidjalsbxutnsk is not showing equality. Why do they refuse to add Pansexuals in their clique?

PLM! Pansexual Lives Matter!

Many use LGTBI+, the + symbolising pretty much anything else you can think of.

 

[patch445]

According to the left you still are a bigot and a homophobe.

Sorry how can I be a homophobe when I am actually gay? As for how I found this thread so quickly, I googled it and it came up as option one. Oh and don't believe that gay people will want their marriage recognised by Centrelink or whoever; gay people pushed for their relationships to be recognised by law as defacto but with that right earned they still haven't admitted their status to the relevant authorities so I really find it hard to believe that if my gay fellows marry that this will change (do people really think that gay people will be happy to go onto a 1.5 pension from two single pensions once they marry? I don't.

 

[south of heaven]

I googled it .

So did i

 

[Blue_boost]

Thorpedo was just on today show whacking away over marriage equality

They showed a picture of someone in hospital bashed because they stick up for marriage equality?? Really??

It's the yes campaign that have been the bullys and aggressors here. How ridiculous

Geez I hope the no vote gets up.

 

[Wahesh]

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

Referring to insults now because you got nothing else to back you up. Besides, in case you didn't realise, the iceberg is what we're fighting. It's not mine FFS. You've really lost the plot (although I'm questioning if you ever had a plot to begin with).

 

[Wahesh]

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

If that's the way you want to play it, it changed to make it more clear that marriage was the act between a man and a woman (common sense approach applied when it was first written), now, they want to change the act for the sake of pleasing voters, not because the definition of the word itself has changed.

 

[Wahesh]

Thorpedo was just on today show whacking away over marriage equality

They showed a picture of someone in hospital bashed because they stick up for marriage equality?? Really??

It's the yes campaign that have been the bullys and aggressors here. How ridiculous

Geez I hope the no vote gets up.

Precisely it.

 

[Flanagun]

Referring to insults now because you got nothing else to back you up. Besides, in case you didn't realise, the iceberg is what we're fighting. It's not mine FFS. You've really lost the plot (although I'm questioning if you ever had a plot to begin with).

Oh spare me. you didn't even reply to my actual argument.... because it tore yours to shreds.

Not an insult. Just a very honest opinion. You're full of shit.

 

[Dawgfather]

Wanting equal rights under the laws of Australia is not forcing a view

This should be a very simple matter of equality as far as secular law is concerned and SSM should exist

Where the objections start are either from religious people who's religions say it is a sin (the law doesn't use sin) or just homophobic bigots who hate gays (non religious people)

So they are being denied equal rights they're not forcing their right on equality

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.

 

[Flanagun]

Israel Folau came out and said he is voting No... All the bullys from the yes campaign are getting stuck into him on social media. calling him bigot, getti. Personal at him and saying he is discriminating etc etc.

Anyone who says no publicly cops a beating? How ridiculous is this..

VOTE NO to send a message, you don't disrespect others that have an alternate position (which so happens to be the current legal definition) in order to demand respect in return. You don't label people who disagree with you

VOTE NO

No thanks, I'd rather vote to support those who are actually negatively effected by inequitable marriage laws in this country....but go on, keep pretending this is about you rather than be diverted by your silly spite campaign.

YOU show us no respect by suggesting our decision should be guided by your silly, paranoid conspiracy theories. You are automatically disrespecting us by showing no respect for our position or the independent thinking we've done to reach it and by implying the yes campaign should be judged on its most vocal and militant campaigners while the no campaign should not, so please look in your own backyard first if you want to talk about respect.

Pro tip: polite language doesn't necessarily make your words respectful by default...Many would find a lot of what you say and your insinuation they support bullying through their support of an historically marginalised minority, so think what you want, but don't think your opinion represents everyone. .

Vote your conscience, by all means. But I'm voting yes and you sure as hell won't guilt me into a different position. I'm confident in what I feel is the right thing to do from an ethical point of view and I think it's dad and selfish that you and some others are trying to make this about you. It isn't.

 

[Dawgfather]

Many use LGTBI+, the + symbolising pretty much anything else you can think of.

Dividing people into groups does nothing except create classes of victims.

These people should stop trying to imagine that they are somehow being discriminated against and get on with their lives.

 

[Flanagun]

Dividing people into groups does nothing except create classes of victims.

These people should stop trying to imagine that they are somehow being discriminated against and get on with their lives.

Society creates the victims a lot of the time, then certain people deny the system of oppression exists and that only perpetuates that cycle of victimhood.

It's easy to deny a cycle of victimhood exists if you're not directly part of it.

 

[JayBee]

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

Honest question

 

[Dawgfather]

Society creates the victims a lot of the time, then certain people deny the system of oppression exists and that only perpetuates that cycle of victimhood.

It's easy to deny a cycle of victimhood exists if you're not directly part of it.

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.

 

[Wahesh]

No thanks, I'd rather vote to support those who are actually negatively effected by inequitable marriage laws in this country....but go on, keep pretending this is about you rather than be diverted by your silly spite campaign.

So you're saying gay people who have never been able to marry in this country have been negatively effected from day 1?

YOU show us no respect by suggesting our decision should be guided by your silly, paranoid conspiracy theories. You are automatically disrespecting us by showing no respect for our position or the independent thinking we've done to reach it and by implying the yes campaign should be judged on its most vocal and militant campaigners while the no campaign should not, so please look in your own backyard first if you want to talk about respect.

Yea, YOU want respect when the Yes campaigners bash anyone who doesn't agree with them?

Vote your conscience, by all means. But I'm voting yes and you sure as hell won't guilt me into a different position. I'm confident in what I feel is the right thing to do from an ethical point of view and I think it's dad and selfish that you and some others are trying to make this about you. It isn't.

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

 

[Kaz]

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.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

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

 

[Wahesh]

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!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

If that's the way you want to play it, it changed to make it more clear that marriage was the act between a man and a woman (common sense approach applied when it was first written), now, they want to change the act for the sake of pleasing voters, not because the definition of the word itself has changed.

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.

 

[Wahesh]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

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

Well, to be fair, he does have a good point. More "marriages" (and I use that term VERY loosely), means more divorces, meaning lawyers get more civil cases, meaning they get more money.

The last thing we need is more fattened up lawyers around our great southern land!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Well, to be fair, he does have a good point. More "marriages" (and I use that term VERY loosely), means more divorces, meaning lawyers get more civil cases, meaning they get more money.

The last thing we need is more fattened up lawyers around our great southern land!

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