Now it's going to be a postal vote that won't count.

[bennymacca]

If the religious sect didn't lay claim to ownership of the word "marriage" maybe the process could be streamlined.

Maybe, but if both sides are gonna be pig-headed over one word, prepare for this to drag on for ages.

I predict the vote will be in favour of SSM, but the Government will only recognise it if they change the word "marriage". Which they won't, so back to square one.

When you're trying to get someone in power to change something for you, sometimes you need to be a bit flexible to get the outcome you are aiming for.

Marriage hasn't been a religious thing since 1961.

The religious community needs to realise that the word has a wider meaning these days.

The traditional religious wording is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for life

Well since divorce and adultery adultery are now legal the religious and legal definitions couldn't be more different.

You can already get married in a civil ceremony too.

[HH3]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

[Jimmy_041]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

You think beyond you're designated demographic HH3

Welcome to baby boomer world. Here's your eastern suburbs sandstone villa, Merc and 8 investment properties .............

[heater31]

What baffles me is these politicians change their tune on ALL topics to sway with the public vote to stay elected, but not on this issue. That must mean they think the popular vote will be a no, otherwise they can make it happen and save $122 million.

Plenty of politicians have flip flopped on this issue.

Going to be real interesting if a no vote gets up.

How will the politicians react? How will the left wing vocalist's take it? My guess not too well, but the people have spoken and will the wishes of the people be respected by their MP? Australia is notorious for not giving a **** about voting in regular elections so how are we going to fare in a voluntary poll??

[Booney]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

Surely you negotiate on things that you are hopeful of getting and not on things you believe you are ( rightly, IMO ) entitled too?

[HH3]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

Surely you negotiate on things that you are hopeful of getting and not on things you believe you are ( rightly, IMO ) entitled too?

Yeah negotiate. Not demand. If you demand something and they don't budge, you get f**k all. Congratulations on f**king yourself over.

[HH3]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

You think beyond you're designated demographic HH3

Welcome to baby boomer world. Here's your eastern suburbs sandstone villa, Merc and 8 investment properties .............

Can I have a place on the North Haven marina instead please?

And when and where is our Stonecuttters HQ where we hold our Oppression meetings?

[Magellan]

What baffles me is these politicians change their tune on ALL topics to sway with the public vote to stay elected, but not on this issue. That must mean they think the popular vote will be a no, otherwise they can make it happen and save $122 million.

Plenty of politicians have flip flopped on this issue.

Going to be real interesting if a no vote gets up.

How will the left wing vocalist's take it?

Billy Bragg? Probably blame it on Thatcher.

[Dogwatcher]

What baffles me is these politicians change their tune on ALL topics to sway with the public vote to stay elected, but not on this issue. That must mean they think the popular vote will be a no, otherwise they can make it happen and save $122 million.

Plenty of politicians have flip flopped on this issue.

Going to be real interesting if a no vote gets up.

How will the left wing vocalist's take it?

Billy Bragg? Probably blame it on Thatcher.

You certainly won't read about it in The Sun.

[Wedgie]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

A person can nominate the beneficiary.
I have even nominated my wife!

True but if you don't have a will it defaults to your spouse. If you are defacto it would default to next of kin right?

No, a defecto relationship is no different legally to a marriage.
Marriages aren't worth the paper they're written on legally.

[bennymacca]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they are blatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

[Jase]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they are blatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

Is that the same word that the SSM crew are hung up on as well...?

As I have stated, I am all for SSM... No issues with it here...

Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk

[Ronnie]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they are blatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

Unless you live an incredibly sheltered life Benny you would know, like all of us, people who hold differing views on this, close friends and family included. I hope your able to tell some of them they're blatantly wrong and you hold all wisdom. Just try and appreciate and respect that there are some issues that see people split down the middle. From there you actually get into a sensible debate.

[bennymacca]

why arent christians in general (not you jase) hung up on the fact that civil unions (or even going down to the registry office) is still called "marriage"

the ship "marriage" being an exclusively religious word sailed long ago

i think it also confuses the issue

Unless you live an incredibly sheltered life Benny you would know, like all of us, people who hold differing views on this, close friends and family included. I hope your able to tell some of them they're blatantly wrong and you hold all wisdom. Just try and appreciate and respect that there are some issues that see people split down the middle. From there you actually get into a sensible debate.

you're missing my point ronnie.

the main argument against seems to me about the word marriage still holds religious connotations for a lot of people.

i am arguing that the word lost that meaning a long time ago (with divorce, civil ceremonies, adultery not being illegal etc etc)

[Dogwatcher]

I think, Ronnie, he's saying that you're blatantly wrong

[Ronnie]

I think, Ronnie, he's saying that you're blatantly wrong

Benny might be right too! . Just calling for a bit of respek that all

[HH3]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they are blatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

Exactly my point. The whole argument seems to be over what the union is actually going to be called.

If it's really that important to get equal legal rights, why would you stop yourself from getting them over a word?

Call it something else, and you have 99% of what you want. Pretty good compromise.

And yes, a compromise is needed when two factions are deciding an issue like this.

[Jimmy_041]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they areblatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

Almighty Benny has spoken!
There are people that will tell you that you are blatantly wrong
I haven't listened to either of you and have made my own mind up
Tell me I'm blatantly wrong and I'll tell you which bus to take
There is ignorance and arrogance on both sides

[bennymacca]

are you saying that you dont believe civil ceremonies between a man and a woman are right either?

[bennymacca]

Ok, none of that matters because people have their own convictions.

If you want to change their mind on something, you need to be flexible, at least a little bit.

If you're only in it to say you're "married", and if you can't say that, you don't want it, what are you really fighting for?

If you wanted legal equality, and are offered it with a different name tag, take it.

They might have their convictions but they are blatantly wrong. So you want to pander to them based on that? You are getting hung up on a word that has changed its meaning countless times over the years.

Exactly my point. The whole argument seems to be over what the union is actually going to be called.

If it's really that important to get equal legal rights, why would you stop yourself from getting them over a word?

Call it something else, and you have 99% of what you want. Pretty good compromise.

And yes, a compromise is needed when two factions are deciding an issue like this.

what do you think would happen if the govt tried to change the marriage act to the civil union act?

having two seperate bits of legislation still isnt equality. The whole premise is that gay people think their relationships are just the same as same sex relationships. having two separate bills would still mean they are "different"

this is more about what the campaign is about - they want to be seen as fully equal, not just "we want to get married too"