Same Sex Marriage Survey

[davidc4430]

a week out from result day and allready cracks apearing on the govt side,

Same-sex marriage: 'More than a dozen' conservatives prepare alternative bill to protect religious freedoms

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-09/conservatives-to-sponsor-alternative-same-sex-marriage-bill/91...

any chance a simple change to the law "IF" the survey says YES, looks doomed allready.

we were promised, if we allowed this stupid survey to be held and if it was a yes result then it would be a simple change to the wording of the act and that will be that.

oh but here come the 'well, how about we add this, and this, oh and we dont want that.....ect ect.

again i fully expect malcom to be a 'yes' man, saying yes to whatever the guys keeping him in the PMs chair say.

[davidc4430]

I can't remember but when we white folk allowed the aboriginal into our side of the world did we make speacial rules like whats being put forward to the gay comunity?

did religeous groups demand fredom to not marry them in their churches? ect ect. or is this a modern conundrem?

i'm sure back when aboriginals were made part of white australia there were many who were fully against it. just like now with SSM

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Why are same sex couples sooo stubborn about changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit their union ???    As much as SS couples would like it to be, it is not the same thing, so just call it something else. !!!!

Why are heteros so adamant about denying same-sex couples the use of the word marriage?  If two people are determined to love one another and spend the rest of their lives together, who cares if they procreate?  In fact, the haters should be happy that they're not raising little homosexuals.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

The question of assets & access to superannuation is to my mind, the main one. From what I have read, that was fixed in legislation some time ago.

Not likely...........  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/same-sex-marriage-legal-rights-married-defacto-couples-explain...

[chameleon54]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Why are same sex couples sooo stubborn about changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit their union ???    As much as SS couples would like it to be, it is not the same thing, so just call it something else. !!!!

Why are heteros so adamant about denying same-sex couples the use of the word marriage?  If two people are determined to love one another and spend the rest of their lives together, who cares if they procreate?  In fact, the haters should be happy that they're not raising little homosexuals.

---

Some of them probably are.......its just that the poor kids would be too afraid of their parents wrath to admit to their sexual orientation. 

[chameleon54]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Why are same sex couples sooo stubborn about changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit their union ???    As much as SS couples would like it to be, it is not the same thing, so just call it something else. !!!!

Why are heteros so adamant about denying same-sex couples the use of the word marriage?  If two people are determined to love one another and spend the rest of their lives together, who cares if they procreate?  In fact, the haters should be happy that they're not raising little homosexuals.

---

 
I think there are probably several reasons that many heteros don't want the definition of marriage changed to being in other human relationships.

One is probably the same pig headedness that is driving militant gays to want to claim their relationship as a marriage. I have never made any secret of the fact that I have been very disappointed in the way the gay community have run their SSM campaign and the gay agenda in general. The gay lobby has tried to force their agenda on the wider community, aggressively gagging any views by other groups with opposing views.

They have infiltrated the schools system forcing their views to be included in educational classrooms which should be reserved for the learning of knowledge, rather than being the plaything for very small minority groups. I suppose it is a push back against the thought police who are heII bent on telling us what we should think and say.

A second reason is much more important and should be treated with more respect by those seeking change. That is for most heterosexual, their sexual orrientation and life time relationships are just as important to their own personal identity as gay peoples relationships and sexual orientation are. We are rightly being asked to respect gay peoples intrinsic personal identity, but in the rush for social change, everyone has forgotten about the personal identity and intrinsic values of 98 % of the population who are not gay.

If you believe that homosexuality is intrinsic to a gay persons identity, then you should also accept that heterosexual orientation is just as important and valuable to the vast majority of the population that is not gay. Heritor, it should be valued and respected by leaving the meaning of the word marriage as it is, not changing it to suit a small but aggressively vocal minority.

And the third reason is that the emperor clearly has no clothes. A heterosexual marriage is between a man and a woman. A homosexual union is between two people of the same sex. You may not have noticed, but they are simply not the same thing, in the same way as a son is different to a daughter, mother different from father and clearly spelt out as such in the English language, a union between a man and woman and a same sex union is very clearly different and should be acknowledged as such.

Why are gays so addement that they want to change the meaning of a word to suit their own purposes at the expense of the vast majority ? 

[tezza2844]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

The gay lobby has tried to force their agenda on the wider community, aggressively gagging any views by other groups with opposing views.

And the Vote No campaigners have not pushed theirs just as much, their TV ads warning us of the dire consequences if the Yes vote gets up. Things like loss of freedom of speech, kids can't call their parents Mum and Dad, etc etc.

You may not have noticed, but they are simply not the same thing, in the same way as a son is different to a daughter, mother different from father and clearly spelt out as such in the English language, 

Your powers of observation on this are simply amazing, perhaps your talents are wasted on a SA farm. You may be better positioned to be a Counsellor/Adviser/Consultant to the One Nation candidates in Queensland, at the moment some are having a terrible time with sexual matters and education.

[springyzone]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Why are same sex couples sooo stubborn about changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit their union ???    As much as SS couples would like it to be, it is not the same thing, so just call it something else. !!!!

Why are heteros so adamant about denying same-sex couples the use of the word marriage?  If two people are determined to love one another and spend the rest of their lives together, who cares if they procreate?  In fact, the haters should be happy that they're not raising little homosexuals.

---

I don't know that the definition of 'hater' is fair, just because someone might have a different opinion.

I think it is a loaded word, emotive rather than appealing to reason.

There are plenty of people around who have no problem with gays at all & certainly don't hate them, & have no problem with them being in a legal union, but who may be worried about the legal aspects of changing the definition of marriage.

And no one has said they care if gays don't procreate. Basically, they can't. That's probably the historic reason behind so many social conventions being built around marriage, but gay unions, not so much. Because in marriage, traditionally, there was the probability of children and 2 parents gave children a better chance of survival.

I think in actual fact if we had to use the term hater, we could use it equally for some of those who are pushing the same sex marriage agenda and some other agendas in society. They hate those with a different opinion.

[chameleon54]

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

The gay lobby has tried to force their agenda on the wider community, aggressively gagging any views by other groups with opposing views.

And the Vote No campaigners have not pushed theirs just as much, their TV ads warning us of the dire consequences if the Yes vote gets up. Things like loss of freedom of speech, kids can't call their parents Mum and Dad, etc etc.

You may not have noticed, but they are simply not the same thing, in the same way as a son is different to a daughter, mother different from father and clearly spelt out as such in the English language, 

Your powers of observation on this are simply amazing, perhaps your talents are wasted on a SA farm. You may be better positioned to be a Counsellor/Adviser/Consultant to the One Nation candidates in Queensland, at the moment some are having a terrible time with sexual matters and education.

---

Sure the no campaign ran adverts as did the yes supporters.

The no campaign did not stoop to personally targeting the people appearing in the yes adverts with 6000 signitures on a petition to have them deregistered from their proffesion. It was the SSM supporters who did that, trying to bully others with differing views into submission. That can not be blamed on a single stupid person, doing a single stupid thing. It was an organised, nasty,  vindinctive campaign supported by thousands of gay rights activists. For me that was the turning point in the campaign at which my yes vote became an " I dont want any part of this vote".

As for being a Counsellor / Adviser / Consultant, you may be suprised to learn that I have in fact worked proffesionally in the Public Service as a councillor and adviser to young offenders who have been given community service court orders. I have also worked for several years in an advisory / consultant capacity to businesses that are re-structuring including liasing with state politicians, local government and management. I have worked with a number of businesses including one of the major brand, chain supermarkets. Even with this experience I,m not sure I could help One Nation though.

We just never know what experiences the people behind the keyboards on the forums have do we .....

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Why are gays so addement that they want to change the meaning of a word to suit their own purposes at the expense of the vast majority ? 

How is it at the expense of the vast majority?

The reason they are so adamant, is for millenia  they have been shoved into a dark closet, persecuted shunned.  It is a new world coming.

Unless you're gay, how is the terminology hurtful or of an impact to you?  That's what defines the haters, like the Alabamians vowing they would rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat.........pure unreasoning hate.

[springyzone]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Why are gays so addement that they want to change the meaning of a word to suit their own purposes at the expense of the vast majority ? 

How is it at the expense of the vast majority?

The reason they are so adamant, is for millenia  they have been shoved into a dark closet, persecuted shunned.  It is a new world coming.

Unless you're gay, how is the terminology hurtful or of an impact to you?  That's what defines the haters, like the Alabamians vowing they would rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat.........pure unreasoning hate.

---

For some it may be about prejudice but for many others it isn't, it is about changing the current legal definition of marriage.

It's true that homosexual people have faced prejudice over different centuries & cultures, but the current gays haven't, they haven't been on earth that long & in fact I would say that right here/right now, is probably the best place gays have ever been in. That's not to say it is perfect & couldn't be improved, but compared to even a generation ago, it is a pretty good place.

Yes, it is a new world coming but be careful what we wish for. I see things as like a see saw that is hardly ever evenly balanced. It falls one way then there is a reaction and it tips back in the other direction a bit. We're seeing things tipping towards a breakdown of traditional sexual attitudes-maybe because sex & pregnancy don't have to go hand in hand now & in fact, people don't actually need kids for their future survival or for them to work on the farm etc

What I find interesting though is at the moment, world wide, we are also seeing the see saw moving from a very liberal Islamic view (typical in many places around 1970s,1980s) to a much more radical/fundamentalist view. The new wave of attitude is even moving over Indonesia.

I'm not saying all muslims are members of ISIS or any such thing, just that there is a more traditional attitude on the rise, a movement of the see saw. If muslim numbers here go up a lot (and they probably will, as muslims have a more traditional attitude to having family and it is more the norm to have 4 or more children), we may see a push for laws to change again and there's no reason why they wouldn't, to fall in line with community opinion.

It's ironic really as many who push the yes vote probably also push the open migration barrow  but it may bounce back to bite them. In several countries in the Islamic world, gays have been thrown off rooftops.

I guess the only constant in any society is change, isn't it. I'm pretty sure the yes vote will get up & the sky won't fall.

I'm much more worried about the social changes further down the track if moderate islamic thought gets pushed to the side.