SSM Plebiscite

[mateinone]

Despite words being twisted...

There is no push that I know of from any faction to allow different forms of marriage as an extension of SSM, nor do I believe that allowing SSM would then lead to further changes to the legal definition of a married couple.

The fact is however, that if people feel it is right to pass their opinion on one subject, even if that isn't in the form of a vote, then it is completely hypocritical to deny people the right to objectively decide on another.

And again.. I am in favor of allowing SSM. I have no qualms at all (and in fact encourage) the government scrapping this vote and just passing it into law.

But anyone who cannot see that if YOUR OWN opinion if you were asked on whether you believe that (for example) a brother & sister can marry is ANYTHING BUT YES, then you are without any doubt a hypocrite if you believe that people MUST vote yes.

It make NO DIFFERENCE whether there is any campaigns for further widening of the definition of either acceptable relationships or marriage. The ONLY difference between a society allowing an incestuous marriage to a Same Sex Marriage to a currently permissible Heterosexual Marriage is that there are laws not allowing it.

But the argument isn't that if you allow SSM it will lead to allowing incestuous marriage or polygamy.

The only argument is over whether society has a right to dictate parameters around whether or not 2 consenting adults can marry.

If society has the right to vote YES or NO in any relationship between consenting adults, then I am sorry they have the right to vote here.
It does NOT mean they should or would vote the same way in either situation, it means they can make up their own minds.

I personally think what Carlton Football Club done was a brave thing. It had to know it would come up for abuse, that was always going to happen. But it was brave enough to state that it believes in Free Speech.
I would have been disappointed if Carlton had campaigned either way.