[POLL]Bring it On, Same Sex Marriage result by xmas

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Court Jester, Aug 8, 2017.

?

Do you Support Changing the marrage act in support of same sex couples.

  1. Yes

    37.8%
  2. No

    62.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Holdfast

    Holdfast Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    9,488
    Likes Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Transfer of wealth.

    Some pension funds are extinct when a person dies unless they are married. This is going to cost the Australian Tax payer billions of $$$

    It's a religious tradition.

    Nature shows the path.

    Marriage between and Man and a Woman is a ceremony only for a Man and a Woman.

    If we continually erode away laws, soon you will be chasing your tail.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
    Seven of nine and Silver bullitt like this.
  2. madaw1

    madaw1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Great Western Country
    I'm just wondering why the politician brought this voting/ cost around 120mln AUD/ to the people?!!! They never ask anyone for example /no voting YES or NO/ on their remuneration. Pure democracy.lol
     
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,647
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    yennus, the capacity to argue logically and with reason is a quality that all humans should develop. In the same way we should seek to display or embrace other qualities that help us to aspire to Good Person status, such as compassion, honesty, a good work ethic, thrift, enhancing our cognitive skills etc, the benefits of which for both individuals and to society being quite obvious.

    Relying on logical fallacies such as the slippery slope, ad hominem, appeal to authority and others as a justification for one's position means that the conclusions that one arrives at are weak because they are built upon shaky ground. This means they are
    open to attack from counter-arguments, either in the form of other logical fallacies, or those structured upon reason and more rationally arrived at conclusions. Far better to avoid relying on such fallacies which only result in a flimsy defence and instead argue the points at hand, rationally and logically.
     
  4. yennus

    yennus Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Shanghai:Sydney
    Slippery slope arguments are fallacious only if their premises are false or implausible. If we take the conservative view that
    "SSM will likely lead to further attempts to redefine marriage". <-- this in itself is NOT a slippery slope fallacy.

    As demonstrated from previous sources (1) and (2) it is more likely/plausible than not, that SSM will lead to further attempts to redefine marriage. The logic is strong and holds.

    The onus is on you to demonstrate that "SSM will NOT likely lead to further attempts to redefine marriage."

    (1) http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469
    (2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-son-now-they-want-to-get-married-but-cant/
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  5. Jim4silver

    Jim4silver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,043
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    US
    Although I am for gay marriage here in the US because I believe in equal rights for gays to marry, there is no doubt that once it was accepted here, they started pushing the whole "trans" agenda next, which I am against. I'm referring to letting men use ladies' rest rooms on a whim, because they want to be a gal instead of a guy that day, or having to call a man who has retained his "wang" a she and vice versa.

    I read somewhere that in California they are trying to make it a crime to refer to a trans as he or she, if it is the opposite of what they want to be called. I guess if they think they are Jesus, we have to call them that too.

    I believe there are two forces pushing such agendas. First, are the actual folks who want equal rights (and deserve them in my opinion- gay marriage not trans rights).

    But you also have whatever group it is that likes to destroy countries, pushing this to further destroy the "family unit", which is the bedrock of any successful society, like they have been doing here in the US since the 70's.

    These same "destroyers" are the ones bringing certain peace loving religions into once great nations, which is causing them to be 3rd world in many ways. They use any means to weaken and change fundamentally what goes on in their target countries (mostly Euro and US).

    Now they are even trying to reduce masculinity on college campuses (whatever the f' that is). That will make the US much stronger I am sure.

    So it is kind of a deal with the devil so to speak to vote yes (or whatever it is allowing gay marriage). To vote no you are obviously denying equal rights I am sorry to say. I'm just calling a spade a spade as they say, per my observations.

    PS If these groups at the top level were legit, they would be going after the countries that hang and murder gays legally (again the peace loving nations). But we hear nothing of that in the MSM, since these same peace lovers belong to one of the useful idiot groups that can't be allowed to look bad, because they are bringing them in en masse and portraying them as "victims". In some towns they had to segregate swimming pools because some of these peace lovers molested kids and women right in the open at the pools (like they don't know it is wrongful).

    It is all easy to see with open eyes.

    Good luck voting!

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/1...transgender-senior-california-may-punish.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-course-for-men-to-deconstruct-toxic-masculi/

    http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/05/masculinity-is-being-dissolved-on-campus/
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
    Seven of nine and Argyria like this.
  6. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,647
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    No. They are fallacies because they rely on debating tricks or illusions designed to cloud the issue by introducing hypotheticals into the argument rather than the issues at hand. In the case of the SSM debate, the issue at hand is gay marriage, not polygamy, not the Safe Schools agenda, not beastiality, or incestuous relationships or any of the plethora of other other issues surrounding human relationships. Introducing slippery-slope fallacies or any other fallacy into the debate is just "bad" thinking, and as I posted above, conclusions arrived at through "bad" thinking are frail conclusions.

    I don't own a crystal ball and neither do you so I cannot categorically prove that "SSM will NOT likely lead to further attempts to redefine marriage.", and besides I don't need to because it's not the issue at hand despite your repeated appeals to slippery-slope fallacies.

    As evidenced by what you have argued it is very likely that at some future point in time we as a society will face further attempts to redefine marriage, it's natural as we seek to learn more about ourselves and our social relationships with others. But that is for us to debate and face when that challenge arrives, not by railroading in the middle of a debate about same-sex marriage.

    We are voting on changing the marriage act so that the State recognises same-sex marriage and nothing else, tainting the debate with unsubstantiated conjecture is simply leveraging fear and playing on people's emotions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
    l***g likes this.
  7. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,907
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    That's how I think it should be too. I feel the reason gays push their pretend arguments on us is the same reason gays feel the need to let everyone know they are gay. Like they think everyone has to know they gay. Like who gives a f--- and since when is it necessary to tell anyone who is not your sexual partner your sexual orientation?! I will probably get some abuse for saying this but I believe gay people were born with a mental/pyschological problem which is why they are gay. They are not supposed to be born like that. If I was gay I would feel too embarrassed to let anyone know I was gay. That's how I would feel. Why feel proud in telling everyone you got a pyschological problem to do with your sexual orientation!? It makes no sense. When was the last time a normal person felt the need to let everyone know that they hetrosexual?
     
  8. Very well put! ^
    They are a contradiction in so many ways.
    Adopting the word "gay" is the opposite to the awful truth about this illness.
    There is nothing to be gay about according to the evidence. Quite like calling people suffering from a depressive disorder merry.
    Then using words like "queer" while promoting themselves as normal, healthy minded people.
    Admitting those not of their ilk are straight thus implying they are bent and again insisting they are garden variety normal.
    All utter BS.
    As Seven of nine mentioned earlier, and how true it is, the more someone spruiks something, the harder something is grandstanded and given the hard sell, the less I want it as it's almost always a con job.
    Just look at the activities of the religious cults for example.

    Edit to add:
    Unfortunately I can still see the ignored one when I log out so I will further say.
    As the term LGBTP (Google that one) is now being pushed by alternative sexuality groups like NAMBLA, how long before the absurd "homophobe" will be replaced with "pedophobe."
    I can certainly admit to being a pedophobe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2017
  9. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,647
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Silver bullitt, but damn you’re homophobic.

    I don’t know why I’m doing this.......

    But you’re not gay so your point is completely meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  10. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,422
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Do some research.

    You're condemning people for being born with a genetic sequence. That makes it a pretty natural part of life and your justifications for your hatred a pretty sorry state of affairs.

    The single question is letting all Australians have access to all Australia's Laws, or not.

     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  11. Don't talk to me about justification, hatred or being condemned until you have walked a mile in my shoes.
    I was likely not born with the wolves that haunt my mind, rather I had them inflicted on me, but all the same
    I have overcome my hatred through great personal effort.
    As for forgiveness.
    The true nature of forgiveness is to be first asked for it by the offender who shows genuine remorse for the harm they have done to you.
    I will never receive this so I have no incentive or obligation to forgive.
    I can not forget and I will not forgive and as far as research goes I have done plenty but most valuable is my personal life experience.
    From this life experience I know fully well that the only thing separating a homosexual from a pedophile is opportunity.
    Prove me wrong!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2017
  12. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,422
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    And as for the 'It's OK to say NO' slogan.

    It is NOT morally justified to punish and marginalise any group of people in society just because you prefer the cowardice of groupthink supporting your prejudice.
     
  13. And remember, IT'S OK TO SAY NO. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2017
    Seven of nine likes this.
  14. Seven of nine

    Seven of nine Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Are you saying the plebiscite isn't morally justified? Blame it on the politicians, since they were the ones who gave the people a choice to vote yes or no. Yes a choice. Just like you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In the same way you can't make everyone vote yes, morally subjective or not.
     
  15. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,907
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I personally always thought the decades long "It's ok to be gay" movement being promoted on TV, shows, movies, celebrities, ect is wrong and should not be allowed to happen on public mainstream places because it sends the wrong message to children that it's ok to be gay when it is clearly not. Being born gay is having a mental disorder to do with ones sexual orientation. Before puberty children like boys think girls are yuck and their (boy) mates are great, and vice versa for girls. This "it's ok to be gay movement" could influence young childrens minds to think they are gay when they are not and cause confusion in them which could then later after puberty cause them to turn gay only to then later change and regret/repulse themselves for their past. Maybe even cause depressions or suicides? In my opinion it's NOT ok to be gay just like it's NOT ok to have any other number of mental disorders just like depression, skizo, ect. So why promote it's ok to gay to undeveloped growing minds of children? Promoting it's ok to be skizo would be far better because promoting that will do little to no harm to children because that cannot cause someone to become skizo unlike promoting gay can.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
    Seven of nine and Silver bullitt like this.
  16. ^^^ Yep, it's child grooming, something I have unfortunately encountered several times and am very familiar with.
    A part of that life experience.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2017
    Seven of nine likes this.
  17. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,422
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    These homophobic arguments have nothing to do with the fact that Marriage Law is applied differently to a group of Australians.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  18. Already been covered.
    All Australians are treated equally under the marriage act.
    A man and woman can become man and wife. This is called marriage and this is available to all, equally and without restriction.
    The fact that people in prison can't go out drinking at the local on Saturday night is still a pressing issue of civil rights abuse but most don't much care.

    Edit to add:
    You are misusing the term marriage old mate.
    Would that be just a little ironic? Probably not, but you get the point. ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2017
  19. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,422
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    They are NOT covered equally.

    If they were why would the current Government spend 120 million trying to keep the gays from accessing Marriage Law equally.
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,647
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    You need to check your premises.

    If all Australians were in opposite-sex partnerships then your conclusion would be true. But the fact is that some Australians are in same-sex partnerships and the fact is that the Marriage Act clearly only recognises opposite-sex partnerships in marriage, therefore your conclusion that all Australians are treated equally before the law is false and your fragile logic comes tumbling down around your feet.

    The law does not apply equally to all and it most certainly places restrictions on some Australians.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page