Why I voted NO, page-123

First 123 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bourse

2,738 Posts.

6

12/10/17

10:34

Post #: 27847317
Share

Originally posted by Radicool ↑

Yes - I'll put your doomsday idiocy, in the same basket as that predicting, the western world was going to collapse due if Oral Contraception was introduced.

Didn't the SS advocates take advantage of wording that was vague to justify their arguments, and now they are whinging about the clarification of the 'Intent of Parliament' by JH?

Beside your demeaning comments!
What's your arguments that other groups will not use similar arguments if the SS group is successful?
This will set a precedent for future groups, chipping away at future Govt's until they become successful.

IMO, this is what is happening now, with both parties selling their 'souls' to get into Govt.

Why is the SS community against getting their so 'called 'equality' under a different Act, using different description for their union, instead of using words such as marriage and wedding?

Their feeble argument that they aren't getting anything different to what the heterosexual society are entitled too.
Their slogan 'Love is Love' doesn't necessarily equate to marriage. Conveniently ignoring the loving relationship of defacto's .

The only valid argument that I've heard on the issue is possibly the the 'next of kin' argument. The rest, for supporting SS is based on desperation arguments which concentrates on minor heterosexual group who behave badly or should be classified as an fringe element.

As I've mentioned a number of times, humans have a habit of grouping not only people under diffent titles or labels for a number of reasons. This is the same reason for differentiating SS Union for a legal and legislative point of view, due to their chosen life style.

Radicool Views

Expand

Who are these "future" groups?

You want equality under a "different act" - in other words to offer "pretend marriage" to SS couples.

Did we offer a "pretend" vote to women and aboriginals?
Did we offer "pretend" land rights to the indigenous community?

These groups had a legitimate right to seek change and the community agreed, and tokenism would not have been fair or just.

And tokenism that you are suggesting here is also unfair.

"Love is Love" should equate to marriage, if its so desired. It's a pretty simple concept.
This is about choice not compulsion, as I suspect many SS couple may chose not to get married.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

ASX Market Close: Iron awe keeps the XJO tracking along

TLX

Telix sinks as US regulator SEC issues subpoena over claims

TMG

Trigg brings famed Finnish metals refiner – and its tech – onboard to bolster antimony processing

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 019 – Dreaming of the 9,000s

Japan tariff deal inked at 15% – as long as US gets half a trillion of investment