I don't know anybody this would fit.
administrators

There is zero chance that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples. Religious schools already get exemptions to allow them to discriminate against gays, people who are of different religions etc. A Jewish school is allowed to only hire straight, practising Jews.

If the Yes vote carries then the SS marriage legislation will pass before Christmas. The current government cannot afford this issue to drag on through the next election. They’ll be crucified.

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

@Col your footer says it all for me… thanks!

Glad you agree, BM. Kennedy put it very well but it’s a thought that has been voiced by others over the years, including John Stuart Mill. Tolerance of people with whom you disagree means allowing them an opportunity to express their opinion - which in turn allows you an opportunity to refute that opinion.

Intolerance means attempting to close down the opinions of others. That has never been a successful strategy in the long term - as evidenced by the failures of Nazism, communism, Pol Pot and his thugs.

We are seeing quite a lot of intolerance in the public arena at the moment.

administrators

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

OK, why can’t they have a civil ceremony marriage but leave it up to the various Churches to decide if they want to allow it to take place in their church?

And they will.

SS couples will be allowed to choose what kind of ceremony they want as long as the church they choose is happy to perform the service. If they want to get married in a Catholic church and said church doesn’t want to the SS couple will have to go elsewhere.

Businesses will have to abide by anti-discrimination laws.

The ceremony is not the marriage however. Marriage is a legal construct and occurs once the marriage licence is signed. Churches can have as many ceremonies as they like but none will be marriages until the legal papers are signed. This is why I say marriage has nothing to do with religion.

administrators

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

And no I don’t even care about a “slippery slope” - but why shouldn’t the goat fanciers have equal rights?

As soon as bestiality is legal and the goat have informed consent, we can talk about giving goat fanciers equal rights. Until then they are out of luck.

The slippery slope argument is just plain stupid.

The Anglican priest in Albury is actively campaigning for a yes vote.

I figure that this will then extend to offering marriage ceremonies for SS couples when the legislation is passed.

If the vote had of been 10’years ago I would have voted no

I will be voting yes, it will have no effect on my life whatsoever, but will extend to everyone the same rights and protections that I have.

Some of the stories that are emerging on the lack of legal rights that longterm SS partners have is wrong. It needs to be fixed and I’m pissed that the Libs are playing this out as they are.

The reality is, if this change is not passed now, as soon as Labor is returned to power, whether that is at the next election or the one after that or if it takes 20 years before they are back in power, they will bring the change before parliament as their first piece of legislation, and it will pass.

The world is changing, better to be the ones who bring it in than go down as the ones who tried to stop it.

Let’s face it, the churches are scrabbling for customers as it is, I’ll bet it won’t be long before the mainstream religions welcome them with open arms. Some of the fringe will and some won’t.

Naturally I didn’t see it, and because I’m too tight to pay for a vpn we can’t watch it on iView, but apparently Q& A put asked the question whether marriage was a dated concept and should be abolished. Now that’s a decent question!

There was an Israeli opposition politician on the panel. She argues that the legal construct of marriage came about as a means of allowing men to control access to assets and offspring and that this is still very much the case in many parts of the world. She wants marriage to be replaced by some other contract that could exist between any parties that pool resources or share assets - that could be a man and woman, two men, three women, or a whole bunch of people living together. Nothing to do with sex or love. Just an agreement that provides the same protection for all parties without the associated baggage of marriages that comes with people’s ‘traditional’ concepts of what marriage is. Something that many people are struggling with today. They cannot separate the legal from the symbolic.

I believe it will get through, regardless of the plebiscite result, when it does come up the debate will rage with all the pollies trying to get on the band wagon as " Look how tolerant and open minded I AM ’ and their’l all say ‘I was for it from the beginning’. except for pauline and tony of course.

Mr Turnbull will say aren’t we great we gave the people of Australia a say and we listened to them.
Mr Shorten will say we could have fixed this without a costly plebiscite

I do wonder though how the vote would go if it was a ‘secret vote’ on the issue by the pollies.
But then I think all the voting taken in the parliament that concerns motions, should be secret, to stop the blocking of things that would be good for Australia, being blocked on party lines.

last edited by tolovar

@silentC said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

There was an Israeli opposition politician on the panel. She argues that the legal construct of marriage came about as a means of allowing men to control access to assets and offspring and that this is still very much the case in many parts of the world. She wants marriage to be replaced by some other contract that could exist between any parties that pool resources or share assets

That’s a concept I would have difficulty arguing with!

Another cock up , Apparently when you get the Same sex marriage paper , and you have voted , sealed the envelope, hold a torch under the envelope and you can see the vote inside. Also each paper has a unique bar code that can identify you,So much for a secret vote ![alt text](image0_1505365325723_no votessm .jpg url)

@tolovar

Its my belief that the code doesn’t identify anyone, rather it is a unique code to identify the individual paper. Designed to stop people copying their paper and submitting multiple votes. Each code will be only counted once.

People seem happy enough to plaster their voting preferences all over Facebook, so we already know who the arseholes are :D

Churches can refuse anyone now, as it is most individual churches are welcoming of gay members although I have no idea if there are any limits, I would have thought none at the moment. Some churches have openly gay clergy, I suspect they have come out after ordination. We seem in the main to becoming more tolerant, I would have thought going on public comments from the pollies churches will have protections which mean they can refuse a gay marriage, they can certainly refuse a marriage now. They also cannot accept a marriage that contravenes existing laws, so that rules out goats for the foreseeable future. I think I read this week it was legal here up until the 1950’s for a man to marry a 12yo girl. Laws continually evolve and protection of minors and others will probably also change as time goes on. After all we are now more accepting of sexual relationships with the disabled as well as long term relationships. Things swing back and forth, based on our current understanding. However it is poor behaviour when we talk about multiple spouses, beastiality, and other prohibitions likely to become more possible as a result of gay marriage, any changes in those areas could only happen on their own, if worried you would ban marriage altogether and then wouldn’t that just open to door to everyone doing what they want, can’t see that getting legs. The no group seem to saying if we allow things to change in any way the sky will fall in despite the fact there are regular changes to greater protect the community, a convenient truth they ignore.

administrators

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.