Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Why I voted NO, page-129

First 129 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bourse

2,738 Posts.

6

12/10/17

14:58

Post #: 27857529
Share

Originally posted by Radicool ↑

Who are these "future" groups?
You're so hyped on this topic, that you missed the groups that I mentioned in my previous post.

The tampering with the current definition of the marriage act will be enough justification for it to be redefined possibly again in the future.

You want equality under a "different act" - in other words to offer "pretend marriage" to SS couples.
Why not!
As I've said, social groups are ascribed certain labels due to their life style choices - hippies, bikies etc
The word 'marriage' has been set aside for one particular group, 'de facto for anther group.
Maybe an 'entwined union' is an apt title for a SS couple.

These groups had a legitimate right to seek change and the community agreed, and tokenism would not have been fair or just.
Yes, they do have right to seek change!
But a sensible Govt. would try to appease both side of the debate by creating a seperate Act, bearing in-mind not to offend by avoiding using wording associated with heterosexual couples.

Radicool Views

Expand

So you want to discriminate against SS couple with the TOKENISM of a seperate act.
Would women or aboriginals have been happy to see the discrimination against them voting, fixed by any means OTHER than equality of vote?

Why therefore, should SS couples settle for anything less than equality on this issue?

Last edited by bourse: 12/10/17
2 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Tuesday's HotCopper trends: Strike + Carnarvon, Insignia + CC Capital | July 22

FBU

Fletcher Building 'exploring options' around construction division sale

RML

Resolution Minerals appoints industry experts to fast-track US growth strategy

News from abroad: 2 things moving commodities this week

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist