Same Sex Marriage

Comments

Page 2 of 2 1 2

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  For comparison, consider the following article: 'FactCheck Q&A: is $30 billion spent every year on 500,000 Indigenous people in Australia?' Nicholas Biddle, Dennis Foley, Elise Klein, The Conversation, September 5, 2016 7.25pm AEST My suggestion here is the financial concerns expressed about the same sex marriage survey are questionable. It appears people have few qualms* spending $1 billion per month to pay interest on debt accrued in consequence of ongoing government spending beyond revenue, and few qualms* spending many billions of dollars per annum on seemingly intractable Indigenous Affairs matters, yet at the same time many people express indignation about the cost of conducting a one off postal survey. It appears clear the financial cost of the survey is not really at issue. * By "few qualms", I mean to say it would appear people are insufficiently concerned to actually address the root causes of issues such as these. In some instances it appears preferred to throw endless sums of money at some problems but not others. Is it fair to ask whether such approach to problem solving is appropriate? Is it hoped indigenous issues will magically disappear (by the actions of someone, somewhere, somehow), and the people who pay this money might feel their consciences are clear - and all without making any further personal effort and commitment? It appears decidedly easier and more palatable to devote vast media resources to advocate for same sex marriage than it is to discuss, debate, and/or advocate for indigenous issues. Both communities represent approximately the same proportion of the Australian population. How do the levels of disadvantage in these communities compare? Why does media coverage currently appear to grant the LGBTI community favoured status? Is the media leading or reflecting broader Australian community attitudes?

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  Quoting 'ontology' ...cost of conducting the once-off postal survey (~$120m). This amounts to approximately the same sum our government currently spends every three days on interest payments on debt accrued since 2007...

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  Hi, Where still in the process of deciding what we feel is the correct way to go. Our understanding so far is: 1. Where does it stop? If we vote yes here, what happens when the next minority want to get married? Example such as beastiality or multiple husband/wife marriages or a 40yr old and a 16 yr old, or getting married to objects. What right do we have to tell them no they can’t? Some already legal in certain countries. 2. If that’s the case then will that take away from what marriage means? Will it just become nothing? 3. Will there then be more hate and discrimination to someone who is religious and holds different views? Will priests get fined for not marrying gay couples? Love to here some good arguments for same sex marriage that challenge these. - Posted from rhpmobile

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  1. It stops with people of the same gender can get married. Easy! 2. Marriage will mean what it has always meant- just it can be between two people of the same gender. 3. I understand your concern, there seems to be a bit of a growing community backlash against bigots. Sad but true, the good old days of being an asshole to people based on their sexuality are over. Political correctness means that we all now have to treat gay people like everyone else- even when they're like really gay and shoving it in your face. Priests can actually refuse to marry whoever they want for whatever reasons they want right now- no repercussions, I believe this will not change. I have not yet heard of gangs of rabid yes supporters hanging around church youth groups wanting to go bigot bashing- yet.

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  Quoting 'bitsandbobs2' Hi, Where still in the process of deciding what we feel is the correct way to go. Our understanding so far is: 1. Where does it stop? If we vote yes here, what happens when the next minority want to get married? Example such as beastiality or multiple husband/wife marriages or a 40yr old and a 16 yr old, or getting married to objects. What right do we have to tell them no they can’t? Some already legal in certain countries. 2. If that’s the case then will that take away from what marriage means? Will it just become nothing? 3. Will there then be more hate and discrimination to someone who is religious and holds different views? Will priests get fined for not marrying gay couples? Love to here some good arguments for same sex marriage that challenge these. - Posted from rhpmobile 1. why do we care about polygamous/polyamourous/non-traditional marriage pairings/groupings, as far as the govt needs to worry - it's just an extra set of emergency contacts who have some sort of legal standing in each other's lives. I don't really care if some woman wants to marry her vibrator, or a guy wants to get hitched to a bookcase - but if marriage is defined as consenting parties agreeing to be bound, then you're limited to adult humans, a bookcase can't consent (but could an AI with a gripper arm consent and sign a form?) Why should the govt care if the person who can sign off on stuff on the other person's behalf is male or female? Or whether it's only one person or a bunch? 2. we're on a site full of married swingers. Which traditional church sanctioned marriage definition involves wifey getting railed by 10 guys while hubby gets sucked off by a couple in the kitchen? 3. a religious organisation doesn't have to perform religious ceremonies for simply anyone. I can't rock up to temple and force the rabbi to perform a marriage ceremony for an atheist and a catholic. But I could compel a public servant to process our signed marriage/legal entanglement forms. I think legalising it will normalise it, but I would say that yes there would be more negative sentiment towards people who were against it. But, what would you say if someone said "I don't believe black people should be allowed to get married" or "what happens if we allow interracial marriage? where does it stop? will it mean people who think people must get married to others with similar melanin levels will be targeted?"

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  8 years ago

  Quoting 'gonegirl2017' 1. It stops with people of the same gender can get married. Easy! 2. Marriage will mean what it has always meant- just it can be between two people of the same gender. 3. I understand your concern, there seems to be a bit of a growing community backlash against bigots. Sad but true, the good old days of being an asshole to people based on their sexuality are over. Political correctness means that we all now have to treat gay people like everyone else- even when they're like really gay and shoving it in your face. Priests can actually refuse to marry whoever they want for whatever reasons they want right now- no repercussions, I believe this will not change. I have not yet heard of gangs of rabid yes supporters hanging around church youth groups wanting to go bigot bashing- yet. Not sure if you meant to :) If we accept today's definition of "gender" as what you identify as (which I struggle with), it's already legal, when you think about it. Bill, a male, identifies as male. Mary, a female, also identifies as male. Nothing to stop two people of the same gender getting married. So, is it really about two consenting adults, with TWO the operative word? Or is it about two consenting, UNRELATED adults Funny world innit?

  reply

  like

Page 2 of 2 1 2