Well the country isn’t voting for it - that’s the point. The highly motivated LGBT community will vote yes. And the highly motivated religious conservatives will vote no. And the vast majority (who are generally ambivalent yes voters) probably won’t vote much at all. So it will be a question of which is the bigger minority. As I say - set up to fail.
Just give the union some other name and be ■■■■■■ done with it. Call it “Gayrriage” for all I care. Give those who participate the same rights and apply the same law as traditional marriage in Australia.
This breaks the ties to religion, solves the rights issue and debunks the language semantics.
Done. Now onto affordable housing…
Why would a politician be obliged to follow a survey ?
It is not a democratic vote and whatever the outcome of this survey, SSM is inevitable. Our Society would be a much better place without the angst and division.
Yep, good idea.
Like whites only taxis and blacks only drinking fountains.
Everyone has transport and water, it’s just a different name.
Section 116 of the Constitution prohibits lawmaking for the observance of religion or preventing the free exercise of religion . Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the Marriage Act exists for the observance of religion or that its purpose is to protect religious values.
Well it’s a rights thing isn’t it. The point is whatever the outcome, as long as everyone has the same rights under the law what actual ■■■■ does it matter what we call it. People can undertake legal union with hamsters, I don’t give one iota of a ■■■■…I’m just trying to spitball ideas that trigger the least.
But yes if you’d like to assume I’m therefore a racist then that’s super duper. Keep fighting the good fight!
It seems to be that way under the law but real life is different to the law. I have always felt like there is a definite connection between religion and marriage. My views do not come from a religious bias but rather the fact that I am an atheist.
When my wife asked me to marry her 25 years ago I said no. I did not believe in the institution of marriage and I didn’t buy into the hocus pocus B.S. that came with it. ( I also don’t want a funeral no matter what the circumstances although I struggle to see how I might have a say in that). The reason I can’t say yes to Gay people getting married is because I reckon it’s stupid and I would feel like a hippocrite if i backed it.
After all that I have been married for 20 years because I realised how important it was to my wife. I’m unsure of my stance because somebody important to me made me realise it’s not all about me.
This stuff is not easy for us hacks to deal with and it’s not our job. It’s increasingly painful when you have a brother who is really brilliant and gay and another brother who is a pain and has been for 40 years.
Hambo: . I appreciate your views but I would dispute that real life is different from the the law. The law should recognise real life, that we may all live different lives but to reslect those differences if they do not cause damage to others. If SSM does not affect the status of your marriage what is your difficulty with accepting marriage equality?
As to funerals , they are not about the dead’s wishes ( apart from property and the legacy of records) but how the living wish to remember and recognise a life.
Interesting point of view Hambo.
Reality is that the issue is not about marriage for me, so whether I like or dislike marriage is irrelevant. For me it is a matter of civil rights, and making gay folk my equal under the law is relevant and important to me.
I share you view on funerals and have advised all that I will not have one. Many who know me are eager to attend as soon as possible.
Because one represents freedom to practice religion and be yourself and marry who you like. the other represents one way to live or be damned?
That’s probably why.
Is that happening though? There’s been backlash against ACL but in fairness they are campaigning less than respectfully.
There also can’t be this assumption that there’s two equal sides. There’s not. There’s one that are protecting a right they hold from being granted to a group that don’t and one that want to, or want others to be able to, stand equal.
Is there bullying or is there a consistent question being raised about the validity of the opposing point of view?
You have been very quick to lay blame on your opposition for not letting you have your say but the question is still fundamentally ‘why are we in this position and why do others get a say’
The bullying is being done by those who are treating gay couples as something less than straight couples. They are not. Two people in love are two people in love, and should not be treated any differently whether they are the same or different genders.
It’s that simple.
If your religion says otherwise, your religion promotes bigotry.
Standing up to (opposing) bullies should be encouraged. And standing up to bullying is not another form of bullying. It’s the opposite.
Is that an issue though?
It depends how it is done.
Religion promotes many things depending on the church. It is the church that can fall into bigotry and other less savoury actions.
And I tend to bully bullies without thinking about the irony.
I’m not assuming anything about you. However, the scenario you propose is similar to U.S. practise from the pre 60s.
Equal=same. If there’s two types of marriage, it’s not the same. Just as two sets of water fountains is not the same.
Interesting view on this hambo, and I can certainly see where you are coming from.
But by being against SSM would you think that you are trying to impose your worldview onto others?
It really wasn’t. Imperialism was about the exploitation of resources. There was an element of evangelism practiced by some, mostly in Africa (look how well that went), but Judeo-Christian beliefs were kinda just along for the ride.
Have a read of “Empire” by Niall Ferguson.
Being for SSM would you think that you are trying to impose your worldview onto others?
Any way you look at it, either group is imposing their worldview onto others. The nature of society is that the majority usually compels the minority to accept the majorities views.
The difference is if the NO camp impose their view, then same sex couples they don’t know suffer.
If yes wins, the same sex couples the NO camp don’t know will get married. Nothing changes for the NO folk, no matter how much they complain. Hardly an imposition.