SSM Plebiscite

[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.