Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Peter, Feb 5, 2017.
My view is that he has left his run too late. I am conservative and I have no representation in the federal parliament. Turnbull's Liberals are not a conservative party. My vote has gone to Pauline Hanson's party and I was thrilled to see Malcolm in the senate along with PH. I doubt that Cory Bernardi's brand will translate in other states. But good luck to him.
Well that just brightened my day. Would he like some help filling in the paperwork?
LMAO - When I read the title I thought you meant this guy -
& lets face it he couldn't do any worse than what we have now.
He is procliamed that allowing gay marriages will lead to beastiality, in Parliament on camera
What is to stop those advocating for child sex (Muslims already do this by marrying children) or those advocating for animal sex if the definition of marriage is changed? If marriage is indeed only about 'love'. And the all 'love is equal'?
In my view, it is not nasty to make this claim and I would like to see a public debate on the issue of societal impact of changing the definition of marriage.
I wonder what would happen if 1 or 2 House of Reps Liberals followed him and Turnbull then couldn't survive a vote of confidence without their support.
And this public debate should start by starting a debate that homosexuality will lead to beastiality?
That's like having a national debate of on child protection and having a discussion on at what makes Catholic priest love children so much
I am for a public debate, specifically about the potential and proven societal impacts of changing the definition of marriage. The impacts are wide ranging and could include demands for polygamy, child sex and animal sex if this definition is changed.
But to my basic question, once the definition is changed, by what logic do others such as polygamists, child sex advocates and others get excluded from said sacred love?
I think you are saying that homosexuals will eventually become animal sex deviants. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that changing the definition of marriage will lead those people who have the proclivities for multiple partners, children and animals do not have a barrier to entering the institution of marriage if the definition is changed.
You don't have to answer, but the debate is (in my view) very important.
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love.......there are many marriages of convenience.
It is about one thing and one thing alone.....consent.
Who you marry or how many are married together ...it does not matter as long as all are consenting.
A sheep saying baaaa can not be construed as positive affirmation of a marriage vow.
The the only part of the definition that people are talking about changing involves consenting adults.
The barrier to marrying children or animals is still well and truly there because they're not able to give consent, although you can get married at 16 in Australia, provided it's to someone of the opposite sex, you have permission from your parents and get a judge to give official approval. We're not entirely disapproving of children getting married as things are now, but there are some safeguards there to help protect against exploitation and abuse (although there's nothing to stop that happening outside of an official married relationship).
That consenting adult factor is a very thick line in the sand and, given how much of a big deal it is in this and just about every other area of law, that's where I personally have a problem with the marriage laws not recognizing gay marriage. Not respecting some individuals as having the right to make very personal decisions about their lives means that nobody else's rights are completely safe from the whims of politicians or Joe Random on the street who's never met you and doesn't have anything to do with you or your family or who you fall in love with.
I'm not gay so this doesn't really affect me directly one way or the other, but I find it concerning that the law isn't applied consistently when you really get down to the really basic principles. If people want to think about marriage as being all about love and procreating and God and whatnot, that's all fine and everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but marriage is first and foremost a legal relationship.
Laws that don't apply to everyone equally aren't worth having.
Look, it's worth talking about but you can begin and end "the debate" with the consenting adult and the tests for figuring out who is and who isn't are very simple.
Unless your a Kiwi... baaaa
I think the consenting adults argument is a good one; but marriage is an institution that has been thoroughly trashed by us heterosexuals. I cannot for the life of me understand why delightful and creative gay people want any part of this crumbling institution.
I don't see that polygamy is good for society. My view is that to continue the debate we should agree or expand on the basic reasons for marriage.
The way marriage is now, I posit the following benefits to society/reasons for the institution:
To raise children in a stable family environment;
Public affirmation of the marriage between a man and a woman (thus husband and wife nomenclature);
To celebrate the love and committment between a man and a woman;
To allow the government to interfere in a personal decision by forcing you to register the marriage;
To protect women for the task and time associated with child bearing and rearing;
Happy to expand the list or toss out those which I can be convinced are not a reason or benefit.
I think they should change marriage so that,
Your married only on weekdays
Or every second month
Or weekends only.
It would take alot of pressure off people.
And they would lead richer and more varied lives.
If you want a straw-man for this issue, then polygamy is the one.
Every argument in favor of gay marriage can also be used in favor of polygamy.
DISCLAIMER - Personally, I don't give a turtle what people do in their own lives as long as they aren't asking for extra tax breaks or handouts along with it that the rest of us end up paying for.
Polygamy is not a straw-man. It is being practised in Australia, UK and USA.
It is not legal in Australia.
So what's wrong with polygamy? Mormons and Muslims seem to be quite happy with the arrangement. Also Jack Thompson's former live in lovers.
The State should butt out.
Separate names with a comma.