SSM Plebiscite

[LP]

860 pages ! Good Lord ! Any chance I could start in the toddler's department, then move on to the boys, then graduate to the men's ?

Hang on a minute. I'm sensing a sub text here, a hidden agenda. Aha ! You want to keep me off the forums for a few years.

I'm onto you LP.

Seriously, thanks for the tip.

It looks like my motives are completely transparent, no pun implied or intended! :o

This is all getting a bit Benny Hill now so I'm off!

See it never ends!

[PaulP]

I agree LP. Definitely time to wrap it up.

[PaulP]

Back on track.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ca...ylwk8.html

The Judge voted yes, apparently.

[Koutz]

NO

[Micky0]

I thought the statement the club issued was fine.  Of course one of the first people to comment on it was 'outraged' by the club and how dare they not support her wanting to marry her partner... the outrage was unjustified and from there the matter grew and grew.

The club cannot speak on everyone's behalf - apparently not all board members are voting Yes.  They said they are for equality - that is saying in the eyes of the club everyone should be treated equally, but they are not saying you must vote yes if you are with us.

Personally I am a yes voter, as are my family.  I'm not in the least disappointed with the club for putting out their statement.

And I feel this entire thing is an embarrassment and a huge waste of money.  Just make it equal ffs and let's get on with the problems in this world that all this $$$$$ could go towards to help fix. 

[Mav]

[3] I don't have a problem with gay people being married, nor on their getting the lefal rights and obligations that go with it. However, once you start changing something as basic as marriage has been for us, where do you stop?

This is the Forrest Gump argument.  He started running and then kept on running.  Right across the USA.  Then all of a sudden, he decided to stop running.

Just like Forrest, we can stop whenever we want.  We don't experience what chess players know as zugswang - a compulsion to move. 

Allowing ssm merely means that monogamous marriage is open to all.  It can hardly open the door to polygamous marriage, or marriage to children, animals or inanimate objects.  If there is any such tendency, then it was set in motion by the introduction of marriage between heterosexuals.  Maybe we should ban marriage altogether?

There was a ban on whites marrying blacks in the US.  Conservatives supported that law when the Supreme Court was considering overturning it (which it ultimately did).  Was it wrong to do so?  Was it wrong to overturn bans on ssm on the grounds of equal rights?

[tonyo]

I thought the statement the club issued was fine.  Of course one of the first people to comment on it was 'outraged' by the club and how dare they not support her wanting to marry her partner... the outrage was unjustified and from there the matter grew and grew.

The club cannot speak on everyone's behalf - apparently not all board members are voting Yes.  They said they are for equality - that is saying in the eyes of the club everyone should be treated equally, but they are not saying you must vote yes if you are with us.

Personally I am a yes voter, as are my family.  I'm not in the least disappointed with the club for putting out their statement.

And I feel this entire thing is an embarrassment and a huge waste of money.  Just make it equal ffs and let's get on with the problems in this world that all this $$$$$ could go towards to help fix.

Bravo.  If our so-called leaders in Parliament had the balls to make a decision in the first place, then we wouldn't be leaving it up to football organisations to try and set a social agenda.....

[cookie2]

Bravo.  If our so-called leaders in Parliament had the balls to make a decision in the first place, then we wouldn't be leaving it up to football organisations to try and set a social agenda.....

Yep!

[Inboltswetrust]

Yep!

I voted YES.

[cookie2]

I voted YES.

Well there wasn't a "Yep" option.