Million Aussie Bucks to say Lesbians and Gays shouldn't be equal

[Nearly Sane]

Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.

So trent in wanting equality and to be able to marry is being 'ridiculous'?

[Shaker]

I have more problems getting my head around why heterosexual couples - and I mean cohabitating couples, not two friends or relatives who've lived together for years - would want a civil partnership.

I don't get it either.

I know that at least one of the couples who have mounted a (unsuccessful, so far) legal challenge has said that they disagree with the religious connotations of marriage, but civil marriage is by law a non-religious thing in any case - you're prohibited from having hymns or prayers and what have you. So I don't see how that objection stands up.

[Gordon]

I still find the 'aren't CPs enough for them' attitude both tedious and offensive.

CPs were initiated as a sop to gay people so as to prevent them seeking legal marriage: I dare say it was well-intended by those who feared that same-sex marriage would always be an impossibility and that 'something must be done' but, in hindsight, CPs have become a concrete lifebelt wherever SSM is legal.

But how has it been established that there are indeed two classes of loving relationships in terms of how those involved regard the value of their own personal relationship and where one is deemed more worthy than the other - and on whose authority does this view persist?

To me it is a daft as saying that while all workers are required to pay the same rate of NI towards their state pension those smaller that 5ft 10ins in height* should receive only two-thirds of what people taller than this will get.

* or red-haired people, or those able to play the banjo etc etc etc (substitute your preferred characteristic).   

[jeremyp]

I don't get it either.

I know that at least one of the couples who have mounted a (unsuccessful, so far) legal challenge has said that they disagree with the religious connotations of marriage, but civil marriage is by law a non-religious thing in any case - you're prohibited from having hymns or prayers and what have you. So I don't see how that objection stands up.

I've heard it said that they want the legal protections of marriage e.g. the right to be each other's next of kin and the tax breaks without the cultural baggage that comes with marriage.

[Owlswing]

OK,

After weeks of campaigning, months of planning and years (of) debate, the results of the controversial three-month-long postal survey revealed 61.6 per cent of people voted ‘yes’ and 38.4 per cent ‘no’.

The question asked simply: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/australia-votes-apos-yes-apos-230717029.html

However, as the result is not binding it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law.

[Shaker]

... as the result is not binding it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law.

I doubt it.

Consider a parallel (up to a point) with the Brexit referendum. High turnout, clear majority. We criticise politicians for being a self-serving, self-interested lot for a reason: very few politicians would openly show such contempt for the public will - the thing that gets them where they are and keeps them there, precariously - as to in effect piss all over a democratic vote. "Thanks ever so much for taking the time and trouble to vote. We all really appreciate it enormously, we really do. Now we're going to ignore your vote completely. Sorry." Don't think so. Given a sniff of some sort of power most people find that they quite like it and want to hang on to it.

In the case of Australia's plebiscite the turnout was even higher and the majority even more thumping. The usual god bothering suspects will of course make the same dreary noises as they always do - it gives them something to do and makes them feel important -, but their rowing boat won't be able to get in the way of the ocean liner here.

[trippymonkey]

Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!

Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject

[Shaker]

Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!

Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject

Perhaps some will try later.

For now, perhaps I may be permitted to summarise:

[floo]

Christians not 'allowing' same sex marriage ?!?!?!

Can one of them explain just what Jesus said about the subject

He didn't of course, but then maybe he was gay having a specific disciple, presumably male, whom he loved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I doubt it.

Consider a parallel (up to a point) with the Brexit referendum. High turnout, clear majority.

This is a bit more clear cut than Brexit where people thought that they were voting for low waiting times in a far richer NHS, Low immigration, an easy tariff free agreement with Europe, No personal impact but hopefully impoverishment for their neighbour who had it coming anyway.

None of that will come about apart from impoverishment and someone (else presumably ) will have to make the 48% of remainers leave the UK and live in Europe.

[Owlswing]

This is a bit more clear cut than Brexit where people thought that they were voting for low waiting times in a far richer NHS, Low immigration, an easy tariff free agreement with Europe, No personal impact but hopefully impoverishment for their neighbour who had it coming anyway.

None of that will come about apart from impoverishment and someone (else presumably ) will have to make the 48% of remainers leave the UK and live in Europe.

W T F has this to do with the Australian vote?

Maybe it should be moved to the Brexit thread?

[Shaker]

W T F has this to do with the Australian vote?

Maybe it should be moved to the Brexit thread?

I invoked Brexit (in #105) only as an analogy in response to your comment: "...  it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law." I didn't intend to derail the thread but I was drawing a comparison with all those people who think Brexit should be stopped despite the fact that there's a close but clear democratic mandate for it which would be career suicide for politicians to go against.

[Owlswing]

I invoked Brexit (in #105) only as an analogy in response to your comment: "...  it remains to be seen if there are enough hidebound bloody-minded Christians etc to prevent it becoming law." I didn't intend to derail the thread but I was drawing a comparison with all those people who think Brexit should be stopped despite the fact that there's a close but clear democratic mandate for it which would be career suicide for politicians to go against.

Shaker

I KNOW what YOU were doing, what I want to lknow is W T F Vlad was doiing! And why?