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

SSM referendum debate a must, page-4

First 4 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bruceyg

35,296 Posts.

3

05/08/17

12:49

Post #: 26310921
Share

Originally posted by Gillysrooms ↑

In a recent debate on FB one post gave some interesting insights to our previous marriage laws in response to our new Family First Senators comments about leaving the current Marriage laws alone.

Matt Bratt made some good points ....

"She's also wrong on the definition of marriage being unchanged from when it was written "...by Australias forefathers..."

The legal definition of marriage now comes from the 2004 amendment to the marriage act. Which incidently never actually defined marriage. within the original marriage act. The present definition comes from the marriage amendment act 2004. This really goes to show the women doesn't have a clue about marriage in Australia, both legally and historically.

The amendment was brought about by Howard in 2004 with the only visible reason I can see was his bias toward supporting a chrisitan orthodox view of marriage, while ensuring other possible definitions were ruled out completely. Even so. The full definition of marriage, as defined by the marriage amendment act 2004 is never properly referenced or quoted in arguments on ssm and if applied fully in defining the status of relationships, would rule out a number of relationships which claim to be marriages due to breaching the act. People can't have it half way, as it's applied at present. Either the definition of marriage per the act is complied with fully by those wanting vilification of existing marriages. Else, if needing to be amended for any reason, then there's a strong argument for also amending to include same sex marriage

Also may surprise people, especially those who cry fowl of islam marrying off teenage girls, that as late as 1942, the legal age for marriage in Australia was 12 years for females and 14 years for males. Makes you wonder about the history of our own western culture."

Accordingly as previous laws permitted younger age marriages whereas now its defined as peadophilia which could be removed once again off the law books by permitting equal marriage rights to SSM couples down to age 12 as is apparently currently permitted in Islamic & indigenous communities in Australia.

Surely you can see why we need a plebascite and a PROPER & FULL debate on all aspects raised by the proposal being put forward by the supporters of SSM.

What do HC readers say?

Expand

the reason "marriage" was never defined is because normal society and normal human beings knew the marriage act was between a man and a woman - male female.

it wasnt until the queer crowd started wanting what they already had, the right to marriage, but wanted to redefine the concept.

society was built on the relationship between a man and a woman. government stems from this relationship. this notion that a homosexual doesnt have the right to marry is a lie and as others have said will eventually lead to the collapse of the family unit, and society itself.

we do not need a vote - there is no decision that needs to be made except to say that the situation will stay as it is.
19 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

ASX Market Open: Oz traders follow Week 29 highs with Monday pullback | July 21

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

NWC

New World board urges holders to accept Kinterra's now-uncontested takeover bid

PSC

Prospect's Mumbezhi Project puts it at the middle of copper's megatrend. And FQM just bought in

PTX

This rare type of lymphoma ruins the body – so do existing treatments. Prescient could have a solution

First 4 Last