M42
Same Sex Marriage
August 21 2017
Comments
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It literally baffles me why it's not already done. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'd ask.... If marriage is about love and nothing else, are you implying love between heterosexual people more valid ?? Is the love between a heterosexual couple more genuine?? If the answer is no to any or both of those, then what exactly is the issue in having homosexual couples married by the same definition as heterosexual couples are currently?? - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I don't want the state involved in marriage at all, the state can keep a register of "civil unions" and I don't care how many people enter into a "civil union" or what sex they are. I don't care if a certain church/religion will only perform a marriage ceremony for certain people - as a religious thing I'm fine with that being their prerogative. Catholic church might only perform a male-to-female marriage ceremony. I'm fine with that. Another group might happily perform a male-male marriage ceremony, I'm fine with that too - hell, even a male-male-female marriage - they're religious things that have no legal standing except as a "feel good". What should matter legally is the civil union. There is too much religious baggage to go with 'marriage', so just shortcut that and leave the word entirely up to groups that want to use it.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
And here's why... Because nobody should care, it shouldn't be an issue at all, why is society so preoccupied with being up in everyone else's business? The fact we have to even debate it is disgusting, and we think we are an intelligent species? - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
makes me so angry that stuffy politicians are deciding whether or not it should be legal. I'm out of the loop without tv, just googled and is there a vote coming up? Well I guess we'll see how many dinosaurs are out in RL, the pollies though I still hold responsible for not changing it years ago. It's a basic human right and shouldn't even need to be put to the vote. I find it all so offensive. Do gay people vote for hetero marriages? I'm so tired of gay phobia. I would really love to get a chance to stand up and speak in front of a parliamentory committee. Ask them what the fuck they've been doing for the last hundred or so years 😏
-
EarthQueen
8 years ago
Of our government that they can't do their job and get this sorted in parliament but instead we have a ludicrous postal vote that's costing an absurd amount of money. Can't wait till it's over and same sex couples have the same options as everyone else. It's ridiculous. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'm against a piece of paper that binds two people together. Oh hang on...... does that mean they can lay claim to me and adjust the way I think freely. Oh yeah I'm into that. Totally into that. 😛 If people feel they need their love to be recognised by the law......... kudos to them. Fuck the law and their stupid rules. IMO. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Every lawyer and law firm in the country are rubbing their hands together with glee. Personally I couldn't care less. It's not the governments business, not the churches and not mine. When I'm king of the world, religion will be banned, (along with golf and horse racing on tv)
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Just get on with it... then LGBT people will start divorcing , just like the straight community.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Amen to that. I'll vote you in as King 👍 All hail King Sailbadthesinner 😜
-
Firery
8 years ago
I just want to know what Tony Abbott is thinking to buy his sister as a Wedding Gift lol.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Exactly, that's how I feel. Why does anyone care? It's bullshit
-
AnnieWhichway
8 years ago
Raised in another platform, the Catholic Church is against same sex marriage. If they applied the same gusto to the subject of priests raping innocent children, the world would be a better place and they could have had a credibility rating above zero. But they don't so they should butt out of the debate
-
teejaylongsword
8 years ago
I have never been into the idea of marriage. Perhaps if I was a wedding dress maker or a wedding cake baker I would feel differently. But many people are into it. Some of those people are gay! Let them get married if they want to. It won't hurt me either way, but might make some of my gay friends happy. Why treat people differently? The church doesn't 'own' marriage. It is now a part of society for religious and non-religious people. Governments shouldn't either - but who would stamp the paperwork? There are civil unions, but the perception is that these are not quite as good as the 'real thing'. The 'fairy tale' element is not fully there. People might ask 'Are you married?' They don't tend to ask 'Are you...um...part of a civil union?' Let them have it anyway. Inclusiveness is best. It's a YES from me
-
karma_kid
8 years ago
It's a basic human right to love who you want to. There shouldn't be a discussion about it should just be done. They want to vote on this subject, but announced they'd back the US in any conflict with NK, no need to vote on that though!! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Get on with it... and if we have to do this stupid post thing... get out an say YES!
-
Sawadee
8 years ago
I'm not gay or bi sexual , so I don't have a direct interest whatsoever. But my attitude is always the same. Whatever ppl do in their life is their business alone , not mine nor anybody else's. I don't even know why you would bother to want to marry anyway. Just except what you and your partner want from life and live and let live...
-
RHP User
8 years ago
people want to show a commitment to each other its their business, Gay, Straight, TV,TS.... who should be able to tell them they can't marry and be happy? Some people get married and live happily together, and some dont. Its an individual choice and can work for many people. Not sure about the "Non Binary" gender, though. By not identifying as male or female, it would be a very complicated ceremony of sorts.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
As i am about to post on Facebook. If you plan to vote no, unfriend me now because frankly i don't wish to associate myself with people who don't share my values. I don't care why they want to vote no, i will never agree with their shit excuses so they can fuck off. I am actually in a group in my area that over the last few years has brought upon a lot of change with the Liberal candidate in our area. She has since become soft & didn't cross the floor when she should have. As a consequence, i can say with confidence that she will not be re-elected. We have worked hard along with people in Canberra & this postal vote is a real kick in the teeth. The court proceedings are going ahead & with any luck they will stopped with their stupid ideas of wasting more or our tax payer dollars. So, in short. Worse comes to worse re: court case.. I will be voting YES
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Not having same sex marriage or acknowledgement, i think is more discriminating to heterosexual couples. As gay couples cant write a partner down on loan application or government benefits as a liability, ultimately receive more money. I dont support same sex marriage as in my eyes marriage is between a man and woman. Tho civil unions should be legally recognised the same as marriages. Marriage (hetrosexual) Civil union (homosexual) Equality is exceptinh different things, not saying they the same thing - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Just get it done. With all the negative bullshit in the world we need to celebrate my love. These fucktard pollies need a massive kick up the ass - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I saw my younger brother while he was travelling and he told me he didn't support marriage equality. I was gobsmacked; he's a gay man. I was so stunned that I couldn't take in his reasoning and even now can't remember how he explained his thinking. On the gripping hand, there's a perverse part of me that sometimes enjoys making heads explode. I find myself having to resist the urge, when asked, to reply that I'm not going to vote "yes" in the plebiscite (or "no," depending on who's asking...). I'm not eligible to vote, but it's so tempting to just not explain that part and see how people react... Sigh. I can be a complete ass sometimes.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Its one thing to talk about same sex marriage but where do we go with all of those that do not recognise the male and female gender at all🤔 - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
You say> "I dont support same sex marriage as in my eyes marriage is between a man and woman" That's you're reason? Guessing you're religious? Catholic by any chance? I am btw but not proud to say that. If not religion then wtf. Hang on, IF religion wtf Why is it only acceptable to you between a man and a woman? The ONLY reason it is in society, is because we allow the country to be run by fucking morons Okay, here's the thing dude. If I was in love with a woman and wanted to marry her only to be told I couldn't, to have that decision taken away from me, I'd be fucking furious. I really think this is gay phobia. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to go, I need a really strong coffee 😏 I have a very big problem with these decisions being made by men, predominantly and historically that is. Stuffy, old fashioned gay phobic liars, that'll do for now
-
RHP User
8 years ago
good points raised about those not identified as one gender or the other, they too should be free to marry whoever they like and to keep society happy 😏 identify themselves however they like
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I was once asked my opinion on this....by someone I didn't know at all .... to be told by that person that my opinion didn't matter because I was a heterosexual privileged white make So I'm pretty much over the subject and it should just be done, and we can move on to other matters of national and economic significance. (if Wong/Gillard/Shorten did it years ago when they promised they would instead of playing politics with it, we wouldn't be here, now... so their hypocrisy hasn't helped). But..... I WOULD like clarification on WHO can marry written into legislation (ie... only between two non related individual humans..... not polygamy, not incest, not underage, not arranged, not married to a car etc)
-
LetsFrolic
8 years ago
Regardless right? So if they want to get married then let them.. whos it hurting.. theyll get taxed more and people make more off their ceremonies. They get a piece of paper. Who cares. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Seachange73
8 years ago
I respect your decision to vote whatever your ideology or belief dictates. However I still don't accept why the definition of marriage should be limited to heterosexual couplings. These definitions and laws were designed by men (general and literal) reflecting their generation's religious beliefs and social norms. the emphasis is on the laws drawn up my people for reflecting the acceptable current beliefs of the masses. Working on that premise, it should also be applicable for these laws and the constitution to be amended by the lawmakers to make it more inclusive to accommodate the needs and wants of the current mix of the masses they represent. They do it all the time. I will vote YES because I have personally witnessed the discrimination my gay friends and family have been subjected to as second class citizens. The choice to marry should be between people/adults who truly believe that the choice of marriage is for them, whether for love or whatever reason. No different from choices presented to heterosexual couples. Giving my gay friends the choice to marry does not hurt me nor threaten my way of life nor my children. If anything, it will surely increase the level of happiness in our community. Having a less depressed society is always good for everyone. Just miffed that if the government had the balls for it, they could have resolved this in the parliament rather than passing the bucket. The money spent for this plebiscite would have been better spent on more worthy causes Luke housing and healthcare for the homeless and giving lots of disadvantaged people help via free education and training. Thus improving their opportunities to secure a job and breaking the cycle of poverty and depression. unfortunately not gonna happen. Resounding YES for me.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' I was once asked my opinion on this....by someone I didn't know at all .... to be told by that person that my opinion didn't matter because I was a heterosexual privileged white make So I'm pretty much over the subject and it should just be done, and we can move on to other matters of national and economic significance. (if Wong/Gillard/Shorten did it years ago when they promised they would instead of playing politics with it, we wouldn't be here, now... so their hypocrisy hasn't helped). But..... I WOULD like clarification on WHO can marry written into legislation (ie... only between two non related individual humans..... not polygamy, not incest, not underage, not arranged, not married to a car etc) you'd fall foul of those who'd argue "all love is equal" ! Some are more equal than others, huh. Inclusivity has it's limits - even for those who seek change to the prevailing conditions.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I haven't heard a convincing argument for opposing marriage equality yet. If you don't agree then that's your right and good luck to you as Australia is a free country. I have a hard time with if I should unfriend people who don't agree as our values will be polar opposites. A large part of me wants to but also a part of me accepts that people don't agree on everything so why should this be different. What are people's thoughts on that ? Cheers, W. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Postal vote or plebiscite, I can't see any in Parliament that are currently voting no, changing their vote to yes, if any official poll gave a resounding yes, let alone a close one. As many have stated, they are both non binding, so I will assume it will be a waste of time and money telling them what they already know about the public support, and no matter the result, not making any change regarding politicians personal interests. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Democracy apparently 😏
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'issaac'I dont support same sex marriage as in my eyes marriage is between a man and woman. Tho civil unions should be legally recognised the same as marriages. Marriage (hetrosexual) Civil union (homosexual) ugh no, don't create MORE categories, call it all the same thing, and something without any religious baggage - even if it's as romantic as being "legally entangled". It's between a person and person (though, why shouldn't multiple people be able to be recognised?) Then the govt gets a form filled out, and they can fuck right off out of whatever nice name they want to call the ceremony they do.The government doesn't need to have any thing to with a marriage ceremony, whether i call it a marriage or any other term.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad'But..... I WOULD like clarification on WHO can marry written into legislation (ie... only between two non related individual humans..... not polygamy, not incest, not underage, not arranged, not married to a car etc) by arranged you mean "coerced and not entered into by their own free will"? Why not polygamy? Why not incest? I've zero desire to bang a relative, but we already have laws protecting minors, why should adults who love each other be prevented from freely choosing to marry? You just argued that it was wrong that two adults wanting to get married are prevented from doing so. We don't genetically screen every prospective parent and prevent them from marrying if they have a hereditary condition or shit genes in general, yet that is the rationale oft cited behind anti-incest laws.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Why not incest? I've zero desire to bang a relative, but we already have laws protecting minors, why should adults who love each other be prevented from freely choosing to marry? You just argued that it was wrong that two adults wanting to get married are prevented from doing so. We don't genetically screen every prospective parent and prevent them from marrying if they have a hereditary condition or shit genes in general, yet that is the rationale oft cited behind anti-incest laws. it's already perfectly legal to marry your cousin (not sure if that varies by state?)
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Yes for me. And yes from my 86 year old mum. Why does Australia always have to be a backward country? Pusscat xxx
-
Dirtyandfriendly
8 years ago
I have no opinion to the subject other than do what makes people happy, we don't live in the day and age of segregation and laws against being gay. I think there are more pressing matters that need attention than this. Just get on with life and stop the hate. I do however find it ironic that the yes group are talking about freedoms and rights and choice etc. what I've seen online and in person with hateful speeches they are displaying is a little disgraceful, people have a right to their opinion and although I don't agree with it it is still theirs to have.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Yes, agree. Go your Mum btw 👍
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Respect your opinion and yes, I can see what you mean. The problem is we need to care less/care more? We need to get angry. The lie down and take it approach hasn't worked, that's the way our country is, we throw our hands in the air, knowing most of the time the government has it's own agenda. They don't care about these issues, they care about getting voted back in, so aim to please the majority for that reason alone, care factor zero for the sub group of people who are affected by it. Wars were never won by lying down and being nice. Fight the fights that are worth fighting, this fight is in my opinion worth fighting for, and I don't have a vested interest, only in humanity and basic human rights. Anyway, like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, and others. Just that it's not as simple as purely stating the case, least that's the way I feel 😃
-
RHP User
8 years ago
This is such a non-issue, I have ask what's going on behind the smokescreen?
-
Kulturalove
8 years ago
Just make it legal already i say. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Why not....it's 2017 - let the same sexers share some of the pain!!!! ☺️☺️ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Sawadee
8 years ago
Gotta agree with your setiments.. Stirs me up when I see a hostile approach to further the cause also. Even though I somewhat understand this situation it doesn't stop me feeling uncomfortable. Just as the gay community accept a man and woman relationship ,I'd say the majority of the community are just as fair minded who accept gay relationships for those comfortable in the lifestyle and are happy to live and let live.. But by becoming aggressive ' this only causes other males in the community to automatically go into the alert mode. The old fight or flight thing . Hence this is seen as not tolerant when it is only a natural reaction.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I can't see what the big deal is about stopping same sex from getting married. I mean in this day and age, where the "church" no longer dictates our lives, why can't two, three or more people who love each other formalised it? Marriage. Civil union. What the difference? It's all about fucking govt bodies recognising that union. And religion has absolutely no place in politics!! I fucking hate religious hypocrites. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it states in the bible, "Love thy fellow man" is another catch phrase. They forget to mention the caveat that only if you worship at their church do those phrases have any meaning. Let them get married, how does it affect anyone else? - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
What peeves me off is that the government is spending $120,000 of our tax payers money on asking what Australia want. FFS have the balls to say yes & move on. That money can be spent on other urgent things.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I think marriage is about love not ones sex. ABC online looked at that bible as many of those against say it's in thr bible. There are many lines talking about marriage but it's based on the Old Testament and more about Jews law. I will state I was a staunch Roman Catholic but my marriage ended years ago when my ex came out. At first it hurt a lot then I realised the courage she had to walk away after several years and two children. We now have a great relationship as she is happier. So if two people want to use a old and outdated ideal sure let them have it because many of us now don't really worry. Let's give all equality and let's forget about gender. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Just get it done I say, stopcock the dam tom foolery and do it. Love is love and so it should be that no matter what gender you are you should no must have the same rights, period. As for the frock wearing pervert aka catholic clergy, and their leaders get the hell out of this and perhaps sort out your own mess before you try and enforce your bigoted an horrible so called laws. Oops nuff said
-
RHP User
8 years ago
When will politicians finally do what we all vote them in/pay them to do? Introduce what the majority want and legislate around it. This postal vote from my understanding is a huge waste of money and totally non binding. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I was raised in a catholic household, my mother was an Irish catholic and she wanted her children to be raised in the teachings of the Roman Church. I ended up in a Roman Catholic boarding school and we were relentlessly taught that marriage was between a man and a woman and that homosexuality was a sin. As I grew up and started to have sexual thoughts and feelings, I was told that this was sinful and that anything I did to myself or others by means of gratification was a sin against god. That was it for me, if god is all seeing and all doing and it gave me these feelings, I'll be (quite literally) buggered if I'm going to be sent to hell for acting on them. There is a long road ahead to deal with all the uptight, sexually repressed sods that believe that gay marriage will herald the end of the world, but by jiminy, I'm going to be walk that road too. Being ever so slightly bi-curious, I say fuck the haters, love the lovers and try and feel up those in between! Vote YES!
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I have intentionally not listened to debate or media as my mind is made up, but is this postal vote heavily favoured to the no team or is it just me? I mean, I'm 28 and generally speaking, most of my vintage would vote yes but have probably changed address a few times and probably wouldn't have updated details with electoral commission. And I don't know anyone my age who posts anything as it's 2017 and everything can be done electronically almost instantly. politics is the worst. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
What a waste of tax payers money, just make it legal to marry whom you want without spending millions on paper and postage. Its a fiasco! Love no matter whether same sex or hetro is not about a legal binding law or document, its about commitment and a want to join with another forsaking all others and to care for each other in a union that is sanctioned by yourselves. No other living person on earth has the right to deny your wish to this with the person you love. People who oppose same sex marriage have clearly not been involved with a family member whom is gay and been forced to live a lie to hide their true selves. Its a hideous and heinous crime in my opinion to prevent two people of the same sex to declare their love to the world and not receive everyone's blessing for their future happiness together. People whom oppose this are just fkn bastards and l feel do not truly understand the true meaning of love! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Unscratcheditch' I have intentionally not listened to debate or media as my mind is made up, but is this postal vote heavily favoured to the no team or is it just me? I mean, I'm 28 and generally speaking, most of my vintage would vote yes but have probably changed address a few times and probably wouldn't have updated details with electoral commission. And I don't know anyone my age who posts anything as it's 2017 and everything can be done electronically almost instantly. politics is the worst. - Posted from rhpmobileIt's certainly not purely by chance that they've decided to do a postal vote. Nothing this govt does is by chance, everything they do is carefully calculated and designed to benefit them and the outcomes that they want. They also knew very well that holding a plebiscite would mean that a whole lot of vile, defamatory, and derogatory anti-gay propaganda would start being distributed - which it has been and is being - and of course they say that it's perfectly fine for this to happen in the interests of a 'balanced' debate. Can pretty much guarantee that even if they yes vote gets up, they'll come up with various reasons why they still can't change the legislation. This plebiscite is just another in a long line of shitty decisions by the bunch of immoral , hypocritical, corrupt, dishonest, ignorant, arrogant shitgibbons who are currently making a complete mess of our country.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us lol
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Doesn't make sense to me?? Also, marriage is not a religious thing, it existed before the zombie Jesus partied with his 12 male mates 😂 On a serious note, the issue for the law makers is how to deal with the descrimination cases. Me? I'm pro SSM. Why? Because who someone lives is none of my business. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Two people in love should have no problems in getting married. Same sex opposite sex doesn't matter. Beats the hell out of blowing each other up for religion.
-
Crazysexycool72
8 years ago
Look at the end of the day if you need a piece of paper to validate your love for someone then your messed up. Just love the person you love and be happy. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I cant understand why Australia has not allowed it already. And i dont understand why they need a survey. Politicians have been elected and the parliamentary system is in place exactly to handle things like this where a minority needs voice. Ridiculous - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Seachange73
8 years ago
How does believing in marriage or the piece of paper make you messed up? That logic is messed up. Lol. Maybe you can expand further. Some of the really great level headed people I know are married. it's a choice, not a mental illness. I may not want to remarry again but I'm not labelling people messed up for having a go.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It's a non issue unless you're a religious freak. Some people are gay, always have been, always will be, and marriage is a human right. That's it. That's all. It's a huge "nothing" but this government has made it a huge "something" and it makes me sad. Needless to say I'm all for same sex marriage. Love is love. ❤️ It baffles me how we make issues out of nothing. This is why intelligent life forms from other planets won't visit us.....too dumb. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
taurusgal72
8 years ago
To anyone against, I ask u this. Imagine yourself at the hospital trying to visit your ill partner that is in intensive care. The hospital and partners parents have refused you entry and the right to make decisions on behalf of your partner because they don't recognise that you are married. How would that make you feel? Just a piece of paper people have said? At this point Yep thats all it is. Back before 2004 it meant more. That's all the community wants. Recognition. Equality. Not have rights taken away. Cause that scenario I just gave above can become a reality. Yes there are laws from being de factos but they only go so far. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Ive not really seen any debate at all? I saw one disgraceful poster on FB someone reposted to highlight how despicable it was. Ive read a few comments on articles but apart from that Ive seen nothing really? And I don't think i am deliberately avoiding it?? No one is really talking about it, except that it is a outrageous waste of money. Personally I think the liberals should be sacked for gross misappropriation of funds. What have they done really? Zero.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Kudos to those against gay marriage who decided to respectfully post their views while likely knowing they'd be in the minority. I think it would serve the rest of us not to slam them for their opposing views, and keep terms like religious freaks to ourselves. Agreed. Its funny how there is often an expectation that *tolerance* only runs in one direction.... from the people most frequently preaching tolerance.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Started to write but realized my comments would be hijacked and twisted beyond recognition. It's a touchy subject and democracy the biggest loser.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Everyone has the right to chose the partner they want to be with same sex or not don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the lgbt community causing so much fuss about it and causing each and every tax payer every time they protest go to court and now a federally funded referendum. lots of couples out there living in defacto relationships with all the rights of married people so why not just settle for that perhaps its because lgbt people deep inside need to justify that what their doing is completely against nature and the way evolution created us there a reason why men have a penis and women have a vagina cause that's the way its meant to be...so what happens when a gay or lesbian couple wants children...not possible unless they use a surrogate or adopt and even in extreme cases buy a child...a child has the right to have a mother and a father in the biological and traditional sense and its unfair of anyone adult to deny them of that right.Lgbt people should get over their petty and know socially disruptive and expensive attempt at drawing attention to their selfish need for justification and understand that the wider public accepts their difference but doesn't necessarily agree with it...
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' Its funny how there is often an expectation that *tolerance* only runs in one direction.... from the people most frequently preaching tolerance. that people are required to respect and tolerate others' opinions, no matter what. That is a fallacy. Sure, people have the right to hold and express their opinions, but they don't have any right to expect that those opinions will be tolerated and respected by everyone else (and yes of course that does go both ways). I have absolutely no problem in stating that I have zero tolerance for an organisation like the Catholic Church to be dictating and preaching how consenting adults live their lives and what rights they should have, when they are openly protecting and enabling child molesters within their ranks and have been doing so for years. Not to mention their hypocrisy and greed in many other areas, and the immense social damage they have caused throughout history. I'm not going to say that I dislike or will judge every individual Catholic person, but I have absolutely no time or respect for the Catholic Church as an organisation. Oh, and it's also high time that they and other religious organisations started paying taxes, this free ride rubbish is really getting old. I also have no problem stating that I have zero tolerance for comments like sxytrippa's above, which is full of numerous fallacies and appeals to emotion with no basis in actual evidence. I'm not going to address all of his comments, but I will employ my own appeal to emotion and state that I don't think having a biological mother and father is doing or has done much good for the thousands of children who are being starved, sexually abused, physically abused, emotionally abused, and killed by their heterosexual parents in their 'stable and loving' home environments.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I don't think it's right. "Everyone has the right to chose the partner they want to be with..." It's a lovely sentiment. Love love happy love don't question me... Some cultures practice this with 9 year olds and they're not allowed to question it either. There are people married to goats. And pillows. Fully legal like. It was supposed to be a man and a woman (not being religious). Once you broaden it beyond that, you have to broaden it to everything. 1950s could never have tolerated now. By 2036 harems of prepubescent children will be legal. How do you feel about that? All so you can feel proud about where you put your dick.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Don't confuse the marriage debate with the children debate. People get married and don't have kids all the time (some people don't want kids, and some people marry after having had kids already). Lots of people have kids and never get married. Whether same sex couples can marry has got little to do with whether or not they will or won't have children or why. If a couple wants children, hetereosexual or otherwise, they are going to have them, married or not. Single parents raise children all the time without the other biological parent's help, and I know of single individuals that have adopted children. Surrogates and other methods are used too by heterosexual couples who otherwise can't have children. There are shitloads of male/female couples who abuse or cannot give a crap about caring for their children properly, and lots of available, loving homes for them if you allow various parent types. You should be judging people as to whether they are capable and loving parents, and not what dangly bits happen to be in their pants. I'm happy to hear and welcome different opinions if you have have a supportive argument for them. But I don't have time for arguments that are essentially "it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong". Evidence please. But credit for referring to evolution and not some religious text :) But see how far I've easily strayed from the marriage question?
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Intimations' Some cultures practice this with 9 year olds and they're not allowed to question it either. There are people married to goats. And pillows. Fully legal like. It was supposed to be a man and a woman (not being religious). Once you broaden it beyond that, you have to broaden it to everything. 1950s could never have tolerated now. By 2036 harems of prepubescent children will be legal. Ahhh the old slippery slope argument. The argument is about whether the marriage act is to be changed to allowed any two adults (ie two consenting humans over 18) to marry. How is that supposed to lead to people having harems of children or pillows? Why do you then have to broaden it to everything? Huh? (Scratches head)... When are the majority of Australians going to support legal marriage to harems of children or pillows? But you are correct, it was supposed to be man and woman, for the purposes of identifying property and inheritance. I guess they should have broadened it to everything back then too, so their pillows can inherit their other belongings when then they die :P Remember voting? It was supposed to be just caucasian men. The slippery slope argument against widening voting rights back then, was because it would then lead to natives, women, children, babies, ducks and cows voting.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
We better not have a debate about dropping the legal driving age by a year. Because that might lead to young teenagers and babies and cats and dogs and trees and pillows being allowed to drive! You do realise laws have limits, you can change a law to a new limit and not abolish all limits altogether? Marriage is a human made construct and in legal systems a law that was made arbitrarily with limits to include only certain gender combinations, of a certain age, and as it originally happened only of certain ethnicities. What is or isn't classified as a marriage is only what any one particular society decides, only over time in certain societies and religions did it become a representation of a loving adult male/female partnership (including between different ethnicities which was similarly a big deal for some at the time). The argument in this and other countries is about the legal and symbolic recognition of a committed relationship between two consenting adults. It has little to do with what some random country or society or isolated tribal group has decided to use the word marriage for. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Yes, yes and yes. Nicely put 👍
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I'm a little stunned at some of these comments, a penis and a vagina is required, harems of children and parenting? lol Thanks to LD and countrytouch for taking the time to respond. Hard to know how to respond to those kinds of attitudes, though a reminder who I'm not looking for as a partner 😎
-
OzRednecks
8 years ago
I dont have a problem with who loves who and wanting a legal wedding ceremony and marriage. Go for it.I do have a problem with the huge cost of the voting that may not even impact the law anyway (thought the country was in debt?). They could get a 90% yes vote and is that a guarantee that the government will then legalise same sex marriage? I have quite a few gay friends. I dont give a damn about their sexual preferences. I care about the person they are.Note that all of my gay friends dont even want to get married. Lol. But they do want the choice. While we are so focused on this vote, what else is going on that gets nil attention (ie: media coverage) because we are all occupied on the same sex marriage debate? Even though my vote will be a yes vote to same sex marriage, I do believe that everyone has the right to their own opinion. I have noticed on a few sites that anyone that does say that they dont agree with it, they get attacked, abused, bullied, labeled and judged, just from having a different view. Thats sad really. They are entitled just like everyone else.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I find it difficult to comprehend how an otherwise good person can be so cruel as to actively want to deny other good people from equal rights and happiness, for an issue that would have absolutely no impact on their lives whatsoever. I also find it just a little humourous how some anti-SSM people use the "nature" argument. Monogamy and marriage itself is not natural. I have no problem with people having their religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't impact on the happiness of others. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Stupid act government spends $130 million on having a vote on something that over 90% of Australian people believe should of happened decades ago! I don't know about , I just think our fucked in the head politicians are too worried about there own back pocket rather then giving the people what they want. The problem with civil unions is they hold the same weight as regestering your dog. I also believe this just helps to descriminate against people. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I know, and I agree with you that the way an opinion is expressed has a lot to do with it. I suppose to further clarify what I meant (I was a little pissed off when I posted that last night as was probably obvious ), is that there is a widespread misconception these days that people need to have their opinions respected even when those opinions are based on things that are completely factually inaccurate, full of logical fallacies etc. Which is what I've seen in all the arguments against SSM (yes, legalising SSM in Australia means that people are going to start marrying goats and pillows FFS). If somebody expresses their opinion against SSM (or anything else we don't agree on) in a reasonably polite way and doesn't resort to insulting terms and generalisations, then I'm not going to let fly and let them have it. However, I still won't respect their opinion, just as I'm sure they won't respect mine. Another example - an anti-vaxxer can express their opinion about why vaccinations are dangerous, cause autism, etc. in the most polite and respectful way, and although I won't abuse them or personally attack them, I will never, ever respect their opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make, if that makes sense. Finally, for anyone who wants a good laugh today and is pro SSM I recommend googling 'bridge & groom: the slippery slope of same sex marriage'
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Sorry Meander, just saw that you had already mentioned the bridge and groom love story
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Quoting 'Meander I would love to marry my pillow. obsessed with White Magnums. I would seriously considering marrying one of those...
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I fully support SSM. I can see no logical reason not to. No, I do not support marrying pillows, bridges or (sorry Luck_Dragon) white magnums, but damn they are good. This is not logical and would not ever be added to the marriage act. I will stand side by side with all of my brothers and sisters who show respect and treat others well, regardless of their faith, race, sexual orientation... In the words of a great human, "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite." - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Keep marriage how it is. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It's not any of my business or concern as a heterosexual- so we should not be able to disagree with it - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Just let them get married why should hetrosexuals be the only ones aloud to be miserable all there lives lol (joke).......seriously whats the big deal just legalize it. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Let me say from the get go that when my voting form arrives in the mail I will be voting YES but unlike most people I seem to have a pretty balanced view on this debate and can see past the hysteria. - Like I said I will be voting yes but I accept people will have their own valid opinions on opposing it and I certainly won't de-friend people who have a different view to me. How is a religious persons belief/love of their god and their teachings any less real then a same sex couples love of each other. Pure homophobia is definitely not a valid reason though. - Australia is a backward country for not already allowing SSM?? Of the 195 countries that make up this world only 22 have legislation recognizing SSM. - The majority of the population think this should have happened decades ago?? This debate hasn't even been in the limelight for decades plus The Netherlands were the first country to legislate SSM on 21/12/2001, hardly decades ago. - It's all the current right-wing Liberal governments fault that we don't already have SSM, the SSM debate has been on the table since the Rudd/Gillard days and Julia openly stated she didn't want to change the current marriage laws. - Yes the money being spent on the plebiscite and now postal vote could be much better spent on other things but this is the policy the Liberal government took to the last election, which they won.... just. - A postal vote is not binding so it's a waste of time. Correct a postal vote isn't binding however several anti SSM polies have stated if the postal vote comes back yes they will either just be absent when the bill is voted on, vote on the result from their individual electorate or will vote change their vote to yes because the people have spoken. Even if a few rogue MPs still vote no it will basically becomes a free vote then and will 99.9% still pass. - We're having a postal vote to favour the no voters??? We're having a postal vote because the Labor/Greens won't support the plebiscite and to his credit Turnball wants to be the PM that legalises SSM and this is his only option now as the Liberal far-right faction won't allow a free vote. - To the person who said a postal vote discriminates against the younger generation who are more likely to vote yes because they've probably moved several times and not updated their details with the AEC, you're legally required to update your details with the AEC when you move, if you haven't that's on you not the government. While I agree a vote whether a plebiscite or a postal vote isn't the ideal way to go about this, the positive is when the result comes back as a resounding YES the NO campaigners will have no choice but to STFU. Where a simple parliamentary vote will allow them to argue the government folded to a vocal minority of PCer's and majority of people were against it. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I get it that older generations are potentially not feeling it ,it was a different era and say 60+for me,get a "walk" on this one but for fucksake put this question behind us ,iwets hard enough as it is ,we are all here together trying to work out what its all about,i think at a minimum courtesy we could universally acknowlege that love transcends all - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I think if the postal vote is a resounding yes then many no campaigners will claim fake news. I actually respect no votes if they have a believable middle ground reason for it. However some of the anti SSM views are so seriously extreme or so hilariously ludicrous that one could think they have to be doing more damage to the no case than good. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I don't agree with the public voting for such issues. It's a waste of tax payers money. Politicians don't have the balls or are afraid of losing votes so why not let the people vote on it. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It's a yes from me and I hope all Australians vote that way! My concern is there is still a lot of closed minded ignorant racist people out there so what if it comes back as a no......... - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
more interested in if we can have a postal vote on the perks and pays of our so called "leaders".... bet that'll never happen though.. bunch of crooks the lot of them.. 😡😡 - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
My thoughts: * Australia was the second country in the world to give women the right to vote (technically the colony of South Australia) just behind New Zealand. But it looks like we will be one of the last to cease discrimination... Oh how far we have fallen. * it appears the only people that are in the no camp are unaffected by the outcome... How ironic * Religions are exempt from most laws in this country (Discrimination and Taxation to name a couple) so why would they not remain exempt from marriage equity... * This is not going away. If the postal waste of time and money doesn't get up it will just become another issue for the next election. The silly thing is that if it does get up the government still doesn't have to act... * and finally a big thank you to everyone for the respectful debate and discussion.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
I totally agree with you !!!!! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
jandr4fun
8 years ago
https://youtu.be/khLEbeV400M - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It's ok to say NO. Don't feel pressured or bullied to say yes! Freedom of speech works both ways remember! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
8 years ago
It's a yes from us. Justjules05 - Posted from rhpmobile
-
happiestcpl
8 years ago
Sorry but freedom of speech should not always go both ways, it is sad to see this is even open to discussion in a nation that is considered to be developed. Shall we freely start talking about stripping people off their basic human rights based on their gender, race etc. then?
-
Dryphuz
8 years ago
and i'm not religious. I cant be bothered going through the whole thread, but i assume there must be some though, otherwise there'd be no reason for the vote... Unless we don't have seperation of church and country here... "Yes" for me of course. And 20 years late at least. Marrying inanimate objects i dont object to either so long as for tax and legal purposes they are still considered single. People shouldn't get tax breaks or welfare bonuses (or penalties) for marrying a dakimura or sexdoll or bicycle etc.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
For what its worth here is my thoughts. Should I vote no based on religion? Raised a catholic I should probably say no. Alas religion also taught me not to hurt others. Mmmm I joined the defence force, guess I blew that one apart. The fact is times have changed yet the gay community fior so long hidden away from the general population are loud and proud yet still discriminated against. Why cant we simply move on a let people be themselves. Fair to say its not my scene, but I do work with a few gay blokes and omg they are not weird they are just average blokes out working for a living. Good blokes at that. Why should they not be afforded the same opportunities as the rest of us. Love is love in any form. Remember we thought the world was flat once. Space travel was for the comics. LIfe moves on and we change and adapt so why do we still hold such narrows views on certain subjects. Get over it I say. So guys and gals use your vote wisely. Also we should not judge others on the way they decide to vote as it is a personal choice and mine will be a resounding YES vote and that is one small step for mankind towards acceptance and equality. If I can change my attitude during my life time on this matter then there is hope. As a side note I thought of a way to become a millionare, become a marriage celebrant and advertise gay marriages only, should be booked out for a while, maybe. Lol tongue in cheek.
-
Smilingwithfun
8 years ago
"I disapprove of what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Attributed to Voltaire but actually written by Evelyn Hall. That a debate as important as this gets mired down in Vitriol. I have to say my favourite was i will unfriend you on Facebook, My, how times have changed
-
Seachange73
8 years ago
Although I will vote YES, I will accord the same level of respect to anyone who votes NO. It is just as imperative that we respect other people's wishes, beliefs and lifestyle for us to truly fulfil our rights as free willing and civilised people of our democracy. Anything else would be hypocritical. I'm all for mindful debate and learning. after all, this is how we can grow as a society. consensus is not bad, but so is diversity.
-
Seachange73
8 years ago
Although I will vote YES, I will accord the same level of respect to anyone who votes NO. It is just as imperative that we respect other people's wishes, beliefs and lifestyle for us to truly fulfil our rights as free willing and civilised people of our democracy. Anything else would be hypocritical. I'm all for mindful debate and learning. after all, this is how we can grow as a society. consensus is not bad, but so is diversity.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Have voted yes.But pissed off that I and the rest of us had to do so in the first place!The same sex marriage vote is a joke and a complete waste of money.How dare we (speaking as a straight married guy) think we should impose our will on others and say no.It shouldn't even be debated, it's a right that should be accepted. My best man at my wedding (all those years ago) is gay.Why should he not be able to enjoy the same? Looking forward to moving on and watching the sky fall on our heads.
-
RHP User
8 years ago
Many have expressed concern and/or disgust at the cost of conducting the once-off postal survey (~$120m). This amounts to approximately the same sum our government currently spends on interest payments on debt accrued since 2007. It is also just a fraction of the sum our government spends in grants, subsidies and tax breaks to prop up flawed and/or failing business models and social policy initiatives. The same sex marriage issue directly concerns approximately 3% of the Australian population (though it does also indirectly impact everyone) and has occupied and consumed vast hours and column inches of media coverage and discussion. By contrast, whilst Australia's indigenous population represents a similar proportion of our population, they garner vastly less concerted media attention, or passionate discussion and debate in the community. Interestingly, many have called for parliament to take the initiative and make an 'executive decision' in respect of same sex marriage, yet when parliaments have sought to do precisely this in respect of the indigenous community, they have been roundly criticised. The quantum of total taxpayer spending each year on initiatives pertaining to indigenous issues exceeds by far the sum spent on the same sex marriage issue. How do people here reconcile in-principle differences in approach to the levels of attention and finance devoted to each of these issues? Are people satisfied to spend large sums on indigenous issues in preference to personally engaging, thinking on, and discussing solutions to complex matters, or are indigenous issues relegated to the 'too hard basket' simply because fewer people personally know and feel 'invested' in matters pertaining to indigenous people as compared to LGBTI people?
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15120 Comments: 88165
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10236
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2520 Comments: 11667
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9766
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1006 Comments: 5246
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1303 Comments: 5782
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 782 Comments: 1992
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 867
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share