I thank you for your opinion and more so for the fact your not voting which should be the case.
Why are people so undemocratic? Why is it seen that anybody who doesn’t agree is not allowed to have a vote? If you don’t agree with the other person, that’s fine but you should never tell them that they’re not allowed the democratic right to vote. I don’t understand why this mentality is not picked up on more. I remember the Greens saying on TV once that there was a member of Tas Parliament who should not have his vote counted because he has conservative views. Just like there are gays in the world and they can vote, there are those with conservative views who have just as much right to an opinion.
Nobody has said that the LGBT community can’t vote, nor women, nor Collingwood supporters or those who choose to wear socks and sandals so why say that Chirstians/religious/anyone who disagrees aren’t allowed the right to have their view?
I think women have been told they can’t vote before.
7 Likes
And look, I think it’s only natural that if you don’t want the other side to win, you’d naturally see any votes not filed for that side as beneficial to you.
I mean, I’d happily cap a maximum voting age too but that’s just me…
1 Like
Sorry I meant ever as in this debate but you are correct about the past. Good pickup.
1 Like
Incorrect; it conveys legal rights, and we’re talking about legislation allowing that.
Just because some religious organisations have tried to claim it as theirs doesn’t make it so.
There’s a difference when we’re being surveyed on whether to continue discrimation against a minority group in our nation (speaking of people not being allowed the same rights as others).
Nobody? Unfortunately this has been said (albeit not in Aus recently).
Having their view is fine, imposing it on others is not (just as there shouldn’t be a state religion which everyone is forced to follow or be locked up, and yes that still happens in the world in 2017).
Incorrect. Government did not construct marriage.
No, but they legislate on it, and they create and maintain laws relating to them. And we are a secular country, so our laws should be too.
2 Likes
Of course government creates and maintains laws in this field. That doesn’t mean marriage is not a religious and social construct.
Governments can create and maintain laws relating to food…it doesn’t mean eating is a government construct. 
Which should mean government butting out of religion and not mandating that religious heads should be forced to marry gay couples.
Government can introduce government backed “unions” of whatever sort it pleases - that is a secular law.
They never have and they don’t ever plan to do so.
Don’t worry it will be Labour policy soon enough. Of course, now is not the time to discuss that as it’s a “red herring”. 
Typical scaremongering.
2 Likes
Why should they be able to discriminate?
Hasn’t that part always been talked about but never actually included until the latest proposal? Just typical make the no case sound crazy but actually just ram things throughwithout finding a balance.
I haven’t got time at the moment so I’ll look later but I think that things have changed sometimes merely weeks after the laws have passed to remove many of these protections.
Because you’re forcing them to do something they fundamentally don’t agree with and going against the way things have been for thousands of years. Why would you want someone marrying you if they don’t agree with your relationship anyway? There will be plenty of other people who will do it.
In other news, great to see those fighting for tolerance and peace and love and unicorns with their acceptance of other views now outing the names, addresses and phone numbers of those who were in the no campaign ad so that people can now go and vandalise their properties. Or have to shut down their company website because of the abuse they’re getting or have their church threatened to be burned down all for stating what they believe their definition of marriage is.
It’s always so funny. The same people who get up in knots about Sharia law are the first to tell secular society that Christian religious grounds are an acceptable way to frame marriage rights.
4 Likes
Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer for the definition of marriage so it’s about finding who’s rights are more important based on your interpretation and definition of marriage. To be able to effectively do that all sides need to be heard so that an acceptable definition can then be created or updated.
Does gender matter?
Do kids play a part in the decision?
How many people?
Can mixed races marry?
etc…
So many different questions now and in the past and people will answer differently for them all and hten a unified front can go forward to updating the definition. At the moment there are a number of people who claim that genders don’t make a difference in marriage and in life and there are another large amount of people who say that genders have worked perfectly well since the beginning of time. At the moment there are people who claim that kids and family are closely related to the definition of marriage and there is another large group of people who say that it is now irrelevant thinking of them and the different family situations nowadays do no harm.
Violence, threats, bullying, name calling and everything else going on is not the way to have a discussion about important issues. Both sides are passionate and believe they are right. Both sides have good points whether you choose to agree with them or not.
And I fundamentally believe that religious institutions should pay tax, but I guess that goes against “the way things have been for thousands of years”.
You’re entitled to believe what you like, but when you belong to a background of privilege and you seek to systemically prevent a group of people from attaining rights - the same level of rights that heterosexual couples have at present - and choose to voice that, you will be rightly called out for it.
One final thing: I wouldn’t expect the LNP to pass a bill that removed religious exemptions - the same ones that already prevent ministers from marrying individuals they see fit.
1 Like
The other night my wife arrived home after a hard days work with that look in her eye and she whispered “Take off my shoes”, so I took off her shoes. “Take off my shirt”, so I took off her shirt. “Take off my skirt” and so I took off her skirt, “now take off my underwear” and so I took off her underwear and then finally she said “And I never want to see you wearing my clothes ever again!”
But now we’re just taking things off topic and being ridiculous.
3 Likes