SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

There seems little doubt that either for legal, religious or social reasons, a "marriage" has always been defined or thought of as man and woman. There has never been any society where a marriage was possible as same sex union. Certainly a few historical societies had on the side male-male relationships, but many of these were men who were married.

Time for the next evolutionary step people. 

[kruddler]

I don't think people would be arguing that a marriage law can't change parameters, that would be very easy to shoot down as society changes.
No I think more, there will be people who believe that marriage has and should represent a union of man and women. That traditionally it has (throughout most/all societies historically) and that biologically man and women are meant to be together, whether determined by God or just through evolution.

But an argument to the strict interpretation of marriage within Australia wouldn't make any sense, for the reasons already pointed out.

People were arguing that, and yes it is easy to shoot down. Just like it is most of their arguments. Its the fact the majority of them don't listen to and/or believe the alternative view that is the problem.

If people want to believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, that is their right.
They should be well aware that despite that, same sex couple can and do exist. Same sex couple are also entitled to similar type 'benefits' to married people.
As for biology....pretty sure its widely accepted that animals can also be gay.
Hell, i used to have 2 male german shepherds that were always mounting eachother when i was a kid. I'm not sure how well that worked out for them though.

The most 'logical' argument against SSM that i can understand it is people want the word 'marriage' to be between opposite sex only. If there was a gay equivalent to the word marriage, that yielded all the rights of marriage, but simply went by a different name, then thats about the only argument against i could accept. Still don't agree, but accept.

Anything else doesn't make sense. to me.

[mateinone]

There seems little doubt that either for legal, religious or social reasons, a "marriage" has always been defined or thought of as man and woman. There has never been any society where a marriage was possible as same sex union. Certainly a few historical societies had on the side male-male relationships, but many of these were men who were married.

Time for the next evolutionary step people.

Interesting choice of words Paul, just because the irony is that society would of course cease evolution and existence is everyone was to be in a Same Sex union  ;D

@Kruddler

You are right there are animals that have sex with the same sex, but that doesn't change the fact that a man's sexual organs are naturally created as a fit to females. I am I don't think there is a necessity to argue that point is there?

I agree, same sex relationships are here and they are here to stay and people are right the sky isn't falling.
Society is turning into a bit of a depraved place, but that same sex relationships are not even close to the problem.
I think again it comes down to constant education in what SSM means for people, to help understand the pros and to alleviate concerns around any perceived negatives.

This is where the $122 million would have been much better spent. Propose the change to the law and let those elected make the change and then spend the money in education.

Also.. An argument doesn't need to make sense to you. If it makes sense to the person having that point of view, then in my view you need to at least understand why someone feels a certain way to have any chance of them changing a point.

So when people state "I don't understand why people would vote NO", I think.. I do.. Well I think I do.
I don't really agree with their points, though I strongly believe (ironically) in ensuring religions are not impacted and enforced to marry couples they believe contradict their churches teachings.

But, no I understand..

[PaulP]

..............................

The most 'logical' argument against SSM that i can understand it is people want the word 'marriage' to be between opposite sex only. If there was a gay equivalent to the word marriage, that yielded all the rights of marriage, but simply went by a different name, then thats about the only argument against i could accept. Still don't agree, but accept.

Anything else doesn't make sense. to me.

I think for some gay couples, the nomenclature is important. I think they want to say they are married, they want to refer to their other half as "husband" or "wife", as the case may be.

[flyboy77]

I think anyone who could even contemplate voting 'no' needs to stand in front of a mirror and have a good hard look at themselves.

[DJC]

Yeah that is a good point about not going into techniques etc
I know that I certainly don't remember the school teachers every going into actual details on performing different sexual acts when I was at school, but then that was a very very long time ago.

I think the lady who called in has either been the victim of the scaremongering or is herself making this information up with the intent of scaring others into voting "NO"

She was an author, former school teacher and devout believer in one of the Abrahamic imaginary beings.

[kruddler]

But, no I understand..

Well, do tell...

I know i don't have to understand them, but i understand that the arguments i've heard are based on lies and mistruths.

I'm not sure if i'm articulating it well enough, but lets put it this way.

I don't understand why some people still believe the earth is flat. It clearly isn't and there is a multitude of examples to prove otherwise, yet people still believe it. They can believe that if they want, but their reasoning for doing so is based on lies and/or ignorance of the facts. If they had some genuine argument for doing so, some weird inter-dimensional thought experiment akin to people being nothing other than holograms, then let me hear it. But it isn't there. Whether i understand it or not, i want to know its based on something

Now i'm not suggesting no voters and flat earthers are one and the same. I just want to hear why it is they think the way they do and i want to hear an argument for it that can no be 'disproved' with facts. Currently, i have not. As i said, i haven't been actively seeking out this information, but i certainly haven't come across any as yet.

[DJC]

Well, do tell...

I know i don't have to understand them, but i understand that the arguments i've heard are based on lies and mistruths.

I'm not sure if i'm articulating it well enough, but lets put it this way.

I don't understand why some people still believe the earth is flat. It clearly isn't and there is a multitude of examples to prove otherwise, yet people still believe it. They can believe that if they want, but their reasoning for doing so is based on lies and/or ignorance of the facts. If they had some genuine argument for doing so, some weird inter-dimensional thought experiment akin to people being nothing other than holograms, then let me hear it. But it isn't there. Whether i understand it or not, i want to know its based on something

Now i'm not suggesting no voters and flat earthers are one and the same. I just want to hear why it is they think the way they do and i want to hear an argument for it that can no be 'disproved' with facts. Currently, i have not. As i said, i haven't been actively seeking out this information, but i certainly haven't come across any as yet.

It's hard to present a logical argument when your position is based on faith rather than facts.

[kruddler]

I think for some gay couples, the nomenclature is important. I think they want to say they are married, they want to refer to their other half as "husband" or "wife", as the case may be.

I reckon it would be too.

What i'm saying is IF no-voters are voting no because of their opinion on the nomenclature, then thats about as solid of an argument as i've heard.
I don't agree, but i can accept that as a reason for their vote.

As opposed to...
Voting no because its a slippery slope to incest, beastiality and worse. - Sorry, bollocks.
Voting no because it would piss off the church - Gay people don't have to get married in a church, so its a non-issue. Religion is supposed to be 'accepting' of people.
Voting no because Tony Abott said so - Purlease.  :

[PaulP]

I reckon it would be too.

What i'm saying is IF no-voters are voting no because of their opinion on the nomenclature, then thats about as solid of an argument as i've heard.
I don't agree, but i can accept that as a reason for their vote.

As opposed to...
Voting no because its a slippery slope to incest, beastiality and worse. - Sorry, bollocks.
Voting no because it would piss off the church - Gay people don't have to get married in a church, so its a non-issue. Religion is supposed to be 'accepting' of people.
Voting no because Tony Abott said so - Purlease.  :

Fair enough.

I reckon the Abbott household must be a jumping little joint at family get togethers. His sister is gay, his daughter did an ad campaign supporting the yes vote. And with Tone the pugilist around, sparks will fly sooner or later.

The episode of Gruen that just aired talked about the ssm issue. They spoke very favorably about the AFL and how they handled the issue.