"Funny" how the word 'dissension' seems to have become the property of the 'no' vote.

That is.....people say the 'yes' vote is intolerant of dissension.

Huh?

Can't the same thing be said in reverse? ~ that the 'no' vote is intolerant of dissension?

..

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:08pm:


Why were you going to vote, "Yes?"

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:15pm:


Were you ever going to vote, "Yes?"

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:


So, do you no longer hold those views?

Aussie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:


I think there should be an official distinction made between a hetero marriage and a gay marriage.

Have a marriage by all means - with all the legal rights enjoyed by the straights except for the matter of adopting children - but have it described as a same-sex marriage.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:15pm:



Who do you think you are fooling.
You have been saying over and over and over : you're a negative.

And my point stands. Replace Gay with Black ... and this is identical to the negative argument towards interracial marriage.

Aussie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 8:16pm:


Well over two years ago I outlined my arguments on gay marriage, and ended up with the conclusion that, for several reasons, it was acceptable.  I did not stipulate at that time that Gay Marriage per se was the same as Marriage, since that was not part of the discussion.

Now that we, as a nation, have arrived at this point, I asked initially to be persuaded one way or the other by sound argument in favour or against.  Thus far it is the vicious and often anti-social, and thus highly irresponsible behaviour of the YES side that is pushing me to say NO.

I have seen no compelling arguments to persuade me one way or the other - there is a clear lack of definitive proof either way - but I cannot condone violence and vicious attacks on persons with an opposing view - on either side.

Thus far such attacks have been from the YES side, governed by an absolute 'sense of entitlement' as an 'oppressed' group - which appears at first glance to be adhering to the feminist doctrine - that the 'oppressor' has no rights, and therefore any person proclaimed an oppressor has no rights at all in any way.

That kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society, and I have said several times that if the YES lobby had simply left it up to the people rather than engaging in warfare and terrorism against any opponents expressing an opposite view, the motion would have passed.

Now it seems to be fading into a pink sunset....... even my ex has said she will be voting NO.  Her nephew is gay and my niece is a lesbian....well - to be honest, the niece** has many 'issues' totally unrelated to her chosen lifestyle and I suspect lesbianism is, in this case, a mental issue - but the fact remains, no Alphabet Marriage will EVER be viewed as being the same as a 'normal' marriage'

Thus Herbert's idea of a separate but equal Marriage with clear boundaries holds much weight with me at this time.

** Oh - and for the gain-sayers - that niece is half Aboriginal, and she has a cousin, son of another sister of mine, who is also half Aboriginal... they are treated the same as everyone else in my family....

Not much chance of gaining any high moral ground with me, people.... been around far too long for that....