The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are you still undecided or uninterested in the same-sex marriage postal vote? > Comments

Are you still undecided or uninterested in the same-sex marriage postal vote? : Comments

By An Anonymous Dad, published 27/10/2017

I encourage you to consider arguments on both sides, make your own independent decision and not to give up your vote.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I can understand why "Dad" wants to remain anonymous to give such gratuitous advice so late in proceedings. How dare he suggest that other people need telling to "make your own independent decision", or "I was in your position also", assuming 'others' are as indecisive as he was.

He is a bit late anyway, given that 75% of the survey papers have been returned, and few of the disinterested will vote now. A voluntary 75% is an excellent response.

We are not talking about a political policy here, needing to be pondered over before a decision is reached. If you have to wait to be persuaded one way or the other over SSM, you don't have much going for you. We will never know who "Dad" is, but we do know he is someone with no respect for his fellow Australians and their ability to think for themselves.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 27 October 2017 8:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This comes from the (highly inventive) pen of not only the dangerously ignorant, but signed as an anonymous!

So, Why should this person or their very civil story be believed? Particularly in light of the fact that homosexuality is not, as claimed by this, I believe, disingenuous author, something that the affected chose.

But rather like left handedness, something we are born with and imprinted into the trasferred genetic code.

He/she claimed he/she wasn't bother too much, because it was something done in private? And given never ever an eyewitness?

How would he/she know what other folk get up to, or try in their bedroom, be it hide the cherry or conception successfully achieved whilst standing in a hammock?

As Robbie Burns might have retorted, I hae me doots, I hae me doots! As for the undecided? They need to just understand, that this is a natural aberration, that if choice was ever available? Would never ever be taken! NEVER!

Even though the Nazis behaved as if it were and could be raped or bludgeoned out of existence!

If that were ever possible? Wouldn't folks as ruthless as them succeeded!?

No one, but no one is being asked to accept any diminution in their personal rights! Unless, like the Nazis, you believe you personally have a right to discriminate based solely on false (flat earth) "facts?"

Time for true equality!

No one is asking you to like it! Even if you, like me, find many aspects of homosexuality personally unpalatable?

It's not as if you are giving tacit permission to boy buggering paedophile priests to continue to offend and re-offend with impunity!

These are two very different sets of circumstances.

Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony, if it were the latter pernicious personalities the most verbose in their "time honoured" opposition to Marriage equality!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 27 October 2017 8:44:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While not exactly on topic with this article here's something I wonder about the SSM survey:

What happens if a majority of respondents favour a change but NOT a majority of the whole eligible voting population because of people who don't respond. Eg: say 60% of forms returned are a YES vote but only 80% of eligible voters responded giving the YES vote only 48% of eligible votes.

Now, in a normal election all that matters is the percentage of returned valid votes but this is different because it is a survey of public opinion on a specific matter and not mechanism to determine one candidate over another. So if overall less than 50% of eligible voters vote YES then will that be interpreted as the majority not supporting SSM?

(PS: I know the survey result is non-binding anyway so at the end of the day the parliament can do whatever it likes, making this whole exercise rather pointless if the politicians go against the survey result.)
Posted by thinkabit, Friday, 27 October 2017 9:40:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pointless and a waste of taxpayers money.....
But then so are our current mob of politicians.
Posted by ateday, Friday, 27 October 2017 9:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely, right on the money, ateday.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 27 October 2017 10:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One question for Dad:

Do you support Cory Bernardi's SPAM campaign when his robots intruded the peace of 1,000,000 families?

---

«the Bible does not approve of homosexual relationships»

The biblical injunction condemning homosexuality and ordering the killing of homosexuals, was given specifically to the Israelites. If you do not identify yourself as Jewish, then this has nothing to do with you.

---

«This proposed legislation is about changing the intrinsic characteristics of marriage.»

No, only about the entitlement to "legal marriage" (which ought to be abolished), which has nothing to do with marriage itself.

«I think as the way forward we should revisit the idea of a national civil registration of same sex union, which should aim to remove any remnant of discriminatory legal or administrative practices.»

The way forward is to remove all attempts by government to classify/register personal relationships.

In the least, current legally-married couples should be able to annul that status, once its definition changes.

---

«Other consequences that could arise are losing parental control over sex education, losing freedom of religion, or even simply losing freedom of speech.»

These are not consequences of the proposed legislation, but serious problems that ALREADY exist at present.

- Parents should have absolute control over what their children learn.
- Freedom of religion should be paramount in all circumstances.
- Private business owners should be able to freely choose whom they serve and whom they don't. They should not even need to provide a reason.

---

«Bathrooms in schools are open to all sexes»

So why were they segregated to begin with?

Nudity is natural and should not be linked with sexuality. This link only exists because nudity was suppressed, otherwise natural curiosity would be satisfied and never proceed toward sexual acts.

---

«Ultimately it might end up removing all rules on sex and sexual relationships.»

Churches need not remove any of their rules - and government has no moral right to make such rules anyway.

---

[Archbishop Mark Coleridge] «'It's true that all human beings are equal.»

Nonsense, it is false. Even your Archbishop bows to popular fashion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 October 2017 11:21:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many irrelevant arguments are being brought into
this debate. This has nothing to do with religion.
Nobody is asking the churches to marry them. They
can continue with their "Sacrament of Marriage" as
they've always done. This is about allowing people
who want to get married being allowed to have a
civil ceremony and be recognised by the law of the land
as being married.

And here we are arguing about it. Why not ask ourselves
is the Marriage Institution fair in our country when a
percentage of its population of democratic Australia is
denied its privileges by the law of the land?

We are supposed to be a democratic country boasting of
our liberty, our fair-go, our humanity, boasting
of our love of justice and yet within our own borders
thousands of persons are denied by law the legal right
of marriage.

If you are still undecided or uninterested in the same-sex
marriage postal vote then you really have no right to
complain of its outcome.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 27 October 2017 12:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this really the best that "Anonymous Dad" can come up with?

An limp array of tired non-sequiturs, strawmen and appeals to religious authority.

If I wrote something this poorly argued, I'd stay anonymous too.
Posted by JBSH, Friday, 27 October 2017 12:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have never in all my life, lived through anything more absurd than the gay marriage fiasco !
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 27 October 2017 12:55:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

As you claim that all other arguments are irrelevant, could you please clarify your views:

Once SSM is legislated (and all indications are that it will be), should:

1. private business owners be allowed to freely choose whom to provide their services to?

2. parents be allowed to control what their children study?

3. couples who married under the present legal definition of marriage be allowed to annul their marriage once that definition changes?

Thank you in advance.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 October 2017 1:19:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pretty much the same thing I've been bleating on about all along.
1. Stop the Safe Schools gay normalisation and indoctrination
2. Provide safeguards to stop victimisation of other members of the community by the gay brigade.

I'm voting selfish because if it don't benefit me than I don't care.
I'm not giving those snidely, petty, whining crybabies a foot in the door if there are no safeguards against their crazy garbage infecting the rest of society.

I've already voted anyway.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 27 October 2017 1:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the Yes campaigners are about as honest that those in the 1970's who argued that kiling the unborn was all about the poor 14 year old girl who got raped. NOw with around 100000 babies murdered each year its got little to nothing to do with the poor girl who was raped. Same thing with perverting the marriage act. It has little or nothing to do equality. Only the naive and deceivers sprout that.
Posted by runner, Friday, 27 October 2017 4:00:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

The questions that you have asked of me have nothing
to do with the same sex marriage postal vote.
All that is being asked is whether same-sex couples
should have the legal right to marry in this country.
(The same legal rights as the rest of us have).

1) Private business owners have always been free to choose whom
they wish to provide their services to. Be they arcitects,
lawyers, engineers, plumbers, and so on.

2) Parents have always had the choice to control what their
children study - in their choice of schools they allow their
children to attend.

3) Couples who wish to annul their marriages - have always
been free to pursue the legalities involved in pursuing
this step. Grounds for annulment may have to be proven -
especially within certain religions. Divorce may be a
more simpler option - or even widowhood? Your choice.

You're welcome.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 27 October 2017 4:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Are you still undecided//

No.

//or uninterested//

Yes.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 27 October 2017 5:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems around 80% of all eligible voters have already voted? With the remaining 20% still decided or totally indifferent?

And if the 20% non vote were included as raw numbers? So the results could be extrapolated? And then, with those numbers included for the sake of accuracy? Showed those who bothered to actually vote and in favour of S.S.M turned out to be, around 67% of all eligible voters? [The experience in ultraconservative, Catholic Ireland?]

With most votes already cast? All this confected shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted! Will change nought!

Except whip up ill feelings in the wider community?

Couldn't possibly the authors aim? Or could it? Who can say?

I mean, there seems to be a significant cohort, who still believe the word is flat!?

And we're asking that same cohort, or even less able minded, for an informed decision!? Go figure!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 27 October 2017 6:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I forgot to add in answer to your third question to me -
Do you seriously believe that heterosexuals will try
to get their marriages annulled if same-sex marriages
are given the go ahead?

Really?

Why?

So they can marry a person of the same sex?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 27 October 2017 6:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your answers.

My questions may not be directly related to the postal vote, but there is a reasonable possibility that they could be related to the SSM legislation that would follow.

1) I appreciate your answer and wish it was true.
Unfortunately, I suspect that it isn't the case and some anti-discrimination laws do currently apply to private business owners in Australia.
Perhaps other members could shed some more light over this question?

2) This is indeed generally the case (with a few exceptions that we do not need to enter into, for example that private schools are not allowed to teach terrorism).
This is well and good for wealthy parents who can afford private schools. What about the others?

3) At present, annulment is only available under extreme circumstances (http://www.gotocourt.com.au/family-law/annulment-of-marriage). The only current grounds for divorce is separation, for a minimum of one year before making the application for divorce. Forcing a loving family to separate for over a year, just so they are no longer considered legally married, is painful and certainly not a "simple" option.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 October 2017 6:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I just saw your last post:

Some married couples might not feel convenient to remain legally married under the new definition of "marriage".

If your ISP modified your connection-speed, or its privacy-policy and terms-of-service (to which you agreed) and you were unhappy with the change, then you can cancel your subscription, so why not here?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 October 2017 6:43:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who have yet to vote, should at least inform themselves of what transpired overseas following legalisation of SSM. For example, see what transpired in Canada and the UK:

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights, Dawn Stefanowicz, The Public Discourse, 24 April 2015
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?, David Sergeant, The Spectator Australia, 7 Sep 2017
https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

It may come as a surprise that the unstated objective of homosexual activists is to destroy traditional marriage:

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage, Micah Clark, Illinois Family Institute, 4 Jun 2013
https://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

Sodom and Tomorrow, Geoffrey Luck, Quadrant Online, 29 Sep 2017
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/sodom-tomorrow/

It should be noted that not voting is equivalent to voting 'yes'.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 27 October 2017 11:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//It should be noted that not voting is equivalent to voting 'yes'.//

This is why we need better civics education in schools...

No it's not. It's equivalent to abstaining.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 28 October 2017 5:44:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not voting at all is the equivalent of voting YES because each abstainer is one less hurdle against he virulent cultural Marxists who are determined to undermine our society and replace it with something really vile and totalitarian. Not voting is dumb, cowardly and indicative of what a really stupid person you are.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 28 October 2017 8:21:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

There will be no "new" definition of marriage.
What there will be will be civil partnerships and
contractual relationships - because every single
Australian - gay, or straight deserves to be
treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the
eyes of our society.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 28 October 2017 8:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy. Why waste your time casting pearls before the, oink, oink oinkers?

You've less chance with these oinkers than Richard Brampton?

Who reportedly offered a highly place member of the flat earth society free trip into near orbit, in one of his rocket planes?

As they rose and a ovoid world was laid out for the ultimate cynic to see with his own eyes! As he digested the G forces of take off, the weightlessness of decent and so on?

Only on landing to congratulate Sir Richard on the stunning graphics and even more stunning special effects?

As always with some of the patently brain washed? Particularly those whose average IQ is roughly equal to the ambient temperature?

Appealing to reason, logic or a huge body of evidence, is just a waste of valuable time!

Even should the yes case win by a massive majority? They will invent all manner of conspiracy theories etc?

For them nothing will have changed, except their ability to discriminate and or inculcate their fact free fiction into young gullible minds, to create more clones who fatuously and falsely think as they so clearly do!

Left handedness is not something the left handed chose! Nor anything else created in the womb and transferred, just like left handedness, by genetics!
Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 28 October 2017 9:48:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom: "It should be noted that not voting is equivalent to voting 'yes'. "

As Toni Lavis already pointed out it is abstaining (Well in most cases anyway- in a small number of others it may be something like not being able to vote, such as being overseas for the last 2 months, or maybe just general apathy or other things)

So let me give you a couple of hypothetical situations which may change your stance:

1) Consider an opposite case- What if the question was posed the opposite way, ie., it asks whether you DON'T support same sex marriage. In this case would you consider all non-votes to be yes votes for this question?

2) Consider a different question- Let's say you're a French citizen a few decades in the future where due to immigration and breeding the Muslim's now make up the majority of the population. During this time Citizen Initiated Referendums at the national scale were introduced. The following question was initiated for voting on "Do you support strict sharia law, (ie: we will kill all the gays, adulterers, atheists and many others. Chop limbs of thieves. Enslave the women. etc... )". Now the results were: 50.0001% of respondents said yes but only 85% of the population voted. Would you accept this as a win for the YES vote?
Posted by thinkabit, Saturday, 28 October 2017 10:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Alan,

Thanks for that.

I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer
talk about being gay or straight. We just talk
about our shared humanity. And when we are all
treated equally in the eyes of the law.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 28 October 2017 1:18:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B, you have to be really, really careful with the genetic argument because many many things have a genetic element.

Eg: There is strong evidence that psychopathy has a strong genetic element- so should we just use your reasoning and allow psychopaths free reign to harm/hurt others because that's the way they're born? Same also for general physical violent male behaviour: male aggression is exceptionally common in mammals and definitely genetic so do we just allow males to destroy/injure whatever/whoever? Also what about behaviour where the person may harm themselves, such as depression, do we just say that we shouldn't interfere with suicide attempts because that is the way they're born? What about people with genetic disease that is curable or at least can be mitigated with treatment- do we refuse to treat them because it is just a genetic thing?

See how your argument isn't such a strong one by itself. You need to provide something else, like trying to provide justification for a moral imperative/directive that you live by and show that by supporting gay marriage you achieve this goal.

eg: If someone were are an a atheist maybe their foundation principle might be something like- "We should act in a way that provides the greatest good to the greatest number". Then they need to convince others why they should also live by this principle. So that now they can convince the others about the benefits/propriety of allowing SSM by demonstrating how it aligns with this.
Posted by thinkabit, Saturday, 28 October 2017 2:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thinkabit! An oxymoron of a nomenclature if ever there was one?

As always with the nay Sayers. They cherry pick their science!

Be it credible and validated or just as fake as the forged credential adorning a bogus German professor's wall? Along with her anti vax fact free campaign?

There is a peer reviewed, validated genetic link for both left handedness and homosexuality! And archived in right here OLO, where it was reported by the contributing Professor of medicine, who it would seem, did or validated the research?

Try it, it'll make a useful change from the assumption and allegations that you seem to almost exclusively rely on?

With the latter being more than one gene and appearing down near the bottom of the double helix, DNA spiral!

Time to get off the endless gay bashing hobby horse!

And shamelessly linked conflated confected issues that invariably have no bearing whatsoever, ipso facto, with the relevant topic or question under discussion!

Try and undo some of the harm you've done or so obviously caused and try behaving like an empathetic human being for a change, even where that requires you to grit your teeth and hold your nose?

I don't have to be careful around genes! Given all I ever done is thoroughly research credible reports! Then as accurately as poss report factual findings!

As to your claim of a genetic link with insanity? I bow to your vast superior expertise/personal experience?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 28 October 2017 6:20:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B:

Where have I have made "gay bashing" statements. All I've done is shown you that the logical structure of your argument allows many, many other behaviours to be justified, behaviours that most deem not acceptable. The overall result is that if you wish to be considered consistently rational by other rational people then if you want them to accept you genetic bias argument than you MUST (to remain consistent) accept the consequences of the same form of argument applied to other issues.

To make a point to someone who is rational (like myself) you need to use a different logical argument if you don't want them accept these other behaviours as justified. I even went to the trouble of showing/giving you an example of how to set-up such a argument but you seem to not appreciate that.

By-the-way: for the record, I'm actually of the opinion that government should have nothing to do marriage (they should however regulate sex- it should be consensual between any number/gender of people who are old enough). The only half plausible reason to me that a government should have any interest in registering marriages is for reasons of inheritance when someone dies intestate, but this can easily be handled via other mechanisms without having a government defined institution of marriage.

(PS. If you had ever actually read a book or attended lectures on cellular biology you would know that there is no "bottom of the double helix", it doesn't have an up/down direction. It does however have a direction that it is read in- from distant memory it is the 8-5 direction on the main strand and it is read the opposite way on the complement stand. Also, there isn't just one single double helix in each cell but many, since you have 23 pairs of chromosomes.)
Posted by thinkabit, Saturday, 28 October 2017 7:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«There will be no "new" definition of marriage. What there will be will be civil partnerships and contractual relationships»

This would indeed be an improvement, but the SSM survey did not mention anything like it, nor did I hear about it prior to your post.

Within the existing Marriage Act, since 2004, "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Assuming that the survey results will be in the affirmative, do you believe that this definition will be kept?

If not, then couples who legally married between 2004 and the present, have consented to be married according to the definition at the time and possibly some of them wouldn't have consented to be married under a changed definition, thus should be able to annul their marriage on that ground.

«I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer talk about being gay or straight.»

Me too. Also to the day when government and personal relationships are kept completely separate.

---

Dear Raycom,

«It may come as a surprise that the unstated objective of homosexual activists is to destroy traditional marriage»

Not surprising at all, although the typical activists are not homosexual in their private life, nor is the typical homosexual person an activist.

Now why should you be concerned?
Yes, they WANT to destroy traditional marriage, but they are powerless and cannot harm it in any way. Changing the scope of that bad joke whereby a secular and illegitimate state declares "this is a marriage, this is not", would not have any affect whatsoever on real marriages before God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 28 October 2017 10:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thinkabit: Find the written and published article by a Professor of medicine, right here on O.L.O some time ago. And archived? Down near the bottom and several rather than one. His words not mine! If you have a problem with that description?

I'm almost certain Graham could find and reprint the article? Particularly if you are courteous and gracious enough to reward his effort and valuable time? Given how well it dovetails into this very debate!

My bet is you'll do neither, given that would effectively counter most f your anti S.S.M argument!

I found far the published and peer reviewed Professor, more convincing, credible and cogent than a numbskull, who seems to think a bit/claims, that the double helix DNA molecule doesn't have discernible form or shape?

And therefore a top and bottom for descriptive rather than literal purposes! And a straw man argument to somehow justify your particular stance.

As for sex? Wadda mean? Thinking about it or talking about it?

I think I remember the physical biology?

Even so, I've always always argued it has to be consensual and guarded by responsible age limits!

So thinkabit, you should try thinking a bit and perhaps a novel new experience? Even if that requires you to have to tolerate that strange burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 29 October 2017 9:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I have already voted and I shall leave it up to others
to have their say. It's been made quite clear that all
we are being asked is that same-sex couples be granted
the same legal rights as the rest of Australia has.

I do not have a problem with that
request. And I cannot see that request of theirs having any sort
of impact on anyone else's marriage.
I got married in a church. They will
be having civil ceremonies. Most couples these days have
civil ceremonies. And the civil ceremonies are not in
any competition with church weddings, nor will they impact
on anybody else's marriage.
How these are supposed to affect other people
I really think is a lot of nonsense and a diversion by the
religious extremists. Why should
they be given the right to dictate
the law of the land to other people. Nobody is taking away
their right to marry in a church. Why should they be allowed to
dictate as to who should be allowed to have a civil ceremony.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 29 October 2017 9:51:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the results of this survey are in and a resounding yes vote? Were I a bold and confident Malcolm Turnbul, I would call a snap early election, to return stability to parliament, ostensibly?

Then rely on/take full advantage of, the slow boiling rage in the wider community!? To take a truly terrible toll on One Nation and other, far right wing, climate change denier/anti gay candidates? ALL OF THEM!

And then allow the energy debate and energy prices that could be as low as 1.98 cents P.K.H to win the day for him and the genuinely moderate middle!

Or should we allow our near neighbour, Indonesia, to become a nuclear powered and powering ahead economy, before we do!?

Choose wisely, and very soon, as a true statesman would!

With all due respect, the never ending story (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) needs to conclude! Or conversely, continue to swim like a stone in the polls!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 29 October 2017 10:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Alan B.,

I don't have much faith in Malcolm Turnbull anymore.
I don't think he's got the spine and gumption to
do what you suggest. He'll continue to allow the
disunity to continue within his own party until
the polls are so bad that they will replace him with
(heaven forbid) Peter Dutton or even the baying at his
heels Tony Abbott. There's hope yet for Mr Turnbull,
but he'd have to act fast and not allow himself to be
led by the nose by people who really only have their
own interests at heart. Sad, really. We all had such
high hopes for Malcolm.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 29 October 2017 12:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

What you wrote would be true if the couples in question married only in church.

However, based on the 2004 definition of marriage, many couples who married in church asked their marrying priest/minister to also register them with the state - and now the definition changes and they are stuck with a contract that they did not agree on.

If you want the state to conduct civil marriages under different terms and conditions, then you need to release those who signed under the previous terms and conditions and (for whatever reason) do not agree with the new ones. I know that there is at least one such couple, because there was an article about them on the ABC (I cannot seem to find it now).

Once this happens, let religious people marry in church alone and let non-religious legally-marry through the state alone if they still see a point in that, then indeed none will affect the other.

I would like to encourage ALL legally-married couples, regardless how they feel about same-sex marriages, to use this unique opportunity to deregister their state-based/legal marriage, thus rendering it empty and meaningless as should.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 29 October 2017 6:39:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
It doesn't make sense. How will civil ceremonies
affect anyone else - when civil ceremonies have
been around for decades and generations have
been married that way. And nobody has questioned
them previously. I suspect that the fuss this time
is because it involves same-sex couples - who some
people don't feel should get equal rights under the
law.

Ignore them - personal prejudices should not be involved
with the law of the land.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 29 October 2017 7:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Perhaps some people have prejudices against homosexuals - that's not me, I'm not concerned about this-sex or that-sex, yet this SSM business presented an opportunity to reduce government involvement in our private life and I don't want to let that opportunity go.

My objective is to remove the government/state from our lives, specifically here, to reduce the number of government-based marriages. If the number of government-based homosexual marriages increases but the number of government-based heterosexual marriages reduces by more, then the overall result will be good.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 29 October 2017 11:32:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

For me this discussion has now run its course.

Thank You for your contributions.

It will be interesting to see what the future
brings and what Australia decides on the kind
of society they wish to live in.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 30 October 2017 9:44:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As soon as someone says their primary source of information is a 'friend in California' then you know it is time to stop reading. It is obvious that author had no intentions of voting anything but 'no'. The whole piece was an exercise in what has been typical of the 'no' campaign...misinformation and outright falsehoods.
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 8:47:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this post will have nothing to do with the thread topic but anyway here goes:

Alan B: You say "I found far the published and peer reviewed Professor, more convincing, credible and cogent than a numbskull, who seems to think a bit/claims, that the double helix DNA molecule doesn't have discernible form or shape? "

You're just confirming your total ignorance of cellular biology here, because guess what: the DNA molecules in your body DO NOT have a *constant* discernible overall form or shape!!
(However, the molecule itself is a three dimensional double-helix and does have a particular direction which it can be read in - which I explicitly stated in my previous post*! )

Throughout the various stages of your cells' lives their DNA is constantly changing shape, but the molecule itself normally remains chemically the same.
For example, sometimes a small part of DNA molecule changes shape when the cell needs to read a gene during the transcription step of the gene expression process. Here part of the DNA undergoes a process of unraveling-at-a-particular-spot / strands-separting / getting-transcibed / strands-joining-again / raveling-up-again [Note: the unraveling here is NOT the helix unraveling but rather the complicated super-twisting of the DNA, the helix does unwind a bit during the strand-separating part though]

-continued below-
Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 8:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--continued from above -

Another example is during the cell division processes (ie: mitosis and meiosis). During these processes the *whole* of the DNA molecule changes form considerably!! Unlike the previous example which is too small to be seen (since it only deals with a small part of the DNA) for these processes you can actually see with a microscope the DNA change shape in real-time! Here is a link detailing these processes with pretty pictures: https://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insidethecell/chapter4.html

The fact that is changes shape should not at all be a surprise since it is a long narrow pair of intertwined molecular strings so you could except it to behave like a piece of wrapping-string. And even a child knows that pieces of string very easily change shape when moved or played with.

Of course, all this is really just ELEMENTARY biology-- school kids know the stuff! It is unfortunate that you somehow missed out on this education, but being an ignoramus is possibly not you fault. However, the real shame is that somehow you think that your know-nothing opinion should be taken as some kind of authority.

[*PS: in previous post I made a slight mistake: 8'-to-5' should be 5'-to-3' direction. The numbers are those assigned to the carbon atoms of the sugar-ring component of the DNA. Seeing as I know that the sugar doesn't even have 8 carbon atoms I should have noticed this error, however its been over 20 years since I studied this at uni so its not at all the fresh in my mind hence the slip-up.
Now you probably don't believe anything I say since you think I'm a "numbskull" so for proof it is confirmed it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directionality_(molecular_biology) ]
Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 8:30:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not homosexual. I am a widow with two adult children and four grandchildren. This same sex marriage vote is not about same sex marriage, people see the vote about homosexual SEX not marriage! You don't have to be married to have sex. Marriage is all about inheritance, keeping 'it' in the family. Homosexual sex can happen in any marriage. The Greeks used to encourage homosexual sex-without -love for their philosophers etc.

Get over the sex part of the vote and think about the meaning of marriage now. And, please leave God out of it. Marriage is man-made . We do not need marriage to have sex. Plain and simple.
Posted by mally, Friday, 3 November 2017 5:13:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy