I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on anyone who does not support the change in legislation to allow same sex marriage and if so why ?

For me personally - As a hetrosexual male, I do not support same sex marriage but only for myself - I don't support opposite sex marriage either but that's another story. But do I support a change in the legislation ? - absolutely - and the reason is simple. Allowing same sex marriage has zero impact on anyone who does not want to marry the same sex.

This is such a no brainer of an issue for me that it makes my head spin. If one truly does not support same sex marriage as I am sure many don't then object in the strongest way possible by not marrying someone of the same sex. It is that easy.

If I woke up tomorrow and was told that same sex marriage had been legalised for 5 years it would have had no impact on my life whatsoever except I probably may have got a handful more wedding invitations.

I am interested to hear from supporters of not allowing same sex marriage to understand why they believe a Government should be able to dictate on an issue that has no impact on the vast majority of the population.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage, I would be curious if someone had one also.

same sex marriage is like tripe, broccoli and brussels sprouts - not for me, but go ahead, knock yourself out

same sex marriage is like tripe, broccoli and brussels sprouts - not for me, but go ahead, knock yourself out

I think you said in 19 words what took me 200.....

I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage, I would be curious if someone had one also.

Probably the point of my post - arguments on climate change, refugees and nearly all other issue - I have a position but can make an argument for the contrary view. On this issue, as you have said, would be interested to hear any arguments against gay marriage.

I will preempt and tackle the issue of the male/female parent model as opposed to the same sex parent model. I have read that a male and female role model is best for a child but the enormous flaw in this argument is the assumption that male and female in all cases are individually good role models and good parents. I have seen parenting from from male/female that has lead to the child being removed by community services and on the other I know a couple of guys who have raised a child in a nuturing, safe and loving environment.

arguments are pretty cerebral

lot to do with morals/taboos/religion/cultural types of stuff. stuff you can't really satisfactorily debate intellectually

like "I have yet to hear a convincing argument on the existence of god" and vice a versa

personally, i don't see anything wrong with a democratic referendum/plebiscite (apart from cost that is)

wouldn't trust the vote/motivations of a bunch of self seeking pollies anyway

people can vote yes, no or informal. will be interesting how many vote informal

arguments are pretty cerebral

lot to do with morals/taboos/religion/cultural types of stuff. stuff you can't really satisfactorily debate intellectually

like "I have yet to hear a convincing argument on the existence of god" and vice a versa

personally, i don't see anything wrong with a democratic referendum/plebiscite (apart from cost that is)

wouldn't trust the vote/motivations of a bunch of self seeking pollies anyway

people can vote yes, no or informal. will be interesting how many vote informal

What worries me is the wording of a plebiscite - I recall the referendum on the Republic. The muddying of the waters in the phrasing of the question by Howard was a political masterstroke. I suspect if the simple question was - "do you want the Queen as your head of state" I think the answer would have been a resounding no. People (IMO) were more opposed to the methodology and complexity of electing a President than they were about removing the Queen as our head of state.

What worries me is the wording of a plebiscite - I recall the referendum on the Republic. The muddying of the waters in the phrasing of the question by Howard was a political masterstroke. I suspect if the simple question was - "do you want the Queen as your head of state" I think the answer would have been a resounding no. People (IMO) were more opposed to the methodology and complexity of electing a President than they were about removing the Queen as our head of state.

which was fair enough too

you don't vote to abolish something......you vote for a replacement option

if you can't elucidate the alternative and convince the populous of its merits you deserve to fail

it wasn't howard's fault it was the fault of the pro-republican movement and their untimely haste and lack of preparation/clarification/agreement

it was them that set back the movement by decades

why are you worrying about the wording when no wording has been proposed?

the libs i think have accepted that marriage equality will happen, they just want the direct responsibility taken off their hands

I'm pretty ashamed to live in a country so backward that gay marriage isn't even allowed to be put on the table for a vote

Two very good friends of mine are gay, and it hurts me more than anything to know that our pathetic prime minister doesn't think they should be treated the same as the rest of us heterosexual people.

As if heterosexual marriages with their 50% divorce rates are something so sacred.

Pretty bloody stupid.

I'm pretty ashamed to live in a country so backward that gay marriage isn't even allowed to be put on the table for a vote

Two very good friends of mine are gay, and it hurts me more than anything to know that our pathetic prime minister doesn't think they should be treated the same as the rest of us heterosexual people.

As if heterosexual marriages with their 50% divorce rates are something so sacred.

Pretty bloody stupid.

fair enough

but i would have thought having a referendum next year was kinda "putting it on the table"

what's another year after 1000's of years?

i'd have thought calling for a referendum was a positive

unless of course you don't trust the public?

I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage, I would be curious if someone had one also.

simple it will offend the roman view of the world... they search, destroy, & conquer all who disagree with their ways of things.

apparently, its just a matter of a 'fact' ? they will accept no slip ups.

so beware, anyone who accidentally, 'or otherwise', ended up on the wrong (route)... for there will be no forgiveness for them, & all others will reap the vengeance of our beloved creator.

so whilst we are run by the roman influence of life within our laws, & politics, & by judgmental type peoples the western world over...

which was fair enough too

you don't vote to abolish something......you vote for a replacement option

if you can't elucidate the alternative and convince the populous of its merits you deserve to fail

it wasn't howard's fault it was the fault of the pro-republican movement and their untimely haste and lack of preparation/clarification/agreement

it was them that set back the movement by decades

why are you worrying about the wording when no wording has been proposed?

the libs i think have accepted that marriage equality will happen, they just want the direct responsibility taken off their hands

Bit of a cop out really

They have managed to make many decisions using their mantra of the sacred mandate

They pick and choose what they want to take responsibility for

The difficulty with this issue is that they can't blame the Labour Party for it

Bit of a cop out really

They have managed to make many decisions using their mantra of the sacred mandate

They pick and choose what they want to take responsibility for

The difficulty with this issue is that they can't blame the Labour Party for it

all politics 101 dp, nothing unusual

anyway, do you doubt marriage equality will happen in the short term?

Bit of a cop out really

They have managed to make many decisions using their mantra of the sacred mandate

They pick and choose what they want to take responsibility for

The difficulty with this issue is that they can't blame the Labour Party for it

all politics 101 dp, nothing unusual

anyway, do you doubt marriage equality will happen in the short term?

so that roman elephant in the closet is too big an issue to lay a tackle on, is It ?

the influence of roman grown cultures & ideas, & also that famous fall of rome?

yep, it's the romans, the northern stand and jack watts

why has penny wong changed here tune since the rudd/gillard goverments?

yep, it's the romans, the northern stand and jack watts

why has penny wong changed here tune since the rudd/gillard goverments?

I want a discussion about the current roman influences dc. so lets have it ?

lets see where it takes us, Re our governments & churches, the law, & 'the hidden gems of pain', dished out to so many damaged individuals, from its hidden agendas.

yep, it's the romans, the northern stand and jack watts

why has penny wong changed here tune since the rudd/gillard goverments?

why bring in jack watts name, into a same sex discussion?

do you think he may be gay, dc?

I don't think he is.

I want a discussion about the current roman influences dc. so lets have it ?

lets see where it takes us, Re our governments & churches, the law, & 'the hidden gems of pain', dished out to so many damaged individuals, from its hidden agendas.

can't help you the d-l, i'm an atheist

can't abide any of them, whether romans, anglican, islam, hindu, northern stand........you name it

only religion i can abide is aussie rules

why bring in jack watts name, into a same sex discussion?

do you think he may be gay, dc?

I don't think he is.

he's probably a gay icon d-l, but he's not gay

he just gets blamed for most things

he's probably a gay icon d-l, but he's not gay

he just gets blamed for most things

LoL. what the same sex debate as well, & I thought Toumpas was the blamegoat?

watts was just soft & in avoidance. footy impotence dc,,,, hardly something worth marrying for.

although there is the Chinese giving their currency diarrhea, 2 days running, do you reckon wattsy gave them the schitz recently as well?

can't help you the d-l, i'm an atheist

can't abide any of them, whether romans, anglican, islam, hindu, northern stand........you name it

only religion i can abide is aussie rules

& I thought its was the rabbott, hopping out of his cardinals hat, that was stalling the same sex marriage debate of equal opportunity?

shortman has seen the poll results and reckons he can win votes on the issue

what a self-centred opportunist

but i guess that's politics 21st century

Bit of a cop out really

They have managed to make many decisions using their mantra of the sacred mandate

They pick and choose what they want to take responsibility for

The difficulty with this issue is that they can't blame the Labour Party for it

This is one of my major beefs - "we have a mandate" - that was being trotted out with gay abandon ( pardon the pun) - a 53.5% mandate at the election - but with everything pointing to 70% wanting marriage equality these bozo's can't work out what the population want so we need a plebiscite or referendum ? spare me.

shortman has seen the poll results and reckons he can win votes on the issue

what a self-centred opportunist

but i guess that's politics 21st century

you reckon the shortman is the only opportunist in Canberra, or the free western world, do you dc?

I see so you don't care about other peoples interests in what effects they're lives in a direct way, on the physical plane?

so, you only care about your team? winning,,,? but what about your principles dc, do you have some?

surely you can rise above whats been drummed into your head, to find something you truly believe in?

edit : by the way, after reading this post & editing for grammar, spelling, I heard its potential for creating the wrong impression Re myself.

for the record I am 100% heterosexual, only attracted to the female form.

but I have a lot of friends who are very gay... good friends, as long as they leave me alone in my safety when amongst them. some didn't, and are no longer friends.

.

This is one of my major beefs - "we have a mandate" - that was being trotted out with gay abandon ( pardon the pun) - a 53.5% mandate at the election - but with everything pointing to 70% wanting marriage equality these bozo's can't work out what the population want so we need a plebiscite or referendum ? spare me.

the rabbott just doesn't want to confront the peoples views on this issue, under his raining term...

in other words he'll try every sniveling opportunity to deny the carrying of this bill, pardon the pun, in the time he is in parliament.

...... even if a plebiscite or a referendum is held next parliamentary term, & found to be for the same sex being allowed to marry, bill,,, the time it gets to being passed into law won't be the next term of Parliament,,,, but rather the one after that.

He will delay its execution all he can, as long as he wears that roman cape, & lives inside that cardinals hat.

it won't happen whilst the rabbott is in the parliament. he'll resign, before he has to ratify this bill.