SSM Plebiscite

[mateinone]

The slippery slope to incest, bestiality or worse.

You do realise that right there you have suggested that incest is a downward slope from same sex marriage right?
That in the very essence of that comment, you are stating that incest is 'wrong', which is based solely on a judgment you have made on what you have been taught is acceptable as a relationship between to people.

So... how is that more or less acceptable, than a person who has been raised in a rural area, or an older person who doesn't "waste their time online or at cafes", who isn't part of the latte and smashed avocado generation and thinks that gay marriage is wrong as it normalises a relationship they believe is unnatural and and demeans a union they consider sacred?

We are all so judgmental, because we have been raised in an online politically correct generation, we are online and we all have friends who are openly homosexual. But that doesn't represent everyone and the older generations, plus rural areas have been raised under different circumstances.

My sister's grandfather if he was alive would have voted "NO".
I could be 100% certain of that.
He didn't believe in relationships out of marriage, he would never have met an openly gay person and wouldn't accept that as a legitimate relationship. He would not even leave the tv on if two people were kissing.
We was a wonderful man, but he would never have believed in SSM.

No that isn't based on lies or mistruths.
It is based on their upbringing, exactly the same way we are drawing out conclusions now

[flyboy77]

Truly bizarre commentary MIO.

Weird ++

stick to the footy would be my advice.

[Peter Brady]

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.

Not real well! You don't get any puppies

[mateinone]

Truly bizarre commentary MIO.

Weird ++

stick to the footy would be my advice.

It is okay fly, I don't commentate to be approved by the masses.
I make my comments based on my beliefs, so am comfortable with you not understanding or agreeing with what I am saying.

If the situation is broken down, I have said that this is the discussion on whether or not the public have the right to determine whether or not 2 consenting adults of sane mind may or may not marry.

That is the absolute core of the discussion, anything else obfuscates that core situation.

As I have said what seems like 100 times.. If people are allowed to pass a judgment based on that core situation in any circumstance, then they are able to determine what constitutes a valid marriage in their opinion.

So once that is true, then understanding that due to ones upbringing/life exposure etc, there will be people who don't believe that 2 women or 2 men shall marry.
It doesn't mean that another person, having a different upbringing will agree or that either party is 'correct'.

I look at religion. I don't believe in any of the religions at all. To me it is absolute utter nonsense. That is based on the life I have lived and my way of interpreting that life. I don't for a second believe it is impossible if I lived in different circumstances for me to have grown up believing in any of the religions.

So whilst I don't believe at all, I do understand why people do, I understand that your upbringing.. your education, your family and your general environment play a part.

I raised the scenario of a particularly distasteful, frowned upon & illegal situation (which homosexuality remember once once also) as a hypothetical comparison.
I didn't raise it to say there should be a push for such a scenario and debating such is simply getting off topic.
It is simply just that it is a situation where people would make a judgment call based on their own upbringing and morals on what makes an acceptable marriage.

If there was a plebiscite 40-50 years ago, make no mistake the results would also likely to be maybe 95% or higher against SSM.
It would have been considered distasteful and frowned upon by most, as that is what they would have learned during their upbringing.

I am only stating that people are making their judgment based on the fact they have come to understand and respect same sex couples and this has come through normalising in society. Which is okay, in fact that is good. But it then the logical conclusion would be that there will be people where there has been less normlisation of same sex couples in their society and as such it goes against what they believe in.

I don't get how that is hard for people to understand.

But again... (broken record)
If the government believes SSM is the right thing for society, does it matter whether or not everyone agrees?
Surely like any change of a law people will just move on with their lives.

[LP]

This "Thin End of the Wedge" argument is a real problem for the "yes" campaigners.

There is no real connection between the marriage equality issue and stuff like cultural child brides, cultural incest, etc., etc., it seems there is a clear perception among some that a connection exists!

Personally, the LGBTI people I know are more likely to rescue / defend a child than abuse them!

[mateinone]

This "Thin End of the Wedge" argument is a real problem for the "yes" campaigners.

There is no real connection between the marriage equality issue and stuff like cultural child brides, cultural incest, etc., etc., it seems there is a clear perception among some that a connection exists!

To be clear as well LP
My commentary in no way advocates incest or polygamy or anything else.
I also don't for one second believe that it is a natural conclusion that allowing SSM means society will end up forced to allow other forms of marriage that are not defined.

My only commentary is that we as humans always pass judgment based on our experience and knowledge and what makes sense to one, might not make sense to another.
That it is laughable to me that some people (not stating here), don't believe that people have a right to feel differently to what they do.

If there are other minority groups not out there, yes they might use this as a platform, but we are humans and boundaries can be drawn around what is acceptable to maintain society and so SSM doesn't lead to other forms.

I use the examples purely to show a hypocrisy in the debate (again, more in the public forums than here).

[blue4life]

If the situation is broken down, I have said that this is the discussion on whether or not the public have the right to determine whether or not 2 consenting adults of sane mind may or may not marry.

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

[DJC]

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

X2

[mateinone]

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

Ah, so by extension... You therefore agree that the public would have no right to a view on a marriage between siblings?
Or the right of a woman to marry two different men in a polygamous relationship?

Again.. bare with me. I am not saying that because someone supports Same Sex marriage by extension they support those. Not at all.
I am saying that because your answer is "I support marriage because I don't believe that people have a right to a view on relationships of 2 consenting adults".
That in turn must logically mean that you don't feel you have a right to an opinion in the circumstances I have outlined.
Otherwise there MUST be further personal reasons why one is acceptable and not another.

Your understanding of the changes made in 2004 are different than mine.
I don't believe that a same sex couple could marry in Australia. What happened was there were cases to have international same sex marriages recognised within Australia and the law was changed to prevent that.

That is somewhat different and changes to the Marriage Act needed to take place I believe for SSM to be registered in Australia.

[cookie2]

This is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
From my perspective, as a straight, happily married father and grandfather, I don't think that it's any of my business what relationships two consenting adults choose to enter into, so long as those relationships don't adversely affect any third person or society as a whole.
In that light I don't think that the public has the right that you speak of, and it should be noted that if not for the Howard government specifically changing the marriage act there would be no need for the current debate, which in my opinion is unnecessary, divisive, expensive and a great distraction from the far more important issues which should be at the centre of political debate in Australia.
I concede that some people will demand the right to interfere in the lives of others, that's always been the case but there's no justification for it as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately B4L there are those who think that their own ideas about society are the only valid ones and it is their sole prerogative to decide what is harmful or not and what is good for everyone. It is this attitude that is the problem more than the specific question of SSM. (If SSM is what some people want btw, then fine by me. Personally, I don't see it as any more harmful than man/woman marriage).