Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Hacky McAxe]

But that's the point of contention!!

Yep. That's the real discussion here. But "they can't change the definition" isn't a valid argument 'cause they changed the definition in 2004.

 

[Blue_boost]

They wanted to be married and share the same surname and have that same surname with their children to make their family as normal as possible.

For them, the yes vote is very important, and it's important to their children, to share the same surname as a family would help the kids feel more like the other kids at school,

Your comments reveal your true thoughts. Make their family "as normal as possible"

So you concede it's abnormal?

Don't vote yes because your gay mate wants to feel more normal? He ain't thinking about the other groups impacted is he?

I vote No because marriage is between a man and a women, for the primary purpose to raise children

 

[Hacky McAxe]

how do you know or even I know I didn't choose to be straight?
You can't just dismiss my argument as lunacy particularly when there's actual cases of people choosing a gay lifestyle. Britt Edelston just announced her new partner is a woman after being married to a man all her adult life.
Being gay can be a choice or sometimes it's thrust upon you from influences at a young age.. Sometimes people are born gay

It's usually oppression of homosexual urges all their life, then they finally accept who they are.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Your comments reveal your true thoughts. Make their family "as normal as possible"

So you concede it's abnormal?

Don't vote yes because your gay mate wants to feel more normal? He ain't thinking about the other groups impacted is he?

I vote No because marriage is between a man and a women, for the primary purpose to raise children

I vote Yes because marriage is between two consenting adults, for the primary purpose to raise children

 

[Wolfmother]

It's usually oppression of homosexual urges all their life, then they finally accept who they are.

that statement strongly suggests that your sex life is influenced by your environment

 

[Hacky McAxe]

that statement strongly suggests that your sex life is influenced by your environment

In part it is. Homosexuality isn't entirely genetic, but it's partially genetic and it's also not a choice.

 

[Wolfmother]

In part it is. Homosexuality isn't entirely genetic, but it's partially genetic and it's also not a choice.

I don't know how you can be so sure that it's not a choice .
I have a friend who got married , had a threesome with a chick then left her hubby for her, broke up with her, then decided she was straight again but couldn't get a bloke and then went back to girls again.. I don't know seems like theres a bit of choice there.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I don't know how you can be so sure that it's not a choice .
I have a friend who got married , had a threesome with a chick then left her hubby for her, broke up with her, then decided she was straight again but couldn't get a bloke and then went back to girls again.. I don't know seems like theres a bit of choice there.

I mainly base it off scientific research on the subject rather than what my friends do, but I also base it on the fact that the thought of choosing to sleep with a man sounds horrible to me.

 

[Kaz]

Your comments reveal your true thoughts. Make their family "as normal as possible"

So you concede it's abnormal?

The comment meant, having the same surname as their father, just like their school friends.

 

[Blue_boost]

I used to party at DCMs in the 90s and 2000s..

The gay community know how to party thats for sure.

For all the fun at dcm's i owe them a yes vote.

Get married if you want.

 

[nikgan123]

I don't know how you can be so sure that it's not a choice .
I have a friend who got married , had a threesome with a chick then left her hubby for her, broke up with her, then decided she was straight again but couldn't get a bloke and then went back to girls again.. I don't know seems like theres a bit of choice there.

You ever thought maybe she was bisexual

 

[chisdog]

I don't know if this has already been posted as I am not reading through 125 pages. I think we all might be in trouble!

$12,000 Fine For 'Vilification' During Marriage Postal Survey

CANBERRA -- Making offensive comments based on someone's sexuality or religion during the marriage equality postal survey could net you a $12,000 fine, under new laws to be introduced to parliament this week.

The government will extend extra protections to the marriage survey in an attempt to protect campaigners on both sides from vilification, intimidation or threats of harm from opponents.

Because the marriage equality vote is a postal survey, and not a properly legislated plebiscite or election, the normal protections that apply at elections -- such as those governing political advertisements -- do not apply.

With a number of offensive contributions to the marriage debate, such as misleading and vile posters found in Melbourne, the government has been under pressure to extend those normal election protections to the postal survey.

The Coalition partyroom has agreed on a bill which would import the standard provisions regarding conduct during election campaigns from the Electoral Act to the marriage survey. Also in the bill are additional safeguards, which would make it an offence to vilify, intimidate or threaten to cause harm to a person based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or religious conviction.


This would protect both LGBTQ groups leading the 'yes' vote and church groups pushing for a 'no' result. The laws are planned to be introduced into parliament this week, with hopes they will pass by the end of the week, with time being a factor as the postal survey forms will begin arriving in letterboxes nationwide from Tuesday.

The penalty for breaching this law, which will have a 'sunset provision' and only run for the period of the postal survey, would be 60 penalty units -- at $210 a unit, this gives the potential for a fine of up to $12,600. The law would also include an injunction power, to stop the publication or broadcast of content which breaches the protections.

It is understood that this law would extend beyond advertising or editorial material, referring to "conduct" which could feasibly include online content such as blog posts or tweets.

Attorney-General George Brandis would be appointed as a 'gatekeeper' around these protections, however, and would need to give consent before any legal action was taken in regards to conduct which allegedly breaches the laws. It is understood Brandis would consider these claims with a view to allowing freedom of speech.

The debate around the marriage survey so far has so concerned the National Mental Health Commission that, on Monday, it released a statement expressing "alarm" at the detrimental mental health impacts of the marriage equality debate, particularly "damaging, emotive mistruths" being spread about the LGBTQ community.

This was swiftly followed by government senator and former minister Matt Canavan decrying those complaining about the tone of the debate as "delicate little flowers" who need to "just grow a spine".

The laws will be introduced to parliament this week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...ion-during-marriage-postal-survey_a_23205247/

The law passed during the week.

 

[CroydonDog]

I don't know if this has already been posted as I am not reading through 125 pages. I think we all might be in trouble!

$12,000 Fine For 'Vilification' During Marriage Postal Survey

CANBERRA -- Making offensive comments based on someone's sexuality or religion during the marriage equality postal survey could net you a $12,000 fine, under new laws to be introduced to parliament this week.

The government will extend extra protections to the marriage survey in an attempt to protect campaigners on both sides from vilification, intimidation or threats of harm from opponents.

Because the marriage equality vote is a postal survey, and not a properly legislated plebiscite or election, the normal protections that apply at elections -- such as those governing political advertisements -- do not apply.

With a number of offensive contributions to the marriage debate, such as misleading and vile posters found in Melbourne, the government has been under pressure to extend those normal election protections to the postal survey.

The Coalition partyroom has agreed on a bill which would import the standard provisions regarding conduct during election campaigns from the Electoral Act to the marriage survey. Also in the bill are additional safeguards, which would make it an offence to vilify, intimidate or threaten to cause harm to a person based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or religious conviction.


This would protect both LGBTQ groups leading the 'yes' vote and church groups pushing for a 'no' result. The laws are planned to be introduced into parliament this week, with hopes they will pass by the end of the week, with time being a factor as the postal survey forms will begin arriving in letterboxes nationwide from Tuesday.

The penalty for breaching this law, which will have a 'sunset provision' and only run for the period of the postal survey, would be 60 penalty units -- at $210 a unit, this gives the potential for a fine of up to $12,600. The law would also include an injunction power, to stop the publication or broadcast of content which breaches the protections.

It is understood that this law would extend beyond advertising or editorial material, referring to "conduct" which could feasibly include online content such as blog posts or tweets.

Attorney-General George Brandis would be appointed as a 'gatekeeper' around these protections, however, and would need to give consent before any legal action was taken in regards to conduct which allegedly breaches the laws. It is understood Brandis would consider these claims with a view to allowing freedom of speech.

The debate around the marriage survey so far has so concerned the National Mental Health Commission that, on Monday, it released a statement expressing "alarm" at the detrimental mental health impacts of the marriage equality debate, particularly "damaging, emotive mistruths" being spread about the LGBTQ community.

This was swiftly followed by government senator and former minister Matt Canavan decrying those complaining about the tone of the debate as "delicate little flowers" who need to "just grow a spine".

The laws will be introduced to parliament this week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...ion-during-marriage-postal-survey_a_23205247/

The law passed during the week.

The horse has kind of bolted on that one.

 

[CaptainJackson]

The horse has kind of bolted on that one.

Except I haven't seen an incident of someone abusing religion other than telling people their religion has nothing to do with others. That they can keep it to themsleves

 

[Dawgfather]

I vote Yes because marriage is between two consenting adults, for the primary purpose to raise children

Two men and two women can not give the love and upbringing that a man and woman can.

They can deny biology all they want. But a young boy needs a dad to learn how to be a man.

A young girl needs a mum to learn how to be a woman.

Yes, sometimes straight marriages don't turn out well, and the kids suffer but the point is that a gay relationship can NEVER give that kid what they need.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Where's the scientific facts? Also you know how you said you knew the guys at Syd uni that got smashed by leftists and said they were trolling? Well I actually know one of them went to school with him and is studying to become a priest. Him and his mates had every reason to physically defend themselves but they copped it left right and centre by dirty dogs who can't handle a different opinion. So just thought I should let you know they weren't now trolling at all, they were being extremely respectable and having their say in a peaceful manner, and if you didn't agree that was fine they were giving free kebabs you could take. It's also a fkn university where ideas both bad and good ideas are born and dissected and spoken about, it's turning into a fucken joke.

I said that I knew some of them and they are trolls but they also legitimately vote no because they're Christians and shit (some are atheists)

One of my friends at Sydney Uni was in the news yesterday because he held a one man rally at the Uni saying that Hitler did nothing wrong. I have some messed up friends.

But on the scientific part:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...l-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evidence-based-living/201605/checking-the-science-homosexuality

Those are two articles on recent research on the subject. To put it basically

- research suggests that it's a combination of biological and social factors

- more research needed

- no research supports the belief that it's a choice

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Two men and two women can not give the love and upbringing that a man and woman can.

They can deny biology all they want. But a young boy needs a dad to learn how to be a man.

A young girl needs a mum to learn how to be a woman.

Yes, sometimes straight marriages don't turn out well, and the kids suffer but the point is that a gay relationship can NEVER give that kid what they need.

Current research doesn't support that belief. The only major study that supported that belief was a study that found that children raised by same sex couples had a different development than children raised by heterosexual couples, but the data was flawed as "Same sex couples" in the study included homosexual couples and single parents, the latter being the dominant percentage of the study.

Of all the studies carried out in the past decade, 75 studies found no difference when raising a child in a same-sex relationship. Only 4 studies found a disadvantage:

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

http://theconversation.com/same-sex-couples-and-their-children-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-55565

https://theconversation.com/factche...r-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313

 

[Dawgfather]

A few ppl were asking why I listen to and read andrew bolts articles and shows. Here is a recent example:

He tends to cut to the core of issues and present facts. Yes he's a conservative commentator, but I still find that he at least presents the facts and you can generally make your own mind up after that.

 

[Dawgfather]

As for the studies on same sex parenting, I don't profess to be an expert in studies that have been done, but I might read into a few this week so I can learn more.

I have heard many of the studies are biased and same sex couples and their kids provide particular answers to produce a particular result - but I accept this is second hand info and might not be factual (I'll need to read further).

Mostly, my opinion is just based on what I perceive to be logic. For all of history, human kind and the animal kingdom has known that a mother and father are the best way of raising children.

Yes I agree that a same sex couple COULD Raise a kid and on the face of it, the kid would appear happy etc, but you can not deny that two men or two women are not the BEST way of raising a child. It's basic biology.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

A few ppl were asking why I listen to and read andrew bolts articles and shows. Here is a recent example:

He tends to cut to the core of issues and present facts. Yes he's a conservative commentator, but I still find that he at least presents the facts and you can generally make your own mind up after that.

It's pretty horrible what people did to the women on social media, but Bolt is creating some pretty weak links there.

His comments on "This school is part of the safe schools program and the safe schools program created these posters" is trickery of words to create a different picture. Here's some Facts that Bolt missed out with his "fact check":

- The principal and staff at the school stated that the role play and encouragement to wear dresses never happened and that none of the parents approached the school saying it happened

- Safe schools in Victoria requires that the parents sign consent to allow their children to participate in the safe school curriculum. If they were taught any of this it was done because the parents approved it

This is the problem with Facts on an opinion program. It's very easy to say "here are the facts we found" while leaving out anything that may act to the contrary of your beliefs.