We weren’t discussing who is affected, we were discussing imposing viewpoints on others.
Saying that both sides are imposing their views could suggest there’s some moral equivalence to them - like they are equally valid or equally cruel. They’re not. That was my point.
While the impacts of a no vote would, in essence, have a far greater impact on a larger group, to say that there would be no impact upon the no voters if they lose would be wrong.
This is evidenced in other countries where SSM is legal. Certain groups have taken it upon themselves to try and force religious organisations and individuals to go against what they believe and perform SSM, no matter the cost to those people.
Is it the same level of distress in numbers? No. Does it happen though? Yes.
One group will impose their viewpoint on the other regardless of any personal distress that might arise from that worldview. There is no way to get around that fact and people need to accept this and try and help all involved, regardless of the worldview that is held.
No, because being for SSM doesn’t directly impact the lives of anyone.
Yes I still feel sorry for those poor people who were against women being allowed to vote. Some of them even work for the electoral office and are now forced to hand over voting forms to women and even count them!
i’ve read through this entire thread and while I am encouraged that its important enough to chat about, it is a little distressing to have “my life” up for discussion. Today’s high court ruling, will not be the end of the matter. If it stops the postal vote, the Libs are going to push for a full plebiscite again. Still not compulsory or enforceable before they allow a free vote if only it returns a “yes”.
Postal vote or plebsicite or neither, the Coalition government are not legislating marriage equality this government. If by some chance they did, it would have ridiculous exemptions and be passed in a “miserable begrudging way”.
Sadly, these sorts of discussions will be continuing for another year to 18 months to the next election. sigh.
Then you are wrong in your viewpoint. It does directly impact peoples lives, whether you like it or think that it does.
It seems to me that the Libs are not the whole problem. I mean that quite a lot of the Libs agree that just having a conscience vote is the right thing. The problem is the far right of the party holds too much power. If they could safely break that power then you would find that Turnbull and co would just get on with it. From my understanding Turnbull knows this will cost the Libs at the next election.
This is my main concern about all of this.
There really shouldn’t be a discussion, and I have sympathy for those that are being discussed at length by those with no standing in the issue. For or against, unless you are a gay person wanting to get married this is none of your ■■■■■■■ business.
I’ll vote “yes” because I have to to keep the pressure on government to do their job. It sucks that it has to be this way.
Just correct the situation, FFS.
yeah but what about the poor cake bakers! They may have to bake MORE cakes, WITH RAINBOWS ON THEM!
How? Genuinely curious.
There are a number of legal cases in countries that have legalised SSM that have been brought against individuals and religious organisations for not performing SSM because it goes against what they believe. Despite what people may think, this is a very stressful situation to find your self in, financially, emotionally and sometimes physically.
If we do legalise SSM then laws need to be written to protect all sections of the community from the inevitable blowback that happens from aggrieved parties.
You mean such as the private member’s bill by the Lib senator that would ensure religious groups the right to discriminate according to their beliefs?
The bakers and florist thing is pure fantasy. Those refusing to serve same sex couples are no different to any same sex couples suing religious groups. Activist nonsense.
Nah, wasn’t talking about that.
We met on GAY dot com.
Like Lyle Shelton has perviously said, he will now have to explain to everyone that he is a married HETEROSEXUAL man not a gay one.
Pretty sure Chris Pine has to do that already.
The Star Trek guy?
Was not actually who I was thinking of, but very probably yes.
Maybe he meant Chris Pratt. People confuse them all the time.