Marriage equality (1 Viewer)

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,311
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.
 

Nailgun

Cole World
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
2,193
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.
Legally we already have this. Civil unions/de facto relationships basically do everything a marriage does
What they want is recognition that their union is a marriage
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,311
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Legally we already have this. Civil unions/de facto relationships basically do everything a marriage does
What they want is recognition that their union is a marriage
I know. There is equal rights already. Yet some people always try to push the envelope more and more once we give them an inch.

It is not a marriage though as marriage in my opinion (and many others opinions also) is between a man and a woman.
 

mcchicken

madman in a box
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
1,023
Location
In Taylor Swift's asshole
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
I know. There is equal rights already. Yet some people always try to push the envelope more and more once we give them an inch.

It is not a marriage though as marriage in my opinion (and many others opinions also) is between a man and a woman.
Or some people just want equality? :/

If they're already "equal" as you say then why they can't they be equal in terminology
 
Last edited:

mcchicken

madman in a box
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
1,023
Location
In Taylor Swift's asshole
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.
That's a unique opinion (as in I've never heard this POV even though it seems like it should be widely popular)

I like :)

But I don't think it'd ever get any traction
 

Nailgun

Cole World
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
2,193
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.
So basically what you're suggesting is the abolishing marriage (in the legal sense)?

EDIT: @mcchicken, i know quite a few people who have similar opinions so it is somewhat popular
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
I don't support changing the definition of marriage. Introduce a form of homosexual union or whatever although it shouldn't be called marriage.
That's not how language works, ipso facto, your opinion fails to hold up to linguistic facts.

I could redefine "desire" to mean "to express disgust at a matter or subject", but that won't change the meaning of "desire" as used by the general population.

Have you, by any chance, heard of the beetle problem?
 
Last edited:

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Well I'm sorry but I stand by my views. If the government has to get involved, I see it as a civil union. If you want a marriage, fine, go to a religious organisation then.
You're just arguing semantics at that point.

Once you enter the semantics rabbithole, you automagically lose.
 

Queenroot

I complete the Squar3
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
7,507
Location
My bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I know this might not be the most popular opinion, but I think the government should stay out of marriages. If a man and woman (or man and man, woman and woman, one man and several women, one woman and several men, etc) want to be together and the government has to get involved then I think that as long as it's between consenting adults, we should call it what it is, a CIVIL UNION. I see marriages as religious and if you want one then fine, go to a religious organisation then. The government DOES NOT need to get involved in marriages.
Yeah I agree tbh
 

Nailgun

Cole World
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
2,193
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
You're just arguing semantics at that point.

Once you enter the semantics rabbithole, you automagically lose.
Not really, I think there is a fair point.
Legally, we have basically two unions that are essentially the same thing - only difference is one is exclusive, and the other is not.
You could argue that having both is redundant, and the prime candidate for removal would be marriage
 

Queenroot

I complete the Squar3
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
7,507
Location
My bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Either way who cares, is it really affecting your life that much that same sex couples are getting married? Fuck all there are people like Gabi Grecko and Geoffery Edelsten or whatever, nieces marrying uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters.. As long as there is consent, none of our business tbh

well it doesn't affect me or anyone very immediate to me so idc
 

Flop21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
2,810
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
I couldn't care less about marriage tbh, but it's not my right to force this onto everyone person out there. I don't think the government should just 'stay out of it'. What if back when women or Indigenous people couldn't even vote the government just ignored it and 'stayed out of it'? I mean, who cares about voting right? Maybe not you, but others do.

This issue is so silly to me. There are people dying from sickness and disease, poverty, war etc. And people REALLY care about the sacredness of marriage? It's not even a real thing really. So I find it very strange people actually standing up to stop same-sex marriage laws, how on earth does it affect you?
 

StudiousStudent

Active Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
357
Gender
Female
HSC
2016
There's currently 3 marriage amendment bills and 1 plebiscite bill awaiting action.

I do not support the general public voting on this issue. Australia has passed other human rights legislation without a 'people's vote'.

As a heterosexual myself, I support marriage equality.

Same sex couples marrying isn't going to impact on a heterosexual couple.

Religious reasons shouldn't come into consideration, because marriage celebrants and churches by law would not have to conduct same sex marriages.
 

mcchicken

madman in a box
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
1,023
Location
In Taylor Swift's asshole
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
There's currently 3 marriage amendment bills and 1 plebiscite bill awaiting action.

I do not support the general public voting on this issue. Australia has passed other human rights legislation without a 'people's vote'.

As a heterosexual myself, I support marriage equality.

Same sex couples marrying isn't going to impact on a heterosexual couple.

Religious reasons shouldn't come into consideration, because marriage celebrants and churches by law would not have to conduct same sex marriages.
And to add to that, we have a separation of Church and State for a reason :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top