@janeababe wrote:
@springyzone wrote:
@not_for_sale2017 wrote:
No matter how I try to look at this issue, I can't work out what right heterosexual people have to vote on the right of gay people to marry. It implies heterosexuals represent the norm in the community and have the entitlement and right to make judgement and have input to the lives of gay people. I don't think heterosexuals are that superior. I've known a number of gay people who are just as religious, are upstanding citizens and are genuinely good people. Sure, there are others that don't rate so highly, but one doesn't have to be gay to qualify for that list.
It isn't just heterosexual people who have been given the vote, it is all voters.
I don't see it as the right to make judgements about gay people at all, it is simply looking at the legal definition of marriage.
In every society over hundreds if not thousands of years, that definition has been a man & a woman. And some of us think the that legal defination is outdated and needs changing.
It doesn't mean that gays have not existed or lived in unions too. As we know, in the past some had to hide it as it was illegal etc. Times have changed and I'd guess most people (in the western world) feel gays should be free to live in legally binding unions. If it had any name other than marriage, I think it would be a shoo in.The term *marriage* is not only used to reference the legal union of man and woman. It has been used to define the coupling/joining/ the inter-relationship between two individual items or things.
But having said that, having a vote or making a decision about anything is not to suggest that any group is 'superior'. The fact is that heterosexuals ARE the norm in society. Perhaps not as normal as you'ld think 
Nature has devised it that way for the perpetuation of the species. And yet, all these normal, hetrosexuals who are the majority in society, are having bi-sexual, homosexual and transexual babies! Go figure!! Doesn't make heterosxual people any better or worse morally but whichever way you look at it, they are the majority. I wonder if that is truly true??
In a democracy, majority rules. Not just on this issue but any. Our marriage laws eg age at marriage etc affect heterosexuals too.
oh, yes... hetrosexuals who cant get legally married at 15 are so hard done by! Yet Homosexuals cant get married ... FULL STOP!!! tell me again who is most affected ??
There are plenty who don't necessarily agree with them-some may believe the age could be lowered, some believe people should be allowed multiple wives. Hahaha..... plenty of men would think that one at a time is too many 
Our laws can't please everyone. But decisions have to be made. And laws do change over time.
No reason why deciding the legal definition of marriage is not relevant to all people, not just gays. Because atm, its the Homosexuals whom it is very relevant too..
Okay, I understand you are saying the legal definition is outdated and I am guessing it will change.
But I think some of your other comments are irrelevant, they are side issues.
For instance, the fact that heterosexual people can have bisexual or homosexual children. Yes of course they can. Up until recent times that would have been the only way they could have been born.
That doesn't change the fact that heterosexual people are in the majority. I'm not making a moral judgement here, by the way. But I can't see anything wrong with looking at facts. I know it is politically incorrect these days to so much as mention race, nationality & now it is moving into not even being allowed to say someone is male or female, but let's be a little daring.
You made a joke of what i said about the legal definition of marriage being important. It's not a joke, it is important. I am not saying it should be a no vote. I happen to believe gay people should have all the legal rights that go with a marriage union.
But don't think for a second that the legal definition of marriage is irrelevant as there are currently moves underway & campaigns by muslim groups to allow marriage to be defined as several wives.
It will involve quite a few changes to welfare/immigration if we go this path.
If you believe heterosexuals have no right to vote on changing the definition of marriage to include gays, do you also believe non muslims in this country have no right to decide if the laws of the land allow for sharia law or multiple wives?
It's a fair enough question because there is also the issue of is it one law of the land for all, or do we break it up-some laws for aborigines only, muslims only etc
I'm not trying to be difficult as I support the rights of gays & am happy enough to see them marry, but we do have to realise there are legal ramifications right down the line.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
