In the words of Arthur Cromwell “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
Just do your job, pass the law, and get out of the way.
What a joke our “leaders” have become. Trump and Kim are like 2 drunks at chucking out time, chesting each other and yelling “Ya wanna go mate? Ya wanna go?”
And am terrified we will go to war without the time to arrange a plebiscite!
0 likes
Peter
To think some where in this world Rupert’s men are supporting the other side to Rupert. I am stunned. Maybe there is a future.
I have not mentioned or even brought up the concept of God or fee speech.
Mind you bring back the Lord Protector (AS 0liver as know) would be interesting it would put Donald to shame.
0 likes
Joe
Unusual that the NT News reports something relevant – just pass the legislation for heavens sake!
2 likes
Big Oil
No just don’t pass the legislation.
If you want same sex marriage then vote in the ALP at the next election. A year and a bit away.
If you want the legislation to pass during this Parliament then lets have an attendance plebiscite. To do this the ALP, Greens et al just need to stop obstructing in the senate.
With a compulsory attendance plebiscite we will get a true representation of what the people of Australia want.
If the people vote in favour the LNP will have to allow a vote in Parliament. If they don’t they will be out on their ear.
Now because of the stupidity of the ALP we are going to have a Postal survey which both sides if the lose will dispute the validity of it.
All the arguments about mean words on the internet are going to happen anyway with the postal survey, why not just allow us to have an attendance plebiscite.
If not then lets have a double dissolution election and solve the issue.
The survey is a waste of money, just as the plebiscite would have been. Only parliament can make the necessary legislative changes. That such a vote has been blocked is the problem. This issue should not suck up between $120M and $150M of public funds. It should not be diverting attention ion from more important issues. No, this issue should be dealt with, same sex marriage should be legalised and we all move on. Instead, politicians are being held hostage by small fringe in parliament.
8 likes
Big Oil
The survey is a waste of money however the LNP went to the last Federal Election with a very clear policy of holding a plebiscite and the Australian people agreed to that.
The Senate is obstructing this.
Lets have a double dissolution election and resolve this.
There is no more “important issue” on the Australian Political agenda than is.
1 likes
Pat
If they are going to spend that sort of money and not do the jobs they are paid to do. Then at least tack it onto a referendum vote, or better yet just call an election. There is the recognition of Aborigines in the constitution referendum that has to take place at sometime. Do the plebiscite with it but that is just another issue they are trying to stall as long as possible.
Politicians put a lot of faith in polls when it comes to leadership spills but on a specific matter they seem blind to them.
Big Oil every politician is elected on their platform. How this has gone down in parliament is not unexpected. This survey is a waste because it is non binding and because it is merely those scared in the government pandering to the fringe on the right. Think of all the good we could do in the community with $120M.
Australia would be a better place if our parliaments were willed with genuine independents.
11 likes
Big Oil
Yes you are right. Every politician is elected on their platform.
The LNP went to the last election with a policy of holding a plebiscite. The election was held on Saturday 2nd July 2016.
The ALP policy to obstruct the legislation in the Senate was announced on Sunday October 2016.
The Australian people did not get a say.
Scrap the plebiscite and lets have a double dissolution election. Make Same Sex Marriage the trigger and the number one issue during the campaign.
2 likes
Mark C
What right do the majority have to vote on the human rights of a minority group??? Answer: NONE. If you want to marry your partner who is of the opposite sex should you have to drop pamphlets into each mailbox in your community asking if it is ok??? The plebiscite idea has to be one of the worst from any government in recent memory. It is desperation from a many in the parliament pandering to, as Mark said, a fringe on the right. It is gutless and weak leadership from Turnbull. Using the excuse, this is what was taken to the last election is rubbish. Some may have voted for the coalition based solely on this issue but most would not have. I couldn’t count the number of policies nor could most that have been abandoned since the last election, why scrap other policies but not the plebiscite? Changing the marriage act is not a constitutional issue therefore no plebiscite and / or referendum is required, nor should it be. It is the role of our elected representatives, to stand up and stop pandering to a few in parliament. To those on the right, do your worst or shut up and get on with doing the job you were elected to do.
4 likes
MARK R
The liberal Party went to the last election for this to be decided via a plebiscite . I don’t understand all the fuss now, yes you could spend the money on other things but that can be said about a lot of things government. Just get it done and get on with it. Im sure the people of Australia will make the correct decission and vote Yes
0 likes
Andrew T
The alphabet people are terrified of a plebiscite/postal vote. The Australian public are not fools.
0 likes
Big Oil
I agree with Mark C that the majority have no right to vote on the human rights of a minority.
Who are we to have any say in the way consenting adults choose to live.
Further, why is Government involved in the marriage business anyway?
However, as long as we except that Big Government is going to be involved in the marriage / consenting adult relationship business then the people get a say. This is why the plebiscite or an election is essential.
There are two groups that annoys me more than the anti SSM bigots and that are those who hate democracy and the racists that are against polygamous marriage because they tend to be predominantly Muslim relationships.
0 likes
Steve
Polyamorous/Polygamist marriage call it what you want, weather it pushed by Mormons, Muslims or the B in LGBTI, it’s the next step after SSM. How can we deny it anymore than we can deny SSM? Exactly the some arguments for it apply, if all parties are adult and consenting who are we to judge? Why should one party to the relationship be treated differently to all others without the protections in law that marriage gives in inheritance and divorce.
I’m in the vast majority who don’t really care because it doesn’t affect us but if polygamy is the result of SSM so be it I’d still vote yes. I just think the people and parties pushing SSM need to own up to issues like polyamorous and how such a change will cause marriage to evolve going forward. If you believe you must shut down the debate and deny legitimate questions exist its a sign you have a week argument.
Steve shame on you for saying that same sex marriage is a pathway to Polyamorous/Polygamist relationships. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. It is unfortunate that this line has been put by ignorant and bigoted public figures in media comments about same sex marriage. They say it because stye know it will worry some and get them to vote no on SSM. Again, the issues you highlight have nothing to do with SSM, there is NO evidence.
Now, there is evidence that the Catholic Church has engaged in a coverup of child sexual abuse that has led to many deaths, including 51 suicides in Ballarat, Victoria. yet the Catholic Church continues in business, tax exempt business, while two people of the same sex who love each other are treated appallingly. Go figure.
14 likes
Peter
We have now got a Brexit Circus just the Pommy EU Referendum. I doubt any good will come of this. It would be simpler if the politicians did there elected job.
1 likes
Steve
Mark nice use of the shame word but it doesn’t constitute a thoughtful response, rather it’s an example of my point that rather than engage and prove yourself right you seek to shutdown the debate.
I’m fucked if I know what the appalling cases of child abuse in the Catholic Church has to do with SSM or polygamy but I look forward to you explaining it for me.
There is a large underground movement to follow SSM with polyamorous marriage and its already gaining ground in countries which have SSM. I’m not in favour or against polyamorous marriage and I do support SSM.
My point was the only argument against Polyamorous marriage is morality which is the only argument against SSM, if you except morality is dead and personal ethics are all that matter then isn’t Polygamy as legitimate as SSM?
If you wish to engage in the debate and give the reasons you think polyamorous marriage doesn’t deserve the same consideration SSM does that would be great, otherwise you can continue to hide from the truth, call shame on people who question you and throw emotive and unconnected comments about child abuse and the catholic church around to deflect from the truth.
I’ll repeat: If you believe you must shut down debate and deny legitimate questions exist it’s a sign you have a week argument.
“Shame on me” that’s pathetic.
Steve please stop claiming things that are untrue. There has been no attempt to shutdown any debate. There is no evidence of your claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy. I mentioned the Catholic church to illustrate how issues become intertwined … oh, and also because there is a large body of evidence about their crimes.
The issue of same sex marriage is just that. Unfortunately some with other agendas have sought to make it about much more. It is not. It is disappointing facts are not presented in relation to the polygamy and other baseless claims of what SSM leads to. Again, there is no evidence to back these claims.
The weak argument in this thread is your claim I have or want to shutdown discussion here. Again, no evidence backing you whatsoever.
8 likes
Steve
Mark it’s fine for you to say SSM wont lead to Polyamorous marriage but I want to no the reason why you believe that because when I think it threw it seems inevitable.
Just saying it wont happen means nothing, on what bases would you deny people the right polyamorous marriage?
“Obesity” really? the link between SSM and polyamorous marriage is if you change the definition of marriage to allow SSM then why wouldn’t you change the definition to allow polyamorous marriage? Once again I’ll ask on what grounds would you deny consenting adults the opportunity you wont for yourself?
I dont deny young LGBTI people have a rough time and that it has some devastating effect, nor do I oppose SSM, get it over and done with. But dont pretend there aren’t legitimate questions.
Your right there is no link between obesity and SSM but I cant see were I’ve mentioned such a link. Your reasons for denying polyamorous marriage legitimacy is what I’d like to here. Because I don’t think you’ve got an argument beyond “the catholic church are bad”.
Steve there is no evidence that same sex marriage leads of polygamy or calls for polygamy to be legalised, none whatsoever. That is is an issue is because some opposed to SSM needed to find an argument they could use, even without evidence.
Being gay is biological. Wanting multiple spouses is not biological as far as I can see.
The SSM debate is about SSM, end of. You are wrong to advocate it is about polygamy too.
6 likes
Steve
SSM doesn’t lead to calls for Polyamorous Marriage? Type Polyamorous Marriage into google and hit enter. It’s out there and it’s actually being lead by the Bisexual community, which lets face it isn’t monogamist by definition.
This isn’t about SSM or Polygamy, it’s about your hypocrisy in denying to other what you want for yourself, the very accusation made by the LGBTI community against heterosexuals.
Polygamy has a long history unlike SSM and beyond morality I can’t see what the argument is against it. Thats why I want you to clearly state what your grounds for denying it is.
This isn’t about SSM or Polyamorous marriage it’s about Hypocrisy and Bullshit.
0 likes
Brendan
Steve, when 70% of Australians are in favour of polygamy being legalised, we’ll vote it in. One (voting in SSM) does not lead to the other…
4 likes
Steve
Look I’m over this now, I put the Polygamy thing out there because I knew I’d get a reaction and I also because I’m libertarian in my views. I can see no reason to deny someone the right to marry who they want as long as their an adult and consenting. Which means I struggle to see why Polyamorous Marriage should be discriminated against and in the long run it wont be, big deal,
I just thought Mark would do a bit better than, it wont happen, kids will get hurt, the catholic church is bad. You know actually explain why he opposes it because consenting adults aren’t kids and the catholic church I’m pretty sure opposes Polygamy.
0 likes
Big Oil
Brendan, the percentage of the population does not matter one iota. As stated earlier “the majority have no right to vote on the human rights of a minority.”
If people are able to consent then the Government should have no role in there relationship.
I know it sounds icky to a bunch of conservative newsagents, but if two brothers over the age of 18 want to marry…. then who are we to stop them.
Steve a Google search result is not evidence. There is no evidence of same sex marriage being made legal anywhere in the world leading to a push to legalise polygamy. It is this lack of evidence of any connection whatsoever that makes the two issues separate. It is unfortunate that some in the anti-ssm movements use the argument of polygamy and other topics to add weight to their arguments. Again, they have no evidence.
8 likes
Steve
No evidence? heres a couple of mainstream news articles that put pay to that lye:
Do you remember in 2015 when the Australian Greens decided to limit marriage to 2 people and tied itself in nots defending it in its own party? Well the UK Greens aren’t that hypocritical:
Steve the links you provided are to articles on opinion. They do not include evidence of your fear happening in any country where same sex marriage was legalised. There is no evidence.
4 likes
Steve
Mark its not a fear, I think I’ve made that quite clear if you read what I wrote.
Steve, well, then, I don’t know what gets you being worried something may happen as a result of same sex marriage being made law in Australia when there is no evidence an where in the world of that something actually happening where SSM has been passed. That’s why I think it is fear.
2 likes
MARK R
I see no point in having this discussion on this forum
We will make our desission in private when required
3 likes
Steve
Mark it’s not a fear or a worry just a statement of inevitability. If someone had stated that SSM was inevitable 20 years ago the arguments you use against polygamy, that it hasn’t happened anywhere in the world and all argument in favour of it are just opinion, would be the same. They however would have been proven wrong.
What it means to be marriage has changed over time, when my parents married it was much more something enforced be the morality of the time. By the time I got married attitudes had changed it was more our personal choice, society didn’t bat a eyelid at our cohabitating before marriage and couples choose to never marry, something frowned upon in the past and now totally acceptable.
SSM will change what it means to be married, all most certainly for the better, by making it more inclusive. However the idea that once SSM is allowed that’s it marriage is set and stone and what it means to be married wont be subject to change in the future, either legally or culturally, I think is ridiculous.
0 likes
Eric
My grand pa has 2 wives . Rich people has many wives in some countries
0 likes
Paul
Eric 2 wives and many in other countries How the hell do they keep them all happy haha I hope mine is not reading this
Steve you said this: I just think the people and parties pushing SSM need to own up to issues like polyamorous and how such a change will cause marriage to evolve going forward. Later, you said this: There is a large underground movement to follow SSM with polyamorous marriage and its already gaining ground in countries which have SSM.
Now, these and related statements by you could reasonable be read as agitation re the government’s forthcoming survey. If there are not, then what is the relevance in the comments.
I have read what you have said and I have repeatedly said – there is no evidence backing up your claim that a push to legalise polygamy follows from legalising Same Sex Marriage.
2 likes
Big Oil
If the SSM vote doesn’t lead to polygamous marriage…. then we really are bigots.
Fifty four countries throughout the world recognise polygamous marriage. Why would we deny immigrants from 25% of the world to have their relationship recognised if they are in such an arrangement?
All I am hearing at the moment is rich white saying we want equality… but not for Muslims.
0 likes
Steve
Read it again in context. This isn’t about SSM or Polygamy. It’s about refusing to explain why you would deny consenting adults the right to choose whatever union they desire if it doesn’t effect anyone else. Just saying it wont happen and calling shame on people doesn’t cut it.
That’s it over and out, I’ve got better things to do.
Steve you connected the two topics in your comments, where there is no evidence anywhere of the two topics being related whatsoever. So, I will be drawn into that as it think it is a distracting argument, without foundation.
The discussion in Australia right now is bout Sae Sex Marriage because that is the topic of the survey being put by the government and the subject of agitation by some parliamentarians. Drawing other topics into this discussion is not relevant in my opinion.
3 likes
Steve
OK one last comment, just because your being so wilfully ignorant. I’ll make it simple. I have connected SSM with Polygamy because, now pay attention, they are both at the heart of “why would you deny consenting adults the right to choose whatever union they desire if it doesn’t affect anyone else”.
If you have to have the last comment (which I know you have to) at least try and answer that.
I have no problem with how other people choose to lead their lives you however, to use a cliché, are being half pregnant, for the very understandable reason that your scared of freaking the natives.
Doesn’t make you right though.
I am not scared of freaking anyone Steve. To follow your login we could put a bunch of what-ifs in on this topic. The thing is, the government has decided to survey Australian voters on one question. Introducing other options when discussing that one question is unhelpful. Some could say doing that is a dog whistle approach.
As to your comment re having the last argument – it is a nice game to play – this is my last comment and I know you’ll have the last comment. Conversations take as long as they need to in civil society. It is also interesting since you claimed I had shut down debate here when I had done no such thing.
2 likes
Mark C
Big Oil this is not about equality based on religion. Practicing Islam is a choice. Entering into more than one marriage is a choice. The majority of countries where polygamy is legal are Muslim majority countries and polygamy is legal based largely but not entirely on religious belief.
Being gay is not a choice. It is biological. This is about individuals legally having the right to be treated as equals. It has nothing to do with being white. It has nothing to doing with being rich. It has nothing to do with being treated as equal based on religious belief.
If SSM is legalised this year as it should be, polygamy will still be illegal. The law should not be different based on gender. The law should not be different whether the marriage is between heterosexuals or a same sex couple.
Mark C
You are totally correct.
The rest is garbage from bigots or the ignorant.
0 likes
Big Oil
Mark C being gay may be involuntary but marriage is not. You are not forced to get married in Australia.
Love is love. If you love more than one consenting adult why can’t you be married to them?
For all those bigots who find it hard to believe that you can love more than one person or love them equally…. tell me which child you love more than other.
0 likes
Joe
Yes this conversation has gone on for ever and a day and will continue to until the government simply legalises SSM union and we MOVE ON! To spend taxpayers money on this plebiscite is shameful IMHO. To date I have heard no convincing statement of fact or evidence why this should simply not be passed!
In the words of Arthur Cromwell “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
Just do your job, pass the law, and get out of the way.
What a joke our “leaders” have become. Trump and Kim are like 2 drunks at chucking out time, chesting each other and yelling “Ya wanna go mate? Ya wanna go?”
And am terrified we will go to war without the time to arrange a plebiscite!
To think some where in this world Rupert’s men are supporting the other side to Rupert. I am stunned. Maybe there is a future.
I have not mentioned or even brought up the concept of God or fee speech.
Mind you bring back the Lord Protector (AS 0liver as know) would be interesting it would put Donald to shame.
Unusual that the NT News reports something relevant – just pass the legislation for heavens sake!
No just don’t pass the legislation.
If you want same sex marriage then vote in the ALP at the next election. A year and a bit away.
If you want the legislation to pass during this Parliament then lets have an attendance plebiscite. To do this the ALP, Greens et al just need to stop obstructing in the senate.
With a compulsory attendance plebiscite we will get a true representation of what the people of Australia want.
If the people vote in favour the LNP will have to allow a vote in Parliament. If they don’t they will be out on their ear.
Now because of the stupidity of the ALP we are going to have a Postal survey which both sides if the lose will dispute the validity of it.
All the arguments about mean words on the internet are going to happen anyway with the postal survey, why not just allow us to have an attendance plebiscite.
If not then lets have a double dissolution election and solve the issue.
The survey is a waste of money, just as the plebiscite would have been. Only parliament can make the necessary legislative changes. That such a vote has been blocked is the problem. This issue should not suck up between $120M and $150M of public funds. It should not be diverting attention ion from more important issues. No, this issue should be dealt with, same sex marriage should be legalised and we all move on. Instead, politicians are being held hostage by small fringe in parliament.
The survey is a waste of money however the LNP went to the last Federal Election with a very clear policy of holding a plebiscite and the Australian people agreed to that.
The Senate is obstructing this.
Lets have a double dissolution election and resolve this.
There is no more “important issue” on the Australian Political agenda than is.
If they are going to spend that sort of money and not do the jobs they are paid to do. Then at least tack it onto a referendum vote, or better yet just call an election. There is the recognition of Aborigines in the constitution referendum that has to take place at sometime. Do the plebiscite with it but that is just another issue they are trying to stall as long as possible.
Politicians put a lot of faith in polls when it comes to leadership spills but on a specific matter they seem blind to them.
Big Oil every politician is elected on their platform. How this has gone down in parliament is not unexpected. This survey is a waste because it is non binding and because it is merely those scared in the government pandering to the fringe on the right. Think of all the good we could do in the community with $120M.
Australia would be a better place if our parliaments were willed with genuine independents.
Yes you are right. Every politician is elected on their platform.
The LNP went to the last election with a policy of holding a plebiscite. The election was held on Saturday 2nd July 2016.
The ALP policy to obstruct the legislation in the Senate was announced on Sunday October 2016.
The Australian people did not get a say.
Scrap the plebiscite and lets have a double dissolution election. Make Same Sex Marriage the trigger and the number one issue during the campaign.
What right do the majority have to vote on the human rights of a minority group??? Answer: NONE. If you want to marry your partner who is of the opposite sex should you have to drop pamphlets into each mailbox in your community asking if it is ok??? The plebiscite idea has to be one of the worst from any government in recent memory. It is desperation from a many in the parliament pandering to, as Mark said, a fringe on the right. It is gutless and weak leadership from Turnbull. Using the excuse, this is what was taken to the last election is rubbish. Some may have voted for the coalition based solely on this issue but most would not have. I couldn’t count the number of policies nor could most that have been abandoned since the last election, why scrap other policies but not the plebiscite? Changing the marriage act is not a constitutional issue therefore no plebiscite and / or referendum is required, nor should it be. It is the role of our elected representatives, to stand up and stop pandering to a few in parliament. To those on the right, do your worst or shut up and get on with doing the job you were elected to do.
The liberal Party went to the last election for this to be decided via a plebiscite . I don’t understand all the fuss now, yes you could spend the money on other things but that can be said about a lot of things government. Just get it done and get on with it. Im sure the people of Australia will make the correct decission and vote Yes
The alphabet people are terrified of a plebiscite/postal vote. The Australian public are not fools.
I agree with Mark C that the majority have no right to vote on the human rights of a minority.
Who are we to have any say in the way consenting adults choose to live.
Further, why is Government involved in the marriage business anyway?
However, as long as we except that Big Government is going to be involved in the marriage / consenting adult relationship business then the people get a say. This is why the plebiscite or an election is essential.
There are two groups that annoys me more than the anti SSM bigots and that are those who hate democracy and the racists that are against polygamous marriage because they tend to be predominantly Muslim relationships.
Polyamorous/Polygamist marriage call it what you want, weather it pushed by Mormons, Muslims or the B in LGBTI, it’s the next step after SSM. How can we deny it anymore than we can deny SSM? Exactly the some arguments for it apply, if all parties are adult and consenting who are we to judge? Why should one party to the relationship be treated differently to all others without the protections in law that marriage gives in inheritance and divorce.
I’m in the vast majority who don’t really care because it doesn’t affect us but if polygamy is the result of SSM so be it I’d still vote yes. I just think the people and parties pushing SSM need to own up to issues like polyamorous and how such a change will cause marriage to evolve going forward. If you believe you must shut down the debate and deny legitimate questions exist its a sign you have a week argument.
Steve shame on you for saying that same sex marriage is a pathway to Polyamorous/Polygamist relationships. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. It is unfortunate that this line has been put by ignorant and bigoted public figures in media comments about same sex marriage. They say it because stye know it will worry some and get them to vote no on SSM. Again, the issues you highlight have nothing to do with SSM, there is NO evidence.
Now, there is evidence that the Catholic Church has engaged in a coverup of child sexual abuse that has led to many deaths, including 51 suicides in Ballarat, Victoria. yet the Catholic Church continues in business, tax exempt business, while two people of the same sex who love each other are treated appallingly. Go figure.
We have now got a Brexit Circus just the Pommy EU Referendum. I doubt any good will come of this. It would be simpler if the politicians did there elected job.
Mark nice use of the shame word but it doesn’t constitute a thoughtful response, rather it’s an example of my point that rather than engage and prove yourself right you seek to shutdown the debate.
I’m fucked if I know what the appalling cases of child abuse in the Catholic Church has to do with SSM or polygamy but I look forward to you explaining it for me.
There is a large underground movement to follow SSM with polyamorous marriage and its already gaining ground in countries which have SSM. I’m not in favour or against polyamorous marriage and I do support SSM.
My point was the only argument against Polyamorous marriage is morality which is the only argument against SSM, if you except morality is dead and personal ethics are all that matter then isn’t Polygamy as legitimate as SSM?
If you wish to engage in the debate and give the reasons you think polyamorous marriage doesn’t deserve the same consideration SSM does that would be great, otherwise you can continue to hide from the truth, call shame on people who question you and throw emotive and unconnected comments about child abuse and the catholic church around to deflect from the truth.
I’ll repeat: If you believe you must shut down debate and deny legitimate questions exist it’s a sign you have a week argument.
“Shame on me” that’s pathetic.
Steve please stop claiming things that are untrue. There has been no attempt to shutdown any debate. There is no evidence of your claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy. I mentioned the Catholic church to illustrate how issues become intertwined … oh, and also because there is a large body of evidence about their crimes.
The issue of same sex marriage is just that. Unfortunately some with other agendas have sought to make it about much more. It is not. It is disappointing facts are not presented in relation to the polygamy and other baseless claims of what SSM leads to. Again, there is no evidence to back these claims.
The weak argument in this thread is your claim I have or want to shutdown discussion here. Again, no evidence backing you whatsoever.
Mark it’s fine for you to say SSM wont lead to Polyamorous marriage but I want to no the reason why you believe that because when I think it threw it seems inevitable.
Just saying it wont happen means nothing, on what bases would you deny people the right polyamorous marriage?
Steve I don’t think same sex marriage will lead to obesity, because there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence it will lead to polygamy.
The evidence that we do have, from the US, is a decline in suicides by gay people, following the legalisation of same sex marriage there. See this report in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2017/02/20/fewer-teens-die-by-suicide-when-same-sex-marriage-is-legal/&refURL=https://www.google.com.au/&referrer=https://www.google.com.au/
“Obesity” really? the link between SSM and polyamorous marriage is if you change the definition of marriage to allow SSM then why wouldn’t you change the definition to allow polyamorous marriage? Once again I’ll ask on what grounds would you deny consenting adults the opportunity you wont for yourself?
I dont deny young LGBTI people have a rough time and that it has some devastating effect, nor do I oppose SSM, get it over and done with. But dont pretend there aren’t legitimate questions.
Your right there is no link between obesity and SSM but I cant see were I’ve mentioned such a link. Your reasons for denying polyamorous marriage legitimacy is what I’d like to here. Because I don’t think you’ve got an argument beyond “the catholic church are bad”.
Steve there is no evidence that same sex marriage leads of polygamy or calls for polygamy to be legalised, none whatsoever. That is is an issue is because some opposed to SSM needed to find an argument they could use, even without evidence.
Being gay is biological. Wanting multiple spouses is not biological as far as I can see.
The SSM debate is about SSM, end of. You are wrong to advocate it is about polygamy too.
SSM doesn’t lead to calls for Polyamorous Marriage? Type Polyamorous Marriage into google and hit enter. It’s out there and it’s actually being lead by the Bisexual community, which lets face it isn’t monogamist by definition.
This isn’t about SSM or Polygamy, it’s about your hypocrisy in denying to other what you want for yourself, the very accusation made by the LGBTI community against heterosexuals.
Polygamy has a long history unlike SSM and beyond morality I can’t see what the argument is against it. Thats why I want you to clearly state what your grounds for denying it is.
This isn’t about SSM or Polyamorous marriage it’s about Hypocrisy and Bullshit.
Steve, when 70% of Australians are in favour of polygamy being legalised, we’ll vote it in. One (voting in SSM) does not lead to the other…
Look I’m over this now, I put the Polygamy thing out there because I knew I’d get a reaction and I also because I’m libertarian in my views. I can see no reason to deny someone the right to marry who they want as long as their an adult and consenting. Which means I struggle to see why Polyamorous Marriage should be discriminated against and in the long run it wont be, big deal,
I just thought Mark would do a bit better than, it wont happen, kids will get hurt, the catholic church is bad. You know actually explain why he opposes it because consenting adults aren’t kids and the catholic church I’m pretty sure opposes Polygamy.
Brendan, the percentage of the population does not matter one iota. As stated earlier “the majority have no right to vote on the human rights of a minority.”
If people are able to consent then the Government should have no role in there relationship.
I know it sounds icky to a bunch of conservative newsagents, but if two brothers over the age of 18 want to marry…. then who are we to stop them.
Steve a Google search result is not evidence. There is no evidence of same sex marriage being made legal anywhere in the world leading to a push to legalise polygamy. It is this lack of evidence of any connection whatsoever that makes the two issues separate. It is unfortunate that some in the anti-ssm movements use the argument of polygamy and other topics to add weight to their arguments. Again, they have no evidence.
No evidence? heres a couple of mainstream news articles that put pay to that lye:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/10/heres-why-people-are-arguing-over-whether-polygamy-is-the-next-gay-marriage-debate/?utm_term=.b737dc53ff49
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469
Do you remember in 2015 when the Australian Greens decided to limit marriage to 2 people and tied itself in nots defending it in its own party? Well the UK Greens aren’t that hypocritical:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/natalie-bennett-says-green-party-is-open-to-discussing-three-way-marriages-and-polygamy-10220268.html
thanks Big Oil, so it’s OK for me to marry my wife, also my brother and my mower? Doesn’t affect anyone else right?
It is about consent. If your brother and wife agree to enter into a marriage then there is no problem.
It’s an agreement. Like business.
(your mower cant consent)
You won’t win Steve. Fletchers got skin in the game.
Steve the links you provided are to articles on opinion. They do not include evidence of your fear happening in any country where same sex marriage was legalised. There is no evidence.
Mark its not a fear, I think I’ve made that quite clear if you read what I wrote.
Steve, well, then, I don’t know what gets you being worried something may happen as a result of same sex marriage being made law in Australia when there is no evidence an where in the world of that something actually happening where SSM has been passed. That’s why I think it is fear.
I see no point in having this discussion on this forum
We will make our desission in private when required
Mark it’s not a fear or a worry just a statement of inevitability. If someone had stated that SSM was inevitable 20 years ago the arguments you use against polygamy, that it hasn’t happened anywhere in the world and all argument in favour of it are just opinion, would be the same. They however would have been proven wrong.
What it means to be marriage has changed over time, when my parents married it was much more something enforced be the morality of the time. By the time I got married attitudes had changed it was more our personal choice, society didn’t bat a eyelid at our cohabitating before marriage and couples choose to never marry, something frowned upon in the past and now totally acceptable.
SSM will change what it means to be married, all most certainly for the better, by making it more inclusive. However the idea that once SSM is allowed that’s it marriage is set and stone and what it means to be married wont be subject to change in the future, either legally or culturally, I think is ridiculous.
My grand pa has 2 wives . Rich people has many wives in some countries
Eric 2 wives and many in other countries How the hell do they keep them all happy haha I hope mine is not reading this
No inevitability Steve as it has never happened. There is no evidence to support it being inevitable.
Any argument that Same Sex Marriage should be denied because of possible future change requests to what marriage is is nonsense.
I’m not making an argument against SSM. You refuse to read and understand what I’ve said.
Steve you said this: I just think the people and parties pushing SSM need to own up to issues like polyamorous and how such a change will cause marriage to evolve going forward. Later, you said this: There is a large underground movement to follow SSM with polyamorous marriage and its already gaining ground in countries which have SSM.
Now, these and related statements by you could reasonable be read as agitation re the government’s forthcoming survey. If there are not, then what is the relevance in the comments.
I have read what you have said and I have repeatedly said – there is no evidence backing up your claim that a push to legalise polygamy follows from legalising Same Sex Marriage.
If the SSM vote doesn’t lead to polygamous marriage…. then we really are bigots.
Fifty four countries throughout the world recognise polygamous marriage. Why would we deny immigrants from 25% of the world to have their relationship recognised if they are in such an arrangement?
All I am hearing at the moment is rich white saying we want equality… but not for Muslims.
Read it again in context. This isn’t about SSM or Polygamy. It’s about refusing to explain why you would deny consenting adults the right to choose whatever union they desire if it doesn’t effect anyone else. Just saying it wont happen and calling shame on people doesn’t cut it.
That’s it over and out, I’ve got better things to do.
Steve you connected the two topics in your comments, where there is no evidence anywhere of the two topics being related whatsoever. So, I will be drawn into that as it think it is a distracting argument, without foundation.
The discussion in Australia right now is bout Sae Sex Marriage because that is the topic of the survey being put by the government and the subject of agitation by some parliamentarians. Drawing other topics into this discussion is not relevant in my opinion.
OK one last comment, just because your being so wilfully ignorant. I’ll make it simple. I have connected SSM with Polygamy because, now pay attention, they are both at the heart of “why would you deny consenting adults the right to choose whatever union they desire if it doesn’t affect anyone else”.
If you have to have the last comment (which I know you have to) at least try and answer that.
I have no problem with how other people choose to lead their lives you however, to use a cliché, are being half pregnant, for the very understandable reason that your scared of freaking the natives.
Doesn’t make you right though.
I am not scared of freaking anyone Steve. To follow your login we could put a bunch of what-ifs in on this topic. The thing is, the government has decided to survey Australian voters on one question. Introducing other options when discussing that one question is unhelpful. Some could say doing that is a dog whistle approach.
As to your comment re having the last argument – it is a nice game to play – this is my last comment and I know you’ll have the last comment. Conversations take as long as they need to in civil society. It is also interesting since you claimed I had shut down debate here when I had done no such thing.
Big Oil this is not about equality based on religion. Practicing Islam is a choice. Entering into more than one marriage is a choice. The majority of countries where polygamy is legal are Muslim majority countries and polygamy is legal based largely but not entirely on religious belief.
Being gay is not a choice. It is biological. This is about individuals legally having the right to be treated as equals. It has nothing to do with being white. It has nothing to doing with being rich. It has nothing to do with being treated as equal based on religious belief.
If SSM is legalised this year as it should be, polygamy will still be illegal. The law should not be different based on gender. The law should not be different whether the marriage is between heterosexuals or a same sex couple.
Mark C
You are totally correct.
The rest is garbage from bigots or the ignorant.
Mark C being gay may be involuntary but marriage is not. You are not forced to get married in Australia.
Love is love. If you love more than one consenting adult why can’t you be married to them?
For all those bigots who find it hard to believe that you can love more than one person or love them equally…. tell me which child you love more than other.
Yes this conversation has gone on for ever and a day and will continue to until the government simply legalises SSM union and we MOVE ON! To spend taxpayers money on this plebiscite is shameful IMHO. To date I have heard no convincing statement of fact or evidence why this should simply not be passed!
Maybe we are having the wrong conversation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization
Why are Government even involved?
Your newsagency sells Legal Will Kit’s why not marriage contracts?