As if it isn't the cost? $500 million is just ridiculous.

There is the fear that backward homophobes may also weigh in on the issue with scare campaigns.

It sickens me to the core that people seem to think everyone deserves a say on something that concerns something like 5% of our population.

I guess its a hangover from Christians origins wanting to force people to conform :roll:

But we know $500 million isn't the true cost, that PwC are biased and their figures were confected to manufacture public concern over the agenda they are pursuing?
If the Christian lobby released a report that said the pleb would only cost $100 million would you accept those findings prima facie?

It might sicken you that people want a say on who can get married and who can't but it sickens other people they are trying to change a institution and tradition that has been the same for thousands of years just to appease a few % of the population.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a say.

I wouldn't trust anything the Christian Lobby said about anything. They manufacture everything to fit the values of their 2000 year old book. Hardly reliable for anything of substance unless you want to go back to the dark ages.



It's a tradition Christianity and Islam stole from the civilisations they eliminated. The fact that we have Christians and Muslims using their religion to claim ownership of the word 'marriage' is grossly offensive.



Yes, but in that sense they have to take whatever repercussions come their way because of their opinions. Not throw their hands up and claim vilification because they feel they have some ownership of marriage.

Change an institution and tradition :lol:

FMD have heard it all.

-PB

Yep - fair call. I was under the impression they were now bound, given the ALP Senator that resigned because he disagreed with the policy.

Sorry but a significant majority of the population supports marriage equality. So far from changing the marriage laws "just to appease a few %" it is actually bringing the law into line with the general viewpoint of most people. What you are claiming is the same as saying only African-americans cared about civil rights in the 1960s. It's an issue most people care about, not just those directly affected.

The other issue is that marriage is really 2 institutions:

- a religious sacrament
- a legal contract

You don't want religions to be forced to marry same gender couples? Fine.

But marriage is a state sanctioned contract. The state should not be able to discriminate. So legally sanctioned marriage should be available regardless of gender.

It comes down to a basic separation of church and state.

In 20 years time those arguing against marriage equality will look to society the same way those racist southerners in the US who resisted integration in the 1960s look now.

Too busy on his Dropnir multi.

-PB

Forget 20 years, I think they look that way now

Why the fuck should the legalisation of same sex marriage even be up to the general public when it will literally have no effect on them?

bit of a politically-correct style question..

I saw a car yesterday which had an aboriginal flag bumper sticker.

If I have exactly zero roots that I know of that are aboriginal, I don't recognise as aboriginal, and I'm not actively involved in aboriginal-rights etc type stuff - is there anything wrong, politically incorrect, or at the very least pretentious about chuck one on my car?

I just got this overwhelming feeling that I loved that people represented their aboriginal roots and, although I have none, I like the idea of "spreading the love" etc by keeping the aboriginal flag relevent and in the eyes of the public etc. I can't explainthe feeling, and in no way think i'll be changing the world or anything, but I just feel like it's something I'd like to do too - chuck one on my car.

What kind of PC, moral, ethical, etc things am I just violating by thinking along these lines?

Fwiw and probably extremely noteworthy, my car already has 2 gigantic Jurassic Park stickers on the side doors

You could use the sticker as a way of showing your support for their culture, people, rights, the land etc. etc.

The marriage law needs to have whole sale changes, and the big one is renaming them all to simply civil unions. A big issue is that people are unhappy with the term "marriage" being used for same-sex couples. The easiest solution is to use a term with no religious connotations (in effect the government's legally views a married and de facto couple as almost similar, except the steps involved in annulling the relationship ... as one example).

So in effect the government's role in "marriage" is a legality matter, so their concern should be ensure that those committing to "marriage" have considered the implications, there is no coercion, consensual (adults) and tick all the boxes (witnesses, licensed celebrants, legal papers etc. etc.) Matters outside of these parameters should NOT be a concern for the government, or the general public.

To clarify, its conservatives who it's an issue to.
Conservatives (right wingers) are, on average, more religious than progressives (left wingers)
So it's Conservatives doing the damage, from their own ignorance

so says the great believer in the doomsday cult of climate change

What a load of rubbish. Just change the wording of the marriage act to "between 2 adults" instead of "between a man and a woman". The rest is just bollocks. It's not that hard. Most of the rich world has done it with no problem.

You mean science?

no I mean climate change as the doomsday cult and outright bullshit prophecy similar to false prophecy of the seekers of chicago who in 1954 predicted a cataclysmic flood that would wipe out the western hemisphere

or the 5/5/2000 prophecy of a global catastrophe was assured by Richard Noone, author of the 1997 book "5/5/2000 Ice: the Ultimate Disaster" (Three Rivers Press). According to Noone, the Antarctic ice mass would be three miles thick by May 5, 2000

and lets no forget our own flanney's fuckups in prophecy

Edited by GDeathe: 16/3/2016 08:47:48 PM

**smiles and nods, whilst slowly backing away**

At a time of a budget emergency where we are always being told that marriage equality can be put on the back burner while we focus on the economy...surely spending half a billion dollars on an unbinding plebiscite is not the way to go. I would rather each liberal party branch film and count a show of hands to figure out what their members want and stick with whatever they say, yes, no, or undecided. if there is no clear majority either way then put it to a conscience vote. There's no point spending that much money to essentially decide liberal party policy.

Would I be right in saying you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

Unfortunately in politics you need to be diplomatic, and compromise. Yes it would be far simpler to simply change the words to two consensual adults (I personally have no issue with those that want polygamy either but that is a whole other kettle of fish), but that would "forcing" a change on people that a lot may not agree with. So a diplomatic approach is to work around their issues and resolve them.

Enacting "change" is a great challenge and needs to be done "right" to ensure it is widely accepted and embraced. Unfortunately the logical or simplest method is not always the most effective.

All this does is give the conservatives, the religious morons and homophobes time to run scare campaigns.

True, but otherwise we get issues arising later, such as the Safe Schools "scandal". You can't appease everyone but it is ensuring at least have actively listened to genuine concerns (the fear mongers largely should be dismissed).

'My religion says it's bad" is not a genuine concern :lol:

There is a clear issue with separation of church and state on issues such as gay marriage.

That's why I suggested a change in name from "marriage" for all unions ... the biggest beef seems to be that the term has religious connotations (pedantic yes, but easy substituted if it satisfies them). Therefore to ensure separation of church and state a term should be used that holds no religious connotations (that way appease both sides).

Not a bad idea.

However I find it disgusting that religions can claim ownership of a word they stole from the cultures they wiped out.

Lets be logical here - the religion lobby would be happy if marriage didn't exist at all???? Come on!

The reality is, like what has happened across nearly the whole rich world, once you bring in marriage equality it just becomes normalised and the bigots fade into the background.

I wish the churches would be as concerned about stopping their representatives having s#x with kids than whether 2 adults want to formalise their love.

Ordinary petrol managed to collapse this highway though. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?_r=0

But a jet smashing through dozens of structural columns across multiple floors and then thousands of litres of jet fuel catching alight bringing down a building? Naah.

9/11 troofers are a special kind of stupid.


Probably the wrong thread but couldn't resist.


Edited by outonthefull: 17/3/2016 03:50:27 PM

So the Greens sided with Liberals against marriage in the debate today?

-PB

Whats the difference between heathens like me getting married outside a church and two homosexuals getting married? :lol: