Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[Squar3root]

my neighbour (who has been dead for 1.5 years) is still getting mail and he got his same sex marriage survey when i went to clear out his overflowing post box today lmao

should i commit voter fraud

yes

the benefits outweight the risks

 

[BLIT2014]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/same...ona-vale-apartment-block-20170922-gymxlw.html
Same-sex marriage survey envelopes found in bin of Mona Vale apartment block

 

[BLIT2014]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...hts-married-defacto-couples-explained/8964368
SSM: What legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?

 

[cosmo 2]

ok

 

[Queenroot]

my neighbour (who has been dead for 1.5 years) is still getting mail and he got his same sex marriage survey when i went to clear out his overflowing post box today lmao

should i commit voter fraud

ye yolo

 

[sinophile]

my neighbour (who has been dead for 1.5 years) is still getting mail and he got his same sex marriage survey when i went to clear out his overflowing post box today lmao

should i commit voter fraud

s e l l

 

[cosmo 2]

good point sino

i'm going to do it

 

[BLIT2014]

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/resp...ssm-supporters-houses-vandalised-w-swastikas/

Too much vitriol on both sides.

 

[BLIT2014]

my neighbour (who has been dead for 1.5 years) is still getting mail and he got his same sex marriage survey when i went to clear out his overflowing post box today lmao

should i commit voter fraud

Nah the penalty is > then the reward.

 

[SammyT123]

IMO no debate exists
Pick the vote that will likely have the greatest benefits

Yet to see a conclusive study showing that SSM are detrimental in any way
Instead we can vote yes, give people their rights and stop spending so much money on it
Dun deal

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

IMO no debate exists
Pick the vote that will likely have the greatest benefits

Yet to see a conclusive study showing that SSM are detrimental in any way
Instead we can vote yes, give people their rights and stop spending so much money on it
Dun deal

My issue is that when people say we're giving 'gay people their rights' I don't understand how they're being deprived currently? They're entitled to civil unions which give just about the same rights.

When 'yes' voters say we should separate church from state, I think they're missing the fact that marriage is inherently a religious concept, that being the holiness of a man and a woman coming together. The whole reason behind civil unions is to provide homosexual people so-called 'rights' they 'need' without bringing religion into it. In reality, changing the definition of marriage through the government is the complete opposite to 'state separate from church' and it is a way of taking away from religion that which they consider being holy as the marriage between a man and a woman...

If we're looking at marriage as being a 'civil connection' between two people, it is no longer marriage and becomes a civil union. No need to change marriage to become a synonym of civil union...

 

[kendallkreene]

Does anyone know where I can get a new voting form? My parents threw our one out lmao.

 

[Queenroot]

Does anyone know where I can get a new voting form? My parents threw our one out lmao.

https://www4.abs.gov.au/web/survey.nsf/amlpspprenqform

 

[SammyT123]

My issue is that when people say we're giving 'gay people their rights' I don't understand how they're being deprived currently?

Gay people do not have the right to get legally married lol, thats what the whole thread is about

When 'yes' voters say we should separate church from state, I think they're missing the fact that marriage is inherently a religious concept, that being the holiness of a man and a woman coming together. The whole reason behind civil unions is to provide homosexual people so-called 'rights' they 'need' without bringing religion into it. In reality, changing the definition of marriage through the government is the complete opposite to 'state separate from church' and it is a way of taking away from religion that which they consider being holy as the marriage between a man and a woman...

If we're looking at marriage as being a 'civil connection' between two people, it is no longer marriage and becomes a civil union. No need to change marriage to become a synonym of civil union...

I give 0 fks about the definition of marriage or the source of the concept itself . Soz
SSC want to get married in the legal sense, so I will support them doing so unless you can prove it causes harm.

I'm not going to vote no because
"Marriage is a religious concept tho"
"Marriage is, by convention, between a man and a women tho"


Yet to see one good reason for voting no
Cultural shock may be the best one , but we do need to progress as a society (I'd say that's pretty important !)

 

[dan964]

Gay people do not have the right to get legally married lol, thats what the whole thread is about
I give 0 fks about the definition of marriage or the source of the concept itself . Soz

Apples & oranges.
You understand the reason why the right is not given, is because of what marriage is by definition.
Those who don't agree with the 'yes' vote, do not buy in the idea that somehow marriage is a right just for two people who love each other, but is instrically tied up with the raising of children.

for e.g.
https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustralia/videos/902321679922044/

I'm not going to vote no because
"Marriage is a religious concept tho"

correct, and neither do I think that is a good reason to vote yes/no

I'm not going to vote no because
"Marriage is, by convention, between a man and a women tho"

correction, not by convention, by definition.

The whole reason the state got involved with marriage was its connections with procreation and the responsibility of parents/raising children, it was/has never been about love, and the affirmation of love. Gay couples can have their approval by society and more, in the parades they run, they can be viewed as even superior relationships than the heterosexual relationships.

Yet to see one good reason for voting no. Cultural shock may be the best one , but we do need to progress as a society (I'd say that's pretty important !)

 

[cosmo 2]

yes has prob won

can we get over it now please

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Apples & oranges.
You understand the reason why the right is not given, is because of what marriage is by definition.
Those who don't agree with the 'yes' vote, do not buy in the idea that somehow marriage is a right just for two people who love each other, but is instrically tied up with the raising of children.

for e.g.
https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustralia/videos/902321679922044/


correct, and neither do I think that is a good reason to vote yes/no

correction, not by convention, by definition.

The whole reason the state got involved with marriage was its connections with procreation and the responsibility of parents/raising children, it was/has never been about love, and the affirmation of love. Gay couples can have their approval by society and more, in the parades they run, they can be viewed as even superior relationships than the heterosexual relationships.

But the fact that it is a religious concept means that if the state decides to change its definition, they're imposing on religions and forcing them to change the definition of something which is inherently theirs. No-one can tell me why a civil union isn't enough for homosexuals...

It all goes back to separation of church and state. If we're going to use it as an argument for voting yes ('because religion isn't an argument') why are we letting the government change the definition of a religious concept.

Ultimately this shows me that by voting yes, rights to freedom of religion are being violated by having the original definitions from religious traditions reformed.

This debate shouldn't be about accepting homosexuals, it should be if the religious concept of marriage should be reformed by the government. The fact that homosexuality is legal and there are civil unions available shows that 'acceptance' is not the issue at stake here.

 

[cosmo 2]

 

[Paradoxica]

But the fact that it is a religious concept means that if the state decides to change its definition, they're imposing on religions and forcing them to change the definition of something which is inherently theirs. No-one can tell me why a civil union isn't enough for homosexuals...

It all goes back to separation of church and state. If we're going to use it as an argument for voting yes ('because religion isn't an argument') why are we letting the government change the definition of a religious concept.

Ultimately this shows me that by voting yes, rights to freedom of religion are being violated by having the original definitions from religious traditions reformed.

This debate shouldn't be about accepting homosexuals, it should be if the religious concept of marriage should be reformed by the government. The fact that homosexuality is legal and there are civil unions available shows that 'acceptance' is not the issue at stake here.

It is not even close to doing anything with that.

Homosexual couples do not have the same legal socio-economic protections as straight couples.

That is the relevant issue at hand here. Not religious customs.

And if you wish to drag religious customs back into this, I suggest you look into the "biblical" definition of marriage.

 

[dan964]

It is not even close to doing anything with that.

Homosexual couples do not have the same legal socio-economic protections as straight couples.

That is the relevant issue at hand here. Not religious customs.

And if you wish to drag religious customs back into this, I suggest you look into the "biblical" definition of marriage.

In terms of socio-economic, putting aside the word "marriage" itself, de-facto couples have ALMOST the same rights due to changes enacted in Federal Parliament in 2008, and at least in NSW, from a legal standpoint, these inequities have been addressed. The problem is sometimes, the law is not applied properly/enforced, and so unreasonable discrimination still exists of course.

The changes/legal rights can be accomplished up to the point of the marriage and even those who would disagree with "marriage equality" still see the merit up to that point.

Umm, the biblical definition of marriage, is one man and one woman, Jesus clearly affirms this (see Jesus speaking on divorce), the apostles clearly affirm this.
Most religious beliefs and historically held ideas about marriage, do not dispute the gendered nature of marriage; which is what the SSM debate wishes to change.