What is your vote

Anything!

What is your vote

Yes
34
60%
No
15
26%
Not Voting
8
14%
 
Total votes : 57

Re: What is your vote

Postby Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:56 pm

therisingblues wrote:
tipper wrote:never said they had to vote yes Boonster. just that they shouldnt vote no

While I can respect the way that you can calmly discuss it Tipper, there are others that will go to some lengths to shut down any noise of opposition.

Take Margaret Court for example. While I don't agree with her, all she did was express her opinion, without the vitriol. I don't think it helps society to gang up on people with a different point of view. You end up forcing those views underground. One of these days the politically correct crowd are going to be extremely wrong about something very important, and people who speak out will be few and far between for fear of getting blasted on Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. Or have their achievements dragged through the gutter. Society needs to grow up and realise that the line has been drawn too far from center.


Without vitriol? She's constantly telling the world that gay people are less than her perception of what humanity is.

And when she says stuff like this, she deserves to be questioned:

Mrs Court, a Christian minister based in Osborne Park, said the consequences of a Yes vote would be severe.
“It’s not about marriage. It will affect Christian schools, it will affect freedom of speech,” she said.
“There will be no Mother’s Day, there will be no Father’s Day, there will be no Easter, there will be no Christmas.”
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: What is your vote

Postby Booney » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:07 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:
therisingblues wrote:
tipper wrote:never said they had to vote yes Boonster. just that they shouldnt vote no

While I can respect the way that you can calmly discuss it Tipper, there are others that will go to some lengths to shut down any noise of opposition.

Take Margaret Court for example. While I don't agree with her, all she did was express her opinion, without the vitriol. I don't think it helps society to gang up on people with a different point of view. You end up forcing those views underground. One of these days the politically correct crowd are going to be extremely wrong about something very important, and people who speak out will be few and far between for fear of getting blasted on Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. Or have their achievements dragged through the gutter. Society needs to grow up and realise that the line has been drawn too far from center.


Without vitriol? She's constantly telling the world that gay people are less than her perception of what humanity is.

And when she says stuff like this, she deserves to be questioned:

Mrs Court, a Christian minister based in Osborne Park, said the consequences of a Yes vote would be severe.
“It’s not about marriage. It will affect Christian schools, it will affect freedom of speech,” she said.
“There will be no Mother’s Day, there will be no Father’s Day, there will be no Easter, there will be no Christmas.”


"Just got back from posting the family's "Yes" votes in town. As I got to the farm gate, the dogs, as usual ran to greet the vehicle. Neither of them asked to marry me. I put the kettle on for a cuppa. Just reporting from the front lines" - Will Douglas, Burra Creek.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby Kahuna » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:22 pm

FWIW, below is a copy and paste from a Facebook post I saw this morning----

I have gay family members, and have had gay friends all my life; people who are dear to me, whose feelings I value, and whose opinions I respect. I have been to gay bars, events and festivals with gay friends, been propositioned by men more times than I can remember, and am happy to greet my gay friends with a kiss on the cheek. In the same way as my other friends, they deserve my love, loyalty and support.

Nonetheless I will be voting No.

These are some of the issues:

1.We are told that if Australia does not legislate to redefine marriage we will be falling behind other civilised countries.

2. We are told redefining marriage is a matter of justice and equality.

3. We are told that nothing else will change. The only thing that will be different is that gay couples will now be allowed to marry. It won’t affect anyone else, so no one else has any right to have a say.

4. We are told there is no “slippery slope,” that no further changes to the definition of marriage will be made after this.

5. We are told there is no connection between same sex marriage and the teaching of gender fluidity.

Let’s consider these claims.

1. The fact that some other society is doing something is not in itself a reason for us to do it. Even if it were, so far approximately ten percent of the world’s nations, representing less than ten percent of the world’s population, have legislated to change the meaning of marriage. This is a long way from an overwhelming or compelling majority.

2. To claim that redefining marriage is a matter of justice is to prejudge, to take for granted, what is being discussed. To say something is just is to say it is right. That is exactly what is at issue.

Things can be equal in different ways. People are equal in dignity and value, regardless of gender, race, intelligence or physical ability. But that is not to say they are same in every way. Men and women are different. People have different levels of intelligence, different abilities, different interests. It is entirely reasonable and fair to distinguish people on the basis of these factors. If you are short and slow, you probably won’t get picked to play basketball. If you have never sat down at a piano in your life you probably won’t be invited to perform a piano concert at the Sydney Opera House.

Marriage has varied from society to society, for example in the permissible difference in ages, the degree to which the partners may be related, or sometimes, the number of people involved. What has never changed is that it is a permanent bond between male and female. Even in societies with a high degree of tolerance for homosexual acts, it has never been suggested until twenty years ago that a relationship between two men or two women was identical to a life-long commitment between a man and a woman with openness to new life, or that it had the same meaning to society.

Recognising this difference, that these two things are not the same and therefore not equal, is not unfairly discriminatory any more than saying a dog cannot be a cat, no matter how much it wants to be, or that a square cannot be a triangle.

This not to suggest that same-sex relationships cannot be as loving, as stable, as worthy of respect as a marriage, but simply simply to note that they are different things. This is similar to the argument employed by some of the many same sex attracted opponents of the re-definition of marriage. “We know our relationships are different,” they say, “so why do we need to appropriate hetero-sexual institutions to feel validated?” Not better or worse, just different. It is ignoring reality to insist they be called by the same name.

3. Since the early 2000s a number of countries have redefined marriage to include same sex partnerships. Of these, only Ireland has made the change as the result of a vote by the people. In all others it was changed by judicial fiat, as in the United States, or by government without direct reference to the people, as in New Zealand and the UK. Fifteen years is not a long time over which to study impacts on society, but some things have become clear.

The first is that redefining marriage does not change what same sex attracted people can do. In Australia, same sex partnerships have exactly the same protections under law as marriages. The have the same rights in relation to superannuation, succession, taxation and government benefits. Same sex attracted people can find a celebrant, get dressed in white, invite their friends, go through a ceremony, and say they are married. They can claim their relationship is exactly the same as a relationship between a married couple, and means the same thing to wider society. The legalisation of “same sex marriage” does not change that at all. What does change is that everyone else is now obliged to agree.

The promised protections for conscience and free speech in Ireland have been undone two years later. The US has seen a seemingly never-ending targeting of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim bakeries, florists, venue operators, printers, photographers, etc, etc, etc, or anyone who still believes about marriage what everyone believed until twenty years ago. No one is permitted to disagree. Last year there were demands that Fixer Upper, a popular house renovation TV show, be taken off the air because activists had discovered that the couple who made the show went to a church whose pastor had expressed the view that marriage was between a man and woman. In 2014 the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his position after it was discovered that he had made a donation in support of the traditional view of marriage. In Denmark Lutheran pastors are now forced by law to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.
Redefining marriage changes nothing that same sex people can do, or the protections they have under law. It simply forces everyone else to comply.

4. Once the essence of the meaning of marriage – a lifetime commitment between male and female – is removed, It is difficult to see how further changes can be avoided without cries of unfairness and discrimination. This story sent to me by a friend sums up the situation:

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?" said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, of course, that's the law. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"'Incest?' No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"We love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, have it your own way. Here's your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The law guarantees us equal protection.”
"All right, have it your own way. Here's your license. Next."

5. If men and women are different, then a relationship between two men or two women is different from a relationship between a man and a woman. Claiming equality between same sex relationships and marriage can only be maintained if men and women are interchangeable. This depends on the claim that gender is fluid, can be changed, and is largely a matter of choice. A man can become a woman, or a woman a man, because there are no essential differences between the two.

Once marriage is redefined to include same sex relationships, general acceptance of gender fluidity becomes a necessity. This needs to be taught. And taught it will be. In the UK, couples who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are no longer considered suitable to act as foster parents. But in an astonishingly hypocritical policy, children can be taken from ordinary English families which are in trouble, and sent to be fostered with Muslim families, despite the fact that under Sharia law homosexual acts are punishable by death. In Canada children can be removed from families which do not support their children’s gender choices, or facilitate gender transitions if desired. California is currently considering legislation which makes it a jailable offence to call someone by other than their preferred pronouns.

To summarise:

I love my gay friends and family members. I would oppose any legislation which gave them less protection under law, or limited their choices.

Demands to redefine marriage are not about tolerance for homosexual acts, or for same sex attracted people. Their relationships already have equal status in every way relating to succession law, benefits and taxation, etc.

If same sex attracted people want to say their relationships are exactly the same as a life-time commitment between a man and woman, and mean the same thing to society, most people would not be bothered about this.

If they want to go through a ceremony and say they are married, most people would wish them well.

But if they want to get the government to force everyone to agree with them, that moves over the line from the rightful and realistic expectation of tolerance, to Stalinist enforcement of compliance.

The campaign to redefine marriage is not about letting same sex attracted people do what they want. They already can. It is about demanding the government create a society in which no one is permitted to disagree. That is not tolerance and freedom. It is the exact opposite.
Kahuna
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:15 pm
Has liked: 499 times
Been liked: 187 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby Booney » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:35 pm

If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby The Bedge » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:35 pm

Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

Took me a while, but pretty interesting read.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: BarbeeCueAria
Has liked: 3188 times
Been liked: 3989 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby carey » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:46 pm

Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?



Genuine lol

:lol:
you've gota keep on keep'n on .........
User avatar
carey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: From a place i shouldn't be.
Has liked: 2796 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: Paralowie

Re: What is your vote

Postby tipper » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:56 pm

The Bedge wrote:
Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

Took me a while, but pretty interesting read.


too bad its using the same, tired, fears and halftruths that the no side has been using for quite a while now. just a long winded way of saying the same things.

slippery slope argument - apparently two brothers will want to marry each other (despite that being illegal) and something about multiple spouses (despite that also still being illegal...) also something about two bloke who arent gay, wanting to get married and that somehow that is a bad thing (why??)
equality somehow means continuing to discriminate
furphy about ss couples having the same legal standing already (they dont)
something about gender fluidity, which, as far as im aware, has nothing to do with marriage at all
and somehow ssm is being forced on everyone (its not, no one will be forced to marry someone of their own sex...)
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: What is your vote

Postby cracka » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:57 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
cracka
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3645
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:41 am
Has liked: 458 times
Been liked: 560 times
Grassroots Team: Onkaparinga Valley

Re: What is your vote

Postby Wedgie » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:58 pm

Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

I gave up after the part comparing straight and gay to dogs and cats.
Surprised I got that far as apparantley short people can't play basketball (no-one told Allan Iverson that!) and you can't play in a sympthony if you've never sat down at a piano.
I assumed the rest would be just as riveting, non judgemental and accurate.
People are scary dumb.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 50781
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2020 times
Been liked: 3862 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: What is your vote

Postby tipper » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:00 pm

Wedgie wrote:
Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

I gave up after the part comparing straight and gay to dogs and cats.
Surprised I got that far as apparantley short people can't play basketball (no-one told Allan Iverson that!) and you can't play in a sympthony if you've never sat down at a piano.
I assumed the rest would be just as riveting, non judgemental and accurate.
People are scary dumb.


dont forget Muggsy Bogues!!
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: What is your vote

Postby Lightning McQueen » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:01 pm

Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

That I wanna meet Jane and June.
HOGG SHIELD DIVISION V WINNER 2018.
User avatar
Lightning McQueen
Coach
 
Posts: 51284
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Radiator Springs
Has liked: 4339 times
Been liked: 7902 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:04 pm

Wedgie wrote:
Booney wrote:If someone reads that, let me know the crux of it, please?

I gave up after the part comparing straight and gay to dogs and cats.
Surprised I got that far as apparantley short people can't play basketball (no-one told Allan Iverson that!) and you can't play in a sympthony if you've never sat down at a piano.
I assumed the rest would be just as riveting, non judgemental and accurate.
People are scary dumb.


49% are dumb and believe everything they hear / 49% of people don't care

Koutsantonis still gets away saying there's a budget surplus (in fact, someone close to him says he has actually convinced himself of it now)
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: What is your vote

Postby Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:14 pm

cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Not saying it's right.
But whatever 'bullying' is going on now is not real bullying. It's not even close.
And why is the 'bullying' of others reason to vote no if you really believe in something? The Bullying excuse is just a reason to hide behind and vindicate the decision to vote no.
Last edited by Dogwatcher on Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: What is your vote

Postby woodublieve12 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:18 pm

Kahuna wrote:FWIW, below is a copy and paste from a Facebook post I saw this morning----

I have gay family members, and have had gay friends all my life; people who are dear to me, whose feelings I value, and whose opinions I respect. I have been to gay bars, events and festivals with gay friends, been propositioned by men more times than I can remember, and am happy to greet my gay friends with a kiss on the cheek. In the same way as my other friends, they deserve my love, loyalty and support.

Nonetheless I will be voting No.

These are some of the issues:

1.We are told that if Australia does not legislate to redefine marriage we will be falling behind other civilised countries.

2. We are told redefining marriage is a matter of justice and equality.

3. We are told that nothing else will change. The only thing that will be different is that gay couples will now be allowed to marry. It won’t affect anyone else, so no one else has any right to have a say.

4. We are told there is no “slippery slope,” that no further changes to the definition of marriage will be made after this.

5. We are told there is no connection between same sex marriage and the teaching of gender fluidity.

Let’s consider these claims.

1. The fact that some other society is doing something is not in itself a reason for us to do it. Even if it were, so far approximately ten percent of the world’s nations, representing less than ten percent of the world’s population, have legislated to change the meaning of marriage. This is a long way from an overwhelming or compelling majority.

2. To claim that redefining marriage is a matter of justice is to prejudge, to take for granted, what is being discussed. To say something is just is to say it is right. That is exactly what is at issue.

Things can be equal in different ways. People are equal in dignity and value, regardless of gender, race, intelligence or physical ability. But that is not to say they are same in every way. Men and women are different. People have different levels of intelligence, different abilities, different interests. It is entirely reasonable and fair to distinguish people on the basis of these factors. If you are short and slow, you probably won’t get picked to play basketball. If you have never sat down at a piano in your life you probably won’t be invited to perform a piano concert at the Sydney Opera House.

Marriage has varied from society to society, for example in the permissible difference in ages, the degree to which the partners may be related, or sometimes, the number of people involved. What has never changed is that it is a permanent bond between male and female. Even in societies with a high degree of tolerance for homosexual acts, it has never been suggested until twenty years ago that a relationship between two men or two women was identical to a life-long commitment between a man and a woman with openness to new life, or that it had the same meaning to society.

Recognising this difference, that these two things are not the same and therefore not equal, is not unfairly discriminatory any more than saying a dog cannot be a cat, no matter how much it wants to be, or that a square cannot be a triangle.

This not to suggest that same-sex relationships cannot be as loving, as stable, as worthy of respect as a marriage, but simply simply to note that they are different things. This is similar to the argument employed by some of the many same sex attracted opponents of the re-definition of marriage. “We know our relationships are different,” they say, “so why do we need to appropriate hetero-sexual institutions to feel validated?” Not better or worse, just different. It is ignoring reality to insist they be called by the same name.

3. Since the early 2000s a number of countries have redefined marriage to include same sex partnerships. Of these, only Ireland has made the change as the result of a vote by the people. In all others it was changed by judicial fiat, as in the United States, or by government without direct reference to the people, as in New Zealand and the UK. Fifteen years is not a long time over which to study impacts on society, but some things have become clear.

The first is that redefining marriage does not change what same sex attracted people can do. In Australia, same sex partnerships have exactly the same protections under law as marriages. The have the same rights in relation to superannuation, succession, taxation and government benefits. Same sex attracted people can find a celebrant, get dressed in white, invite their friends, go through a ceremony, and say they are married. They can claim their relationship is exactly the same as a relationship between a married couple, and means the same thing to wider society. The legalisation of “same sex marriage” does not change that at all. What does change is that everyone else is now obliged to agree.

The promised protections for conscience and free speech in Ireland have been undone two years later. The US has seen a seemingly never-ending targeting of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim bakeries, florists, venue operators, printers, photographers, etc, etc, etc, or anyone who still believes about marriage what everyone believed until twenty years ago. No one is permitted to disagree. Last year there were demands that Fixer Upper, a popular house renovation TV show, be taken off the air because activists had discovered that the couple who made the show went to a church whose pastor had expressed the view that marriage was between a man and woman. In 2014 the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his position after it was discovered that he had made a donation in support of the traditional view of marriage. In Denmark Lutheran pastors are now forced by law to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.
Redefining marriage changes nothing that same sex people can do, or the protections they have under law. It simply forces everyone else to comply.

4. Once the essence of the meaning of marriage – a lifetime commitment between male and female – is removed, It is difficult to see how further changes can be avoided without cries of unfairness and discrimination. This story sent to me by a friend sums up the situation:

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?" said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, of course, that's the law. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"'Incest?' No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"We love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, have it your own way. Here's your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The law guarantees us equal protection.”
"All right, have it your own way. Here's your license. Next."

5. If men and women are different, then a relationship between two men or two women is different from a relationship between a man and a woman. Claiming equality between same sex relationships and marriage can only be maintained if men and women are interchangeable. This depends on the claim that gender is fluid, can be changed, and is largely a matter of choice. A man can become a woman, or a woman a man, because there are no essential differences between the two.

Once marriage is redefined to include same sex relationships, general acceptance of gender fluidity becomes a necessity. This needs to be taught. And taught it will be. In the UK, couples who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are no longer considered suitable to act as foster parents. But in an astonishingly hypocritical policy, children can be taken from ordinary English families which are in trouble, and sent to be fostered with Muslim families, despite the fact that under Sharia law homosexual acts are punishable by death. In Canada children can be removed from families which do not support their children’s gender choices, or facilitate gender transitions if desired. California is currently considering legislation which makes it a jailable offence to call someone by other than their preferred pronouns.

To summarise:

I love my gay friends and family members. I would oppose any legislation which gave them less protection under law, or limited their choices.

Demands to redefine marriage are not about tolerance for homosexual acts, or for same sex attracted people. Their relationships already have equal status in every way relating to succession law, benefits and taxation, etc.

If same sex attracted people want to say their relationships are exactly the same as a life-time commitment between a man and woman, and mean the same thing to society, most people would not be bothered about this.

If they want to go through a ceremony and say they are married, most people would wish them well.

But if they want to get the government to force everyone to agree with them, that moves over the line from the rightful and realistic expectation of tolerance, to Stalinist enforcement of compliance.

The campaign to redefine marriage is not about letting same sex attracted people do what they want. They already can. It is about demanding the government create a society in which no one is permitted to disagree. That is not tolerance and freedom. It is the exact opposite.

Clearly they don't.
"Fellas, it’s OK to be in pain. It’s OK to hurt. It’s OK to be sad. It’s no longer OK to suffer in silence."
User avatar
woodublieve12
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17205
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:48 pm
Has liked: 3016 times
Been liked: 2384 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby cracka » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:
cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Not saying it's right.
But whatever 'bullying' is going on now is not real bullying. It's not even close.

Threats of death or having businesses burnt down is not real bullying. :roll:
cracka
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3645
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:41 am
Has liked: 458 times
Been liked: 560 times
Grassroots Team: Onkaparinga Valley

Re: What is your vote

Postby Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:25 pm

cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:
cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Not saying it's right.
But whatever 'bullying' is going on now is not real bullying. It's not even close.

Threats of death or having businesses burnt down is not real bullying. :roll:


That's fair comment.
But that's not the bullying people are talking about when they say they're being bullied - they're talking about having their opinion, or those who think like them having their opinion questioned.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: What is your vote

Postby tipper » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:26 pm

cracka wrote:Threats of death or having businesses burnt down is not real bullying. :roll:


serious question, as i must have missed it, but who has had a business burned down?

edit, google must be failing me as i cant find any info on something like that happening

further edit: found 1 story, but it was just threats of burning down the business, and killing the owners dog.
http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/493 ... -marriage/
oh, and the business owner was supporting the Yes side, so i guess that doesnt go along with the narrative of the yes side being the bullies?
Last edited by tipper on Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
tipper
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:45 am
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 531 times
Grassroots Team: Peake

Re: What is your vote

Postby woodublieve12 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:27 pm

cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:
cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Not saying it's right.
But whatever 'bullying' is going on now is not real bullying. It's not even close.

Threats of death or having businesses burnt down is not real bullying. :roll:

A Grown man sending death threats to a 14 year old girl because she supported a yes vote... Considering she can't even vote, makes the bloke even more stupid.
"Fellas, it’s OK to be in pain. It’s OK to hurt. It’s OK to be sad. It’s no longer OK to suffer in silence."
User avatar
woodublieve12
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17205
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:48 pm
Has liked: 3016 times
Been liked: 2384 times

Re: What is your vote

Postby carey » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:30 pm

I simply don't understand how someone could get to that level of rage over this vote. :shock:
you've gota keep on keep'n on .........
User avatar
carey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: From a place i shouldn't be.
Has liked: 2796 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: Paralowie

Re: What is your vote

Postby cracka » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:33 pm

cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:
cracka wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:'Victimisation' of no voters over a short period, as opposed to the gay community having been victimised throughout human history.
I'm not sure why 'victimisation' of no voters is seen as a reason to vote no.

So because they've been victimised for so long it's okay to victimise the no voters. Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of with the yes vote, victimisation of minority groups.
The old saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.


Not saying it's right.
But whatever 'bullying' is going on now is not real bullying. It's not even close.

Threats of death or having businesses burnt down is not real bullying. :roll:

woodublieve12 wrote:A Grown man sending death threats to a 14 year old girl because she supported a yes vote... Considering she can't even vote, makes the bloke even more stupid.

Hadn't heard of that one
cracka
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3645
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:41 am
Has liked: 458 times
Been liked: 560 times
Grassroots Team: Onkaparinga Valley

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |