That gay marriage thing........

Haakon said:
As for gay marriage... Fuck, I'm not sure I can even be bothered coming up with a decent argument... Who gives a shit? What we really care about is a bunch of ignorant small minded fuckheads and their puritanical ideas being foisted on us, its not actually gay marriage itself thats the issue for me.
Click to expand...
That's basically the crux of it. It's because of the puritanical cretins foisting their outdated - and outnumbered - views on the rest of society that an issue needs to made out of it. No couple's relationship is any of their business, nor does it have any effect on their moral wellbeing, so what gives them the right to decide some people can't be allowed the opportunity to get married?
 
link1896 said:
Extreme procrastination is making this government look more and more out of touch.
Click to expand...

I personally don't mind who swings it where as long as both partners are happy.

The whole plebiscite vote is nice sidestep to avoid upsetting the church. Hey, it wasn't our idea, it was the people, y'know, we tried to keep everyone happy. All denominations of religions need the broom put through them pronto but that is another story for another thread.
 
I don't agree with gay marriage but then I don't agree with straight marriage either. It just perpetuates the Christian/religious morals things. I have nearly been married twice, then I realised that it wasn't what I wanted. Not together with the same persons now so it would of made my life a misery.
If you want to get.married go ahead and join all the people that limit their lives. I still recon that if you believe in marriage you should also believe that its for life, none of this divorce crap. Cake and eat it, stay single.
 
SCBLACK as our Farkin Liberal delegate needs a say ...

I anticipate this is one of those rare mythical threads where everybody basically agrees ... "JUST GET ON WITH IT and REFOCUS ON MORE IMPORTANT SHIZZLE"

:grouphug: ... thats why I like coming here
 
Nerf Herder said:
SCBLACK as our Farkin Liberal delegate needs a say ...

I anticipate this is one of those rare mythical threads where everybody basically agrees ... "JUST GET ON WITH IT and REFOCUS ON MORE IMPORTANT SHIZZLE"

:grouphug: ... thats why I like coming here
Click to expand...

OK. I'm pretty ambivalent to gay marriage, I basically think marriage is a thing for male=female. But in no way do I wish to stop the union of a couple who wish to have their relationship legally recognised. I'd prefer to see some sort of legal union deal - but if it ends up called marriage I don't give enough of a shit for an argument. Doesn't affect me at all really.

Lets move on with issues that affect jobs and living standards, like trade and IR reform.:dance:
 
Sooooo, is the marriage act based on a novel about someone who may or may not have existed?

In my opinion just have the parliamentary vote and change the words to make the change and stop fucking around.
 
scblack said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

Clearly on the side that makes it easier to form your own tax free organisation or mutual affiliation....



The big issue with gay marriage that I have is the lack of equality represented in the current situation. It is time for all people of all persuasions as citizens and residents of this nation of notional equality to have that equality.

And think of the economic spurt! Wedding industry through the roof, throw in a government rebate for newly married couples that honeymoon in Australia and tourism gets a shot in the pants too, hey why not bring in foreigners as well for a little extra cash? I know a few people that have gone to NZ to indulge in such crazy freedoms.
 
Thank gay-married-Christ somebody said it. I always notice when people use words or phrases without knowing or thinking what they mean. Kath and Kim nailed so much of that in their show, was equally funny as it was annoying.





*awaits being pulled up about phrases I've misused somewhere......
 
pink poodle said:
Clearly on the side that makes it easier to form your own tax free organisation or mutual affiliation.....
Click to expand...

I don't see the church as a charitable organisation. They are just businesses now. Thus I see them as not deserving of tax free status.
 
But, there are still a lot of churches that do a huge amount of charitable work based on volunteer hours.
 
scblack said:
I don't see the church as a charitable organisation. They are just businesses now. Thus I see them as not deserving of tax free status.
Click to expand...

Charitable? I didn't say anything about charitable. I meant the formation of your own tax free cult of whatever suits you and your family, an organisation of mutual affiliation.

But...most (if not all) churches (not just Christian) have at least one formal charity arm, and usually a bunch of other localised operations as well. I'm #blessed to be in a part of town that has a lot of traditional and contemporary churches mingled into the community and get to see some of their various efforts of helping out. Sure there are the usual "free child care 9-11 Sunday morning" sneak attacks, but also soupkitchens language services opp shops taxi services floating around. So charity exists, it just gets obscured by all the bullshit that goes on as well. And there is surely plenty of that to go around!
 
johnny said:
Delaying tactics like this are an indication of an already lost battle. Unless they are delaying for some kind of shift that has an actual timeline attached to it (the second coming, maybe?) then it's really a losing strategy that might keep their base but will really damage them longer-term with overall relevance and the tolerance of the general electorate. Especially those on both sides who say that regardless of the outcome of any plebiscite they will vote on their conscience anyway. kinda makes a plebiscite a bit of a waste of time and money...., lots of money.
Click to expand...

Don't believe it's a delaying tactic, it's just avoiding making their own call and allowing will of the people.

When the plebiscite first came up, it was in response to pressure for a free vote that tony Abbott knew would get up. Even the hardcore Christians can't deny it if it's the will of the people - hell on Lateline some seriously conservative ministers strong,y implied they would vote with the result even though it's against their own views.

When the ALP were talking up the plebiscite (when they thought TA would have none of it), there was zero talk of some hate campaign and it seemed to have broad support. As soon as TA went with it, it became the devils idea.

I'm all for gay marriage, but it's a political football.

If it weren't for labor and greens making political capital out of it, it would already have been done. This should already have been a moment in history
 
You guys are optimistic.

pharmaboy said:
Don't believe it's a delaying tactic, it's just avoiding making their own call and allowing will of the people.

When the plebiscite first came up, it was in response to pressure for a free vote that tony Abbott knew would get up. Even the hardcore Christians can't deny it if it's the will of the people - hell on Lateline some seriously conservative ministers strong,y implied they would vote with the result even though it's against their own views.

When the ALP were talking up the plebiscite (when they thought TA would have none of it), there was zero talk of some hate campaign and it seemed to have broad support. As soon as TA went with it, it became the devils idea.

I'm all for gay marriage, but it's a political football.

If it weren't for labor and greens making political capital out of it, it would already have been done. This should already have been a moment in history
Click to expand...

scblack said:
Yep, true that one.
Click to expand...
 
I approach at the whole gay marriage 'debate' from legal contractual position. Don't really care if someone loves someone else really, half the time this love doesn't last and the shit hits the fan. This then opens in regards to splitting up estates, child custody etc.. From my understanding gay de facto relationships have a higher burden of proof when excuting wills and estates. A legal marriage contract will give gay couples the same rights as everyone else.
Marriage pre dates christianity by a shitload of years they didn't invent it.. It's not up to a religion to say who can and can't enter a marriage arrangement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top