Marriage equality (1 Viewer)

[Kolmias]

Labor are set to begin a motion which could soon allow for same-sex marriage to be legal in Australia.

 

[soloooooo]

I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.

 

[Nailgun]

I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.

Legally we already have this. Civil unions/de facto relationships basically do everything a marriage does
What they want is recognition that their union is a marriage

 

[mcchicken]

Yayyyyy

 

[soloooooo]

Legally we already have this. Civil unions/de facto relationships basically do everything a marriage does
What they want is recognition that their union is a marriage

I know. There is equal rights already. Yet some people always try to push the envelope more and more once we give them an inch.

It is not a marriage though as marriage in my opinion (and many others opinions also) is between a man and a woman.

 

[mcchicken]

I know. There is equal rights already. Yet some people always try to push the envelope more and more once we give them an inch.

It is not a marriage though as marriage in my opinion (and many others opinions also) is between a man and a woman.

Or some people just want equality? :/

If they're already "equal" as you say then why they can't they be equal in terminology

 

[mcchicken]

I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.

That's a unique opinion (as in I've never heard this POV even though it seems like it should be widely popular)

I like

But I don't think it'd ever get any traction

 

[Nailgun]

I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.

So basically what you're suggesting is the abolishing marriage (in the legal sense)?

EDIT: @mcchicken, i know quite a few people who have similar opinions so it is somewhat popular

 

[Paradoxica]

I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.

That's not how language works, ipso facto, your opinion fails to hold up to linguistic facts.

I could redefine "desire" to mean "to express disgust at a matter or subject", but that won't change the meaning of "desire" as used by the general population.

Have you, by any chance, heard of the beetle problem?

 

[mcchicken]

So basically what you're suggesting is the abolishing marriage (in the legal sense)?

EDIT: @mcchicken, i know quite a few people who have similar opinions so it is somewhat popular

oh okay haha

maybe I just don't know many people

 

[Paradoxica]

Yes because I see marriages as religious.

That's just a small fraction of the general population. The majority don't give a shit.

 

[Paradoxica]

Well I'm sorry but I stand by my views. If the government has to get involved, I see it as a civil union. If you want a marriage, fine, go to a religious organisation then.

You're just arguing semantics at that point.

Once you enter the semantics rabbithole, you automagically lose.

 

[Queenroot]

I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.

Yeah I agree tbh

 

[Nailgun]

You're just arguing semantics at that point.

Once you enter the semantics rabbithole, you automagically lose.

Not really, I think there is a fair point.
Legally, we have basically two unions that are essentially the same thing - only difference is one is exclusive, and the other is not.
You could argue that having both is redundant, and the prime candidate for removal would be marriage

 

[Simorgh]

I don't really care, let them do whatever they want as it has nothing to do with me. I don't support it and neither am I against it. As long as it doesn't affect me then I am alright!

 

[Queenroot]

Either way who cares, is it really affecting your life that much that same sex couples are getting married? Fuck all there are people like Gabi Grecko and Geoffery Edelsten or whatever, nieces marrying uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters.. As long as there is consent, none of our business tbh

well it doesn't affect me or anyone very immediate to me so idc

 

[Flop21]

I couldn't care less about marriage tbh, but it's not my right to force this onto everyone person out there. I don't think the government should just 'stay out of it'. What if back when women or Indigenous people couldn't even vote the government just ignored it and 'stayed out of it'? I mean, who cares about voting right? Maybe not you, but others do.

This issue is so silly to me. There are people dying from sickness and disease, poverty, war etc. And people REALLY care about the sacredness of marriage? It's not even a real thing really. So I find it very strange people actually standing up to stop same-sex marriage laws, how on earth does it affect you?

 

[mcchicken]

Please watch if you're bored or something guys

Crying actual tears of laughter rn

 

[StudiousStudent]

There's currently 3 marriage amendment bills and 1 plebiscite bill awaiting action.

I do not support the general public voting on this issue. Australia has passed other human rights legislation without a 'people's vote'.

As a heterosexual myself, I support marriage equality.

Same sex couples marrying isn't going to impact on a heterosexual couple.

Religious reasons shouldn't come into consideration, because marriage celebrants and churches by law would not have to conduct same sex marriages.

 

[mcchicken]

There's currently 3 marriage amendment bills and 1 plebiscite bill awaiting action.

I do not support the general public voting on this issue. Australia has passed other human rights legislation without a 'people's vote'.

As a heterosexual myself, I support marriage equality.

Same sex couples marrying isn't going to impact on a heterosexual couple.

Religious reasons shouldn't come into consideration, because marriage celebrants and churches by law would not have to conduct same sex marriages.

And to add to that, we have a separation of Church and State for a reason