Ummmm.... This...? :sly:
Marriage Equality.
Why is it up to me to introduce threads that you should have already brung ?
hno:
hno:1 - 20 of 20 Posts
But I thought the question was about all adult people ?
GetUp! hosted a petition campaigning for the deregistration of a doctor because she appeared on the no campaign commercial. Amazingly they realised what a crap thing to do it is and pulled it.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/de17fa4cabd73a6d4b091ad66acd008c
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/de17fa4cabd73a6d4b091ad66acd008c
Ok. I guess I should vote no then.
it wasn't getup which started it btw but a user.GetUp! hosted a petition campaigning for the deregistration of a doctor because she appeared on the no campaign commercial. Amazingly they realised what a crap thing to do it is and pulled it.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/de17fa4cabd73a6d4b091ad66acd008c
Also, it wasn't because she was in the no campaign. It's because she's a paediatrician who is also a vocal advocate for conversation therapy. A dangerous and widely discredited practice (even by the man who ran Exodus, the US's largest conversation therapy organisation). It's the modern day equivalent of a doctor referring a woman on her period to a psychiatric hospital for being "hysterical".
If everyone just kept quiet, got their voting paper in the mail and vote.
I reckon the answer would be a YES...but seeing radicals on TV every night crying foul means many of the general public out there in suburbia may tend to say stuff'em...and vote NO.
Most real people never heard of GetUp...and if they did would be even more likely to vote the opposite...just say'n.
I reckon the answer would be a YES...but seeing radicals on TV every night crying foul means many of the general public out there in suburbia may tend to say stuff'em...and vote NO.
Most real people never heard of GetUp...and if they did would be even more likely to vote the opposite...just say'n.
Who are real people?
I'm pretty sure the yes campaign would have loved to keep their traps shut. But given the hateful and irrelevant fictional material distributed by parts of the no campaign it's pretty easy to understand why they've found it hard to smile quietly on the sidelines.
I'm pretty sure the yes campaign would have loved to keep their traps shut. But given the hateful and irrelevant fictional material distributed by parts of the no campaign it's pretty easy to understand why they've found it hard to smile quietly on the sidelines.
It's a load of shit.
No one was ever "going to vote yes" but then an angry woman with a butch hair cut said something mean on TV so now they're voting no because they don't wanna be bullied.
They were always going to vote no, they're just trying to rationalise their emotional decision.
No one was ever "going to vote yes" but then an angry woman with a butch hair cut said something mean on TV so now they're voting no because they don't wanna be bullied.
They were always going to vote no, they're just trying to rationalise their emotional decision.
I find it very difficult to express an opinion regarding this topic without people slamming me as a homophobe and a bigot without engaging in reasonable discourse.
Currently, same-sex unions in Australia have the same legal status and rights as a married couple. What is the inequality that we are trying to correct?
The way I see it, this is a campaign to have the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples. Nothing in practice changes here.
Currently, same-sex unions in Australia have the same legal status and rights as a married couple. What is the inequality that we are trying to correct?
The way I see it, this is a campaign to have the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples. Nothing in practice changes here.
From the other thread:Currently, same-sex unions in Australia have the same legal status and rights as a married couple. What is the inequality that we are trying to correct?
The way I see it, this is a campaign to have the word "marriage" applied to same sex couples. Nothing in practice changes here.
I'll look forward to hearing you confirm you're voting yesActually, on this point, you are wrong.
There was even a lawyer with a long term defacto partner who was Ill and drew up contracts etc. so that her partner could not be confused as next of kin. This was overruled by medical staff and she was refused next of kin rights.
This isn't the only story and it can happen with funerals etc. It also could make a difference if you are after visas in some countries that see marriage as more important than a defacto relationship.
First point:
This is simply incorrect.
I work in a hospital full time and deal with medico-legal issues on a daily basis. Your next of kin can be whoever you say it is. Similarly, an enduring power of attorney can be anyone you nominate. You don't have to be married nor in a defacto relationship to have "next of kin rights".
Second point:
I agree there are many countries that recognise marriage but not defacto relationships / civil unions. You will find that most of these are backwaters in the Middle East, who will never recognise a homosexual couple as "married", regardless of what the law in Australia is.
If there are genuine inequalities that I am unaware of, I agree that we should work as fast as possible to rectify these. However, "marriage", by definition, is between a male and female, and this campaign as simply an attempt at changing this definition to include a slightly wider group of people. If we are to truly try to champion for "marriage equality", then why stop at same sex couples? Why not for siblings? Why not for groups of lovers of more than two people?
My opinion is that if you see that traditional institution of marriage as old fashioned or irrelevant, the solution for you is simple. Don't get married. Many heterosexual couples live happy family lives without getting married. The same can and currently does apply to homosexual couples.
This is simply incorrect.
I work in a hospital full time and deal with medico-legal issues on a daily basis. Your next of kin can be whoever you say it is. Similarly, an enduring power of attorney can be anyone you nominate. You don't have to be married nor in a defacto relationship to have "next of kin rights".
Second point:
I agree there are many countries that recognise marriage but not defacto relationships / civil unions. You will find that most of these are backwaters in the Middle East, who will never recognise a homosexual couple as "married", regardless of what the law in Australia is.
If there are genuine inequalities that I am unaware of, I agree that we should work as fast as possible to rectify these. However, "marriage", by definition, is between a male and female, and this campaign as simply an attempt at changing this definition to include a slightly wider group of people. If we are to truly try to champion for "marriage equality", then why stop at same sex couples? Why not for siblings? Why not for groups of lovers of more than two people?
My opinion is that if you see that traditional institution of marriage as old fashioned or irrelevant, the solution for you is simple. Don't get married. Many heterosexual couples live happy family lives without getting married. The same can and currently does apply to homosexual couples.
But the people who back marriage equality consider that 'marriage' is a lifelong romantic commitment between two people who love each other. Historically it meant other things. But today the word has a meaning, in the eyes of most people, that includes same sex relationships. That change has come about because in our society homosexuality is no longer taboo in the same way that (as per your examples) incest, bestiality and polygamy remain taboo.
We would have already probably got to the point of legal same sex marriages, because the ordinary meaning of 'marriage' is now broad enough to encompass same sex couples - which is certainly what the US Supreme Court found. Had Howard not amended the Marriage Act (without checking with the public), we would be having a very different debate today-- most likely the Courts would have held that same sex couples could get married, and the Cory Bernardis of the world would be trying to campaign for legislation to overturn those decisions.
Howard foresaw all of that, and got there first in 2004. And now we've been having this debate for about 10 years without any progress.
We would have already probably got to the point of legal same sex marriages, because the ordinary meaning of 'marriage' is now broad enough to encompass same sex couples - which is certainly what the US Supreme Court found. Had Howard not amended the Marriage Act (without checking with the public), we would be having a very different debate today-- most likely the Courts would have held that same sex couples could get married, and the Cory Bernardis of the world would be trying to campaign for legislation to overturn those decisions.
Howard foresaw all of that, and got there first in 2004. And now we've been having this debate for about 10 years without any progress.
I find it very difficult to express an opinion regarding this topic without people slamming me as a homophobe and a bigot without engaging in reasonable discourse.
I think I've found your problem.Why not for siblings?
Can we just re-cap:
reasonable discourse.
And yes, de facto and marriage are different. De facto requires conditions to be met, a burden of proof and is easier to challenge in court, e.g., in disputes over estates, insurance, etc. It also varies widely by state - they all have their own rules, but WA or NT there's no way to register, so you have to cobble together evidence to prove you've been in a relationship for two years under federal law.Why not for siblings?
When this gets up...sorry hate those words...I mean when Same Sex couples can marry will Men call each other husband and Females call each other wife ? I hope so as going to all this trouble to find equality and the name marriage means Husband and Wife are accepted names for what till now were called partners. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...g-advocate-polling-shows-20170908-gydnpt.htmlIt's a load of shit.
No one was ever "going to vote yes" but then an angry woman with a butch hair cut said something mean on TV so now they're voting no because they don't wanna be bullied.
They were always going to vote no, they're just trying to rationalise their emotional decision.
Support does appear to be declining.It showed that 58.4 per cent of those surveyed said they would back a "yes" vote, down six percentage points from two weeks earlier, while support for a "no" vote rose two percentage points to 31.4 per cent. The "unsure" vote rose three percentage points to 10.2 per cent.
If we had something called "marriage" which included everyone except Aboriginal people, then it would be discriminatory and unequal regardless if they could still opt for something else called "civil unions".Currently, same-sex unions in Australia have the same legal status and rights as a married couple. What is the inequality that we are trying to correct?
Looking at that picture, all I see is love and happiness, a family getting together to celebrate life and new beginnings. I don't see boys being forced to wear dresses, people marrying toasters or chickens, groups of men marrying a single woman or anything else crazy... I just cannot for the sake of me figure out why any rational person would go out of their way to not only vote no, but campaign for a no vote. What is it about the above image that is supposedly so "offensive"??
I'm not getting married but I will slap anyone including my partner if they call me wife or husband.When this gets up...sorry hate those words...I mean when Same Sex couples can marry will Men call each other husband and Females call each other wife ? I hope so as going to all this trouble to find equality and the name marriage means Husband and Wife are accepted names for what till now were called partners. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Everyone can call each other what they want but to me it's partner. It's not PC it is just that's what I like. When I see couples ranting how they have to get home to the wife I roll my eyes.
Partner is best.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
6780 Replies
calatravavx
2821 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1571 Replies
Recommended Communities
