TOPIC:

Senior Seagull wrote: It's been reported that there have been something like 16 changes to the marriage act since its inception, this is the only time joe and Josephine public have been asked their opinion and it was only as recently as John Howards reign that the wording "between a man and a woman" was actually included. This is about the only time I've agreed with the Labor lefties, it should have just been a conscience vote in parliament a few years ago and nobody would have given a fat rats arse. Many states in the USA have this legislation and apparently, from all reports, the sky has not fallen in, and no other laws have been implemented that would require any other changes. This is all about democratic freedom of choice for a significant % of the population, around 10%. I also support the right for any church to have the freedom to decline to perform the marriage ceremony for same sex couples, there will have plenty of other alternatives to obtain a legally approved marriage. All a storm in a tea cup. More important issues to address, lets get this sorted and move on!!

The fact its the only time you have agreed with the rapid lefties, should be ringing some pretty decent alarm bells for mine.

SS: My apologies old son. As you suggestted, the majority of US states do allow gay marriage and those states represent 70 per cent of the total population of the country. Apparentlly, this was even before the Supreme Ciourt rulled on the issue.

Once agian, sorry about that.

ArkRoyal wrote: SS: the vast majority of states in the USA still ban same sex marriage, the example to use if you want to support the 'yes' case is the UK and Europe.

Fact is the vast majority of the world doesn't have it and will never have it.

We and NZ are the odd ones out in our region if it gets up here.

Arent we supposed to be in the Asian Century??lol

Baz: true enough -- my own view on it is that, if the 'yes' case does win on this occassion, it will be overturnned in the future, as reaction against the social changes it would have caused.

Feel sorry for the genuine Gay couples that want to be legally recognised. Because watching the news the other night.Women with No2 haircuts and pink,orange and green hair.Are hijacking the yes vote and swinging the referendum away from the yes vote.
The same group of people who are offended by a Confederate Flag.Or Australia day.Because somebody doesn't agree with someone else's opinion.Well that's just to bad but this mob getsreal nasty.

ArkRoyal wrote: Baz: true enough -- my own view on it is that, if the 'yes' case does win on this occassion, it will be overturnned in the future, as reaction against the social changes it would have caused.

Ark what social changes will it cause? have these changes occurred in the US? That is the sort of stuff that clown Bernardi sprouts, he reckons if the law is changed the next step will be legalising bestiality. Just the sort of totally irrational wank you would expect from a far right wing fundamentalist Catholic.

SS: there will be a much bigger strain on the welfare state as more marriages break down,
you will have to employ many more social workers
there will be more spinsters as there will be less men to marry which will increase women's poverty
the population is likely to age more quickly because with less traditonal marriage there will be less
kids
the activists are likely to push for gender neutral stuff -- including toliets -- which again will not be
in the interests of most women
women are the majority in most societies, which, is why I don't think any change to the law will
necessarily stay in place. History does not progress in one simple direction.

gtrxuone wrote: Feel sorry for the genuine Gay couples that want to be legally recognised. Because watching the news the other night.Women with No2 haircuts and pink,orange and green hair.Are hijacking the yes vote and swinging the referendum away from the yes vote.
The same group of people who are offended by a Confederate Flag.Or Australia day.Because somebody doesn't agree with someone else's opinion.Well that's just to bad but this mob getsreal nasty.

They are all in the same mob.....

ArkRoyal wrote: SS: there will be a much bigger strain on the welfare state as more marriages break down,
you will have to employ many more social workers
there will be more spinsters as there will be less men to marry which will increase women's poverty
the population is likely to age more quickly because with less traditonal marriage there will be less
kids
the activists are likely to push for gender neutral stuff -- including toliets -- which again will not be
in the interests of most women
women are the majority in most societies, which, is why I don't think any change to the law will
necessarily stay in place. History does not progress in one simple direction.

bugger me AR.....I know, I know probably not the ideal thing to say given the topic....but I'm struggling to see how we'll need more social workers, less men for women to marry and those women will be broke and we're all going to age more quickly because a hand full of gays tie the knot? it's like saying the carpets are going to fade a lot quicker because of daylight saving. the gays are in civil unions now so don't think the state enshrining it in law is going to make any difference. the courts recognise gay relationships already so don't think its going to make all that much difference personally

Having recently returned from several weeks in Ireland I'm happy to report that not only are the Irish a friendly and happy lot but the sky has not fallen in since they had their same sex vote two years ago. Life goes on!