Australia votes to legalise same-sex marriage

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Dec 2017, 7:53 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Technically it's the 74% of the public who voted that should be thanked

There is, however, a conspiracy theory going around that ballots were deliberately not circulated to conservative areas which seems preposterous as we have a conservative government where more than half of the sitting members are against same sex marriage (code for homophobic).


Well, according to the source above, 79.5% of eligible voters voted, not 74%. Thanked for what, exactly?

People who are opposed to the slow but persistent decline in moral standards are not "homophobic". What does that term even mean? A phobia is a fear of something. I voted NO, but I am not afraid of homosexuals.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Dec 2017, 7:55 pm

auntblabby wrote:
ah, progress :star:


You call this progress?! Progress towards what, exactly?



Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,221
Location: Queensland, Australia

07 Dec 2017, 8:37 pm

Lintar wrote:
Murihiku wrote:
Nationally, 79.5% of voters responded in the survey: 61.6% voted YES to legalise same-sex marriage, with 38.4% voting NO.


Can we assume that those people who did not take part (the 20.5%) refused to participate because they thought the very idea itself (i.e. same-sex "marriage") was ludicrous? If we can, then the actual percentage of the total population who endorsed this batty idea was far less than 61.6.

That's a big assumption. You'd think that such people would've just voted No, like 4.9 million other Australian voters did. You could also make the opposite argument that many of the non-voters may have supported the Yes case. Supporters of SSM were utterly opposed to a plebiscite, and some threatened not to participate in protest. Some may have done just that; however, enough people voted Yes to make up the majority of respondents in the survey.

Personally though, I think that most of the non-respondents simply didn't care one way or the other. On the one hand you could say that 49.0% of all eligible voters (including non-respondents) expressed support for legalising SSM while 51.0% of voters did not express support. On the other hand, you could say that 69.5% of all eligible voters gave no objection while 30.5% of voters did. Either argument can be justified from the survey stats. Ultimately though, it's only the people who voted that had any say.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,221
Location: Queensland, Australia

07 Dec 2017, 9:46 pm

Update: The Governor-General has signed the bill legalising same-sex marriage into law, which will come into effect from tomorrow (9 December): http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... 4c9cd5486c

This means two things:

1. Weddings for same-sex couples can start in Australia from 9 January 2018, since all couples intending to marry must give at least one month's notice.

2. Marriages solemnised overseas for same-sex couples will be automatically recognised as marriages in Australia from tomorrow.


_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.


– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 102,905
Location: the island of defective toy santas

08 Dec 2017, 4:07 am

Lintar wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
ah, progress :star:


You call this progress?! Progress towards what, exactly?

towards people living and letting other people live as they choose. is that plain enough?



Lace-Bane
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,590
Location: tennessee

08 Dec 2017, 3:16 pm

Lintar wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
ah, progress :star:
You call this progress?! Progress towards what, exactly?
progress toward finishing off unethical old world values that have no place in any modern civilized society.

Lintar wrote:
Can we assume that those people who did not take part (the 20.5%) refused to participate because they thought the very idea itself (i.e. same-sex "marriage") was ludicrous?
to put it in the most simple of terms... no.


_________________
七転び八起き


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,156
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Dec 2017, 3:39 pm

Good.

Though I am sure there are lots of pissed off fundies who think somehow allowing gay couples to marry disallows traditional christian marriges between a man and woman.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

09 Dec 2017, 7:12 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Lintar wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
ah, progress :star:


You call this progress?! Progress towards what, exactly?

towards people living and letting other people live as they choose. is that plain enough?


If only it were this simple, but no, it isn't. I've heard, ad nauseaum, the so-called argument that "as long as these people are not harming anyone, then what is the problem?"

Well, that's just the thing. In the long term a trend like this inevitably will harm society. Marriage was for millennia, across the world, defined as the union between a man and woman for very good reasons, one of those reasons being that it was in the interests of any offspring produced to have a stable home and upbringing. Homosexual "marriages", by the way, cannot produce anything at all. Now, it's "acceptable" - hell, not just acceptable, but actively encouraged - for people to live "alternative lifestyles", and to push these so-called lifestyles onto impressionable young children in school.

Yes, even though I myself am not a parent (I can thank having Asperger's Syndrome for this personal deficiency) I do know what is now happening in schools across the Western world. In the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" children are being brainwashed by Marxist ideologues into actually questioning their gender. It is wrong, it is immoral, it is abhorrent.

I don't like Vladimir Putin, at all, for a number of reasons. However, he was right about one thing at least, and that was to make it illegal in Russia to actively promote homosexuality to children. Russia during the 1990's had experienced an almost catastrophic demographic decline, and he knew what had to be done if his nation was to survive in the long term. Nations across the Western world are in deep, deep trouble, and our politicians know it. Immigrants are being encouraged by people like Mrs. Merkel because far too many native Europeans are dying and not being replaced by a sufficient number of births. The fact that abortion is also rampant and unrestricted does not help matters either (yes, I am anti-abortion as well).

How people choose to live their lives actually does affect everyone else, especially when the mere mention of doubt as to the wisdom of promoting a certain "lifestyle" brings in response to it charges of "bigotry".



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

09 Dec 2017, 7:20 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Good.

Though I am sure there are lots of pissed off fundies who think somehow allowing gay couples to marry disallows traditional christian marriges between a man and woman.


It does not "disallow" real marriages, but it certainly does undermine the very concept of marriage by making it nebulous and in the eye of the beholder. Apparently, if "two people love each other" that's a good enough reason to get married these days. Since anything goes now, perhaps we should also recognise and encourage arranged marriages as well, where the families decide and not the two people in question. As I understand it, these marriages last, on average, much longer anyway. They tend to be more durable, perhaps because unreasonable expectations (based upon chemistry) are usually absent.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

09 Dec 2017, 7:24 pm

Lace-Bane wrote:
Lintar wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
ah, progress :star:
You call this progress?! Progress towards what, exactly?
progress toward finishing off unethical old world values that have no place in any modern civilized society.


"Unethical old world values" - a completely subjective perspective. What may appear to you to be "unethical" may not be to others. I actually prefer the old world values because they were better than what we have now (which are values based upon nihilistic atheism).



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,156
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2017, 7:30 pm

Lintar wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Technically it's the 74% of the public who voted that should be thanked

There is, however, a conspiracy theory going around that ballots were deliberately not circulated to conservative areas which seems preposterous as we have a conservative government where more than half of the sitting members are against same sex marriage (code for homophobic).


Well, according to the source above, 79.5% of eligible voters voted, not 74%. Thanked for what, exactly?

People who are opposed to the slow but persistent decline in moral standards are not "homophobic". What does that term even mean? A phobia is a fear of something. I voted NO, but I am not afraid of homosexuals.


It is a religious belief that homosexuality is sinful/wrong and that same sex marriage is immoral, not everyone follows religions that view it that way...so said beliefs should not be imposed on people, its as simple as that. Like how does it effect you if two consenting adults who are homosexual get married? You don't have to participate...


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,156
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2017, 7:38 pm

Lintar wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Good.

Though I am sure there are lots of pissed off fundies who think somehow allowing gay couples to marry disallows traditional christian marriges between a man and woman.


It does not "disallow" real marriages, but it certainly does undermine the very concept of marriage by making it nebulous and in the eye of the beholder. Apparently, if "two people love each other" that's a good enough reason to get married these days. Since anything goes now, perhaps we should also recognise and encourage arranged marriages as well, where the families decide and not the two people in question. As I understand it, these marriages last, on average, much longer anyway. They tend to be more durable, perhaps because unreasonable expectations (based upon chemistry) are usually absent.


Allowing two consenting adults to marry does not mean 'anything' goes, it means two consenting adults can get married even if they are the same sex. I also doubt there is any good argument to have people forced into marrige against their will to someone they don't want to marry. Sure maybe in some cases the family would have the best of intentions and it would turn out well...but it could be very easily abused. I mean perhaps some parents would decide there is some 'financial' benefit or something to marring off their younger son or daughter to some older troglodyte who happens to come from money.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 09 Dec 2017, 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 75,936
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Dec 2017, 7:39 pm

Very easily abused....and very often abused.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,333

09 Dec 2017, 9:29 pm

Lintar wrote:
People who are opposed to the slow but persistent decline in moral standards are not "homophobic". What does that term even mean? A phobia is a fear of something. I voted NO, but I am not afraid of homosexuals.


I think you'll find the establishment is still on your side
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/youre ... zqe1o.html

My suspicion is plenty of "liberal minded" christians don't want their kids exposed to two men or women kissing each other as a married couple

This kind of reminds me of of the 1960s removal of racial segregation didn't end white racism



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 102,905
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Dec 2017, 9:53 pm

the argument that only people who can reproduce should marry, is insane in todays' overpopulated world. we don't need a whole lot more people on this planet, to say the least. we need to take better care of what population we have rather than add further burden to an already overburdened planet.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,333

09 Dec 2017, 10:20 pm

auntblabby wrote:
the argument that only people who can reproduce should marry, is insane in todays' overpopulated world. we don't need a whole lot more people on this planet, to say the least. we need to take better care of what population we have rather than add further burden to an already overburdened planet.

Yes but the majority make the rules...