SouthAussie94 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:01 pm
I'm not religious, but I'll fight for freedom of religion until my dying breath. If you're Christian, Islamic, Scientologist, Pastafarian, I don't care, believe whatever you want.
Where I draw the line is when someone tries to force their religious beliefs upon others. If you don't want to eat red meat on Good Friday then that's great, however don't you dare try to stop me eating a steak on the day. If you don't want to eat through the day during Ramadan then that's great, again don't stop me eating lunch.
Believe what you want, practice whatever you want to practice, just don't impinge upon my rights or the rights of others.
I'm am yet to hear an argument for a No vote which doesn't draw upon religious beliefs, or completely nonsensical conclusions.
Bridges/animals cannot give consent, therefore people marry inanimate objects will not happen.
Under 18 marriage can currently happen with parental approval if one party is between 16 and 18. This is currently the law. A 40 year old man COULD marry a 16 year old girl.
This is the law as it currently stands.
This age won't be lowered when same sex marriage is approved. A 40 year old woman could hypothetically marry a 16 year old girl assuming the conditions are satisfied.
Religious schools can currently refuse to hire gay teachers. This won't change.
A Hindu church can refuse to marry couples who aren't Hindu. This won't change.
An Islamic mosque may restrict who can enter. Same goes for a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple. This won't change.
The only thing that will change is that a woman will be able to refer to her partner as her wife. A man will be able to refer to his partner as his husband.
Nothing else will change....
I’ve given you na argument that isn’t based on religious beliefs, some of you in here just don’t want to accept it and instead hurl abuse and names at me.
I’ve said numerous times it should be recognised by the state as a civil union for ALL, regardless of gender or faith.
You guys say it’s about equal rights specifically legal rights as a couple.
So why do you care what it’s called by the state?
The state should recognise it as a civil union, and everyone can call it what they want.
There’s no winners and losers with that, and it’s just a stalemate where the nastiness and viciousness is take right out of it all from both sides.
A rather reasonable and sensible solution.
And you say nothing will change.
I’m sure that’s what the British and Canadians were told as well.
As I said you guys reference other countries to say we should legalise SSM as well.
I referenced the negatives of what’s happened overseas but none of you seem to grasp that if this is all rushed through before Christmas we will likely have a similar situation here.
Because while YOU might be well intentioned, there’s people on “your side” who aren’t so well intentioned.
The sort of people who have to flaunt their homosexuality in people’s faces just to piss them off.
The sort of people who vandalise churches, who violently rip down no campaign posters. Kind of like the guy who posts here who said he goes out of his way to remove religious flyers left behind by the mall preachers.
Equality, so long as everyone agrees with you, and those who don’t are silenced.
If some of you took your blinders off and let go of your mindless incessant rage because I dared to voice a different opinion, you might have noticed a few pages ago near the start of this discussion that I’m not opposed to it and couldn’t care less what two adults of the same sex do to each other in private.
My concern isn’t even about two gays getting married.
It’s about the process in which it’s going to become legal and the ramifications for the rest of us, which despite most of you burying your heads in the sand about are valid concerns and the precedent has already been set in numerous countries already.
