TOPIC:

BC -- yes, you can use that term, at least with me. I am talking over a period of time, BC old son. Most of these laws are new, so there is no point saying the sky has not fallen in because the sky has not had time to fall in. It is good that you did not deny my points, because, they are all likely to happen, and society will have to deal with them. I was simply asked by SS to point out areas where I thought unattended changes would occur.

I did not even mention the fact that this will affect private schools and churches in a major ways unless they are actually protectted in the change to the law. Tim Wilson has argued for protrections. Why is that?

It is not possible to have a major change to an institution, such as, marriage, without affecting other elements in our country; to argue, as some do amongst the 'yes' lot, that change will not lead to change comes very close to a contradiction in terms.

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.

Sorry Ark, but forgive me, what you have written at best is irrational conjecture. By allowing same sex couples to marry wont increase the number of same sex couples or individual gays or lesbians, Why will there be less men? A long time friend of mine has been in a lesbian relationship for 30+ years, have always wanted to marry but have been unable, they have had 3 kids and all are now young men in solid realtionships with young women, so the flawed idea that lesbians will only raise gays or lesbians is patent rubbish.

More spinsters ... why? gays and lesbians will continue to cohabit at the same rate as they always have but will now have the same right to have a legal marriage as hetro's do, so I don't understand your thinking.

Less kids ... why?, are the hetro population suddenly going to turn G & L just coz of a change to the marriage act, they will still have kids, as will many same sex couples who like hetro couples who cant conceive natural will look to science to help them have kids via donar sperm, donar eggs etc.

Same sex toilets? ... well the French have had those for decades and they still live under a structurally stable sky.

Sorry mate I'm being a bit facetious but what you have mentioned seems totally illogical and in places that have changed the law, these things you mention have not shown any signs of happening.

I voted yes

SS: you are entitlled to you opinion of course, but just a couple of facts:

1 there will be more marriages because more people will be eligible to be married. That should be common sense -- that is rational nothing to do with conjecture.
2 back in the days when the homosecual lads were genuinely persecutted, homosexual men used to marry to fit in man. It is a simple historical fact. Have'nt you thought about that?
3 given that men will be able to marry one another, unless there is an increase in the fertility rate of women, there will be a derease in the population that is just a biological and demographic fact. It is perfectly rational, nothing to do with conjecture. That will have impacts on taxes and budgets Can you see that?
4 not botherred about what the French do to be honest. I am just concerned about keeping the toliets separate so that women do't have to deal with male perverts. I bet you it was a male policy maker in France whom made toliets so too? France is full of male chauvinits, SS, don't be sucked in by them -- after all French men only gave their women the vote in 1945. Did you know that?

You asked me to consider the question of SSM in terms of possible social change that is all I have done.not making a moral judgment on the issue. I am sorry if I come across a wee bit narky in points 1 to 4, but on the whole, they are really self-evident.
It is perfectly okay to support the yes case SS, but be careful about denigratting someone whom is most capable of putting together a cogent argument.

ArkRoyal wrote: ........ after all French men only gave their women the vote in 1945. Did you know that?
.

Did you know that Australia achieved universal suffrage 18 years after France ie in 1962?

I also question how much impact on the demographics of Australian society will occur due to (the inevitable) SSM?

Do you really believe that in these days of "relative" enlightenment, homosexual men are still marrying women so they can fit into society?

Or vice versa?

I would argue that given the ability to achieve legal recognition of their union, together with the free availabily of IVF, the birth rate may actually rise (albeit very slightly).

jack spratt: thst is what I am arguing. In this more enlightened time, less gay men would marry straight women under pressure than in the past. Therefore, the number of spinsters would tend to increase in the future everything else being equal. I am thinking particularly of the female demographic of stay and home mum's. They will be more vulnerable as they will have less men to marry and there may be an increase in the rate of female poverty.

I am not claiming that the above is a reason to oppose gay marriage.

We have had a fertility problem in the West for a couple of generations as you know. Yes, you are right, if IVF is free it will help with the fertility rate.

Don't be too gracious towards the French Jack -- although I tke you point in relation to Australian Aboriginal history. France only gave full rights to the Arabs after they were bootted out of Algerie francais; and, in addition to that, France was the only colonial power to re-introduce slavery after first abolishing it in the wake of the French Revolution.

Didn't realise we had so many Chicken Little closet homophobes on Ozfooty Forum.

The Yes and No campaigners are just as bad as each other. The No vote adverts lack any facts and prey peoples fear of the 'unknown' that change may bring.

Gay couples already live together, have committed relationships and have children. What does a piece of paper that officially recognises a gay relationship actually change?

If you don't agree with gay marriage it's simple, don't marry a gay person.

The disappointing thing in this whole process is that extremism at both ends of the spectrum has once again reared it's ugly head. The need by some to dream up unrelated collateral issues that could arise from a simple change to the marriage act is really disappointing, this is such a simple issue!! the proliferation of red herring side issues is just a tactic to scare and distract people away from being able to simply say yes or no to a simple uncomplicated non invasive question about a persons basic human rights.

SS: Your right about the extremists, whom have had far too much influnce on the fate of humanity full stop. Let us hope, the governemnt having decided to have the survey, that the result will be clear and respectted on all sides.

Try not to worry about it.

Grassy: can you imagine if the 'no' side wins with 51 per cent of the vote on 51 per cent of the electorate? It will be chaos, Grassy, with Bill Shorten threatening to over-throw a democratic vote.