Your Say on Gay Marriage

[katydidthat]

I heard Tony Windsor this morning talking about the idea of a referendum on gay marriage.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/windsor-wants-referendum-on-gay-marriage/story-fncynkc6-12...

Would you vote for or against gay marriage if it was an option in September's election?  

[pct001wine]

Was that tongue-in-cheek moorna12 ?:|

[lurker17260]

Was that tongue-in-cheek moorna12 ?:|

Probably more like foot-in-mouth 😄

[**meep**]

i get the impression that moorna is an older, traditional type of person.

[kengillard]

good one Lurker!!:^O

[purple.cow]

After reading a few of the other psts around here I figured I'd go the AGAINST road for a couple or so reasons ...

1. The poll is fixed so you can only vote for or against, and I couldn't care a rat's backside about it.

2. Because I'm totally against the idea of spend huge dollars on waste of time referendums instead of the same amount of dollars on fixing up a few far more important things like a few hip operations for those in need or whatever.

3. This topic has been done to death for way too many years now and 'm sick of hearing abuot it.

4. If the government can't make a firm and binding decision to such a stupidly minor issue it shouldn't be in government at all.

5. Because it was pretty obvious that there are a couple of so board posters around here that are waiting with baited breathe to tear someone to pieces for saying they're against, so I figured I'd give them a bit of a highlight to their sad existences by opening things up for them.

NOW GO FOR IT LOL.

[rosieglen]

Well actually Moorna there have been those against here and their opinions, as far as I can see have been treated with respect.

You obviously find it amusing to see people arguing.

[lakeland27]

well , referendums have a poor record. they often don't get up. i think it is no ones D business frankly, and its time to recognise nobody has the authority to deny them. mention of gender could be simply removed from the act. the act needn't change, it just needs re-wording so not to exclude anybody.

[**meep**]

Well actually Moorna there have been those against here and their opinions, as far as I can see have been treated with respect.

You obviously find it amusing to see people arguing.

I think moorna,  and a couple of other posters (including myself)  were referring to this discussion forum not this particular thread.

[vampire-teddy]

as someone who is personally affected by this i do respect other's views.  i personally feel traditions change.  not so long ago it was unacceptable to live with a person out of wedlock or be a single mum and now it is commonplace and acceptable even by prime ministers.  if someone is against it for religious reasons then that is fine however i don't believe that religion should sway legislation.  to me it is a civil rights issue plain and simple.  to be a citizen of a country you have rights and responsibilities.  why should i have the same responsibilities but not the same rights.

also the marriage definition of a man and woman was not put into place until John Howard did it not many years ago.

[rosieglen]

as someone who is personally affected by this i do respect other's views.  i personally feel traditions change.  not so long ago it was unacceptable to live with a person out of wedlock or be a single mum and now it is commonplace and acceptable even by prime ministers.  if someone is against it for religious reasons then that is fine however i don't believe that religion should sway legislation.  to me it is a civil rights issue plain and simple.  to be a citizen of a country you have rights and responsibilities.  why should i have the same responsibilities but not the same rights.

also the marriage definition of a man and woman was not put into place until John Howard did it not many years ago.

Very true, Teddy.  Definitely a civil rights issue.  I am very much for it.