SSM Plebiscite

[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..