Same-sex marriage: ‘Strong disposition’ to put decision to popular vote, Tony Abbott says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/strong-disposition-for-same-sex-marriage-popular-vote-abbott/6692508

Same-sex marriage: ‘Strong disposition’ to put decision to popular vote, Tony Abbott says

The Liberal party agree to keep abusing human rights

homosexuality has a natural genetic cause
people are born that way, and nothing can be done about it

the liberal party are discriminating against a group of people who are all born that way

it is political discrimination, legal discrimination, social discrimination, religious discrimination and sexual discrimination

discrimination is an abuse

the Liberal party are guilty of human rights abuse on gay marriage

spike milligan voice

and the labor party

end voice

just have a plebiscite

how about the Labor party create a policy to jail human rights abusers when they win the next election

Exclusive: Religious and ethnic analysis of marginal seats used in same-sex marriage debate

the silent majority are the human rights abusers

someone should tell them

the nazis didn’t take their human rights abuses seriously either did they?

they laughed it off, thinking that they were right

human rights abuse is not funny

and it seems politicians from all sides are doing it

geez we’re worse than ISIS

wookiemeister said:

geez we’re worse than ISIS

you mean

homosexuality has political discrimination,

legal discrimination,

social discrimination,

religious discrimination and

sexual discrimination

no one in federal Parliament takes human rights seriously

the other option is to ban all marriage – the legal profession would die and whither

Senator Fierravanti-Wells told colleagues that she believed opinion polls showing majority support for legalising same-sex marriage did not reflect the views of a “silent majority” of Australian voters.

the majority are not the majority

your an idiot Fierravanti-Wells

wookiemeister said:

the other option is to ban all marriage – the legal profession would die and whither

Good idea, wookie

but Im sure the legal profession would find something else to replace it

Maybe she meant “moral majority”

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

breeding is a human behavior

but religion confuses that human behavior by replacing natural behavior with an un-natural religious behavior

>but religion confuses that human behavior by replacing natural behavior with an un-natural religious behavior

the human capacity for culture is natural

Also, everything in the universe is natural.

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

Subsected buy adoption and other alternatives.

dv said:

Also, everything in the universe is natural.

Human rights abuse is natural, Politicians in power are not going to admit to a human rights abuse are they? Labor or Liberal

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

I disagree, more an economic unit, mutual support, and for alliances, dynastic reasons. This stuff about marrying because of romantic love is relatively new.

Back in the day you would marry a woman cos she looked like she could pull a plough.

AwesomeO said:

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

I disagree, more an economic unit, mutual support, and for alliances, dynastic reasons. This stuff about marrying because of romantic love is relatively new.

Back in the day you would marry a woman cos she looked like she could pull a plough.

What makes you think this has changed?

AwesomeO said:

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

I disagree, more an economic unit, mutual support, and for alliances, dynastic reasons. This stuff about marrying because of romantic love is relatively new.

Back in the day you would marry a woman cos she looked like she could pull a plough.

Cuddly :)

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

Note also that i strongly support the idea that the legal definition of marriage should make no reference to a person’s gender. And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cuddly :)

Plump.

AwesomeO said:

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

I disagree, more an economic unit, mutual support, and for alliances, dynastic reasons. This stuff about marrying because of romantic love is relatively new.

Back in the day you would marry a woman cos she looked like she could pull a plough.

Back in the day marriage was a means to ‘join’ famalies – it was political more than anything.

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

Note also that i strongly support the idea that the legal definition of marriage should make no reference to a person’s gender. And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

Look. We all should be sure that marriage is about law.. and it is clear to all of us that law is about all of us. It progresses at a later date from whence change emnates but it does come about.

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

In the fair dinkum department, all such “rights” are floating cultural artefacts.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

In the fair dinkum department, all such “rights” are floating cultural artefacts.

No fosils are evident.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

In the fair dinkum department, all such “rights” are floating cultural artefacts.

why is that?

are politicians complacent about human rights?

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

In the fair dinkum department, all such “rights” are floating cultural artefacts.

I think there are a few worthy of being universal. A very few. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a nice succinct summation.

It gets silly when access to the internets gets framed as a human right.

AwesomeO said:

It gets silly when access to the internets gets framed as a human right.

you mean.. about others than yourself?

AwesomeO said:

It gets silly when access to the internets gets framed as a human right.

I’ll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Do same sex partners have the same rights as defacto partners when it comes to next of kin with hospitals, challenging wills?

tauto said:

Do same sex partners have the same rights as defacto partners when it comes to next of kin with hospitals, challenging wills?

This be the actual argument.

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

Do same sex partners have the same rights as defacto partners when it comes to next of kin with hospitals, challenging wills?

This be the actual argument.

Do polygamy marriage partners have similar rights?

what about “some sex marriage”?

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

tauto said:

Do same sex partners have the same rights as defacto partners when it comes to next of kin with hospitals, challenging wills?

This be the actual argument.

Do polygamy marriage partners have similar rights?

Open sesame?

Let us first find the key to the door.

JudgeMental said:

what about “some sex marriage”?

now that is too religious.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

Just to be clear, the ‘right’ to marriage isn’t what is typically specified as a basic human right in the same way that people should be born free, have the right to life and liberty, be free of slavery and torture.

In the fair dinkum department, all such “rights” are floating cultural artefacts.

I think there are a few worthy of being universal. A very few. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a nice succinct summation.

Rrright and I think they are good things too, because of my culture. If I’d been born two thousand years ago it would be clear as dogsballs to me that owning slaves is a natural right.

sibeen said:

AwesomeO said:

It gets silly when access to the internets gets framed as a human right.

I’ll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Wait, pry what from your hands?

dv said:

Rrright and I think they are good things too, because of my culture. If I’d been born two thousand years ago it would be clear as dogsballs to me that owning slaves is a natural right.

Amazing. I read this after my last post.

dv said:

sibeen said:

AwesomeO said:

It gets silly when access to the internets gets framed as a human right.

I’ll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Wait, pry what from your hands?

Just start prying, you’ll soon get the jist of it…

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

I’ll give you my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Wait, pry what from your hands?

Just start prying, you’ll soon get the jism of it…

fixed

In fairness though, can see the attraction of a plebiscite from the politician’s POV – it is still a cop out though.

diddly-squat said:

In fairness though, can see the attraction of a plebiscite from the politician’s POV – it is still a cop out though.

Sow how is a cop out fair from anwhere but the perpetrator?

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

In fairness though, can see the attraction of a plebiscite from the politician’s POV – it is still a cop out though.

Sow how is a cop out fair from anwhere but the perpetrator?

Sow how do pigs approaceth the trough in legalese?

It is in the sprit of the game that is now under threat.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

In fairness though, can see the attraction of a plebiscite from the politician’s POV – it is still a cop out though.

Sow how is a cop out fair from anwhere but the perpetrator?

Sow how do pigs approaceth the trough in legalese?

the normal method is to direct the pigs to the tough using Latin

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Sow how is a cop out fair from anwhere but the perpetrator?

Sow how do pigs approaceth the trough in legalese?

the normal method is to direct the pigs to the tough using Latin

il porco, attenzione?

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Sow how do pigs approaceth the trough in legalese?

the normal method is to direct the pigs to the tough using Latin

il porco, attenzione?

it needs to be at least 50 words

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

the normal method is to direct the pigs to the tough using Latin

il porco, attenzione?

it needs to be at least 50 words

So fait accompli doesn’t cut it?

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

il porco, attenzione?

it needs to be at least 50 words

So fait accompli doesn’t cut it?

Tony and the Liberals are good at that.

AwesomeO said:

transition said:

marriage (in generalized terms, historically) has been in-great-part about the breeding unit.

I disagree, more an economic unit, mutual support, and for alliances, dynastic reasons. This stuff about marrying because of romantic love is relatively new.

Back in the day you would marry a woman cos she looked like she could pull a plough.

that economic unit is in the business of helping along the prospects of its DNA, and in broad terms the environment (culture incusive) is contributed toward for that purpose (the satisfaction of human nature).

love-like commitment’s been around since the day dot, though not sure what you are meaning by romantic, you tell me.

plough, rather as a metaphor for nurturing, still holds.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Same-sex marriage: ‘Strong disposition’ to put decision to popular vote, Tony Abbott says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/strong-disposition-for-same-sex-marriage-popular-vote-abbott/6692508

Same-sex marriage: ‘Strong disposition’ to put decision to popular vote, Tony Abbott says

The Liberal party agree to keep abusing human rights

homosexuality has a natural genetic cause
people are born that way, and nothing can be done about it

the liberal party are discriminating against a group of people who are all born that way

it is political discrimination, legal discrimination, social discrimination, religious discrimination and sexual discrimination

discrimination is an abuse

the Liberal party are guilty of human rights abuse on gay marriage

Krudd or Juliar could have done something about it,,

but they didn’t,,, did they.

>And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

A plebiscite is only on the cards if the Coalition wins the next election, which is looking pretty unlikely at this juncture.

And it’s not binding anyway, and it’s an absurd waste of time & money. Particularly silly in Oz, where politics is traditionally guided by ordinary professional opinion polls – we’re now expected to believe that politicians don’t understand opinion polls and don’t regard them as being at all accurate.

Bubblecar said:

>And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

A plebiscite is only on the cards if the Coalition wins the next election, which is looking pretty unlikely at this juncture.

And it’s not binding anyway, and it’s an absurd waste of time & money. Particularly silly in Oz, where politics is traditionally guided by ordinary professional opinion polls – we’re now expected to believe that politicians don’t understand opinion polls and don’t regard them as being at all accurate.

That is my point from the other night. I think those opinion polls and focus groups show it to not be the automatic vote generator that invested people assume. Otherwise they would be all over it.

Bubblecar said:

>And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

A plebiscite is only on the cards if the Coalition wins the next election, which is looking pretty unlikely at this juncture.

And it’s not binding anyway, and it’s an absurd waste of time & money. Particularly silly in Oz, where politics is traditionally guided by ordinary professional opinion polls – we’re now expected to believe that politicians don’t understand opinion polls and don’t regard them as being at all accurate.

You points are perfectly valid, but the fact remains that in order to avoid voter back-lash neither side seems all that keen to be the ones responsible for the passing the legislative change, and funnily enough in contrast neither side really wants to be the one responsible for voting it down either. For me, this whole issue goes the heart of what’s really wrong with Australian politics at the moment – no commitment to real change and no strong leadership.

It’s also important to note that right now even if there was a free vote on the issue it would be unlikely to get over the line (which I find unfortunate and, to be honest, not particularly surprising).

diddly-squat said:

You points are perfectly valid, but the fact remains that in order to avoid voter back-lash neither side seems all that keen to be the ones responsible for the passing the legislative change, and funnily enough in contrast neither side really wants to be the one responsible for voting it down either. For me, this whole issue goes the heart of what’s really wrong with Australian politics at the moment – no commitment to real change and no strong leadership.

It’s also important to note that right now even if there was a free vote on the issue it would be unlikely to get over the line (which I find unfortunate and, to be honest, not particularly surprising).

Legislation is very unlikely to be passed until after the next election, but Labor has committed to passing it within 100 days of their next government.

AwesomeO said:

Bubblecar said:

>And although I also think that a plebiscite is a bit of a cop out, i do think it’s the most likely way to get marriage equality over the line in this country.

A plebiscite is only on the cards if the Coalition wins the next election, which is looking pretty unlikely at this juncture.

And it’s not binding anyway, and it’s an absurd waste of time & money. Particularly silly in Oz, where politics is traditionally guided by ordinary professional opinion polls – we’re now expected to believe that politicians don’t understand opinion polls and don’t regard them as being at all accurate.

That is my point from the other night. I think those opinion polls and focus groups show it to not be the automatic vote generator that invested people assume. Otherwise they would be all over it.

There are obviously a lot of members of parliament that are very worried about the views of their, particularly, conservative constituents.

The thing is for most of the ‘in favor’ crowd this isn’t a vote changer, but it is a vote changer for many of the people on the other side of the fence.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

You points are perfectly valid, but the fact remains that in order to avoid voter back-lash neither side seems all that keen to be the ones responsible for the passing the legislative change, and funnily enough in contrast neither side really wants to be the one responsible for voting it down either. For me, this whole issue goes the heart of what’s really wrong with Australian politics at the moment – no commitment to real change and no strong leadership.

It’s also important to note that right now even if there was a free vote on the issue it would be unlikely to get over the line (which I find unfortunate and, to be honest, not particularly surprising).

Legislation is very unlikely to be passed until after the next election, but Labor has committed to passing it within 100 days of their next government.

sure… but that may well be a moot point if a conscious vote is allowed… there are still plenty of people in the ALP that are squarely in the no camp.

AwesomeO said:

That is my point from the other night. I think those opinion polls and focus groups show it to not be the automatic vote generator that invested people assume. Otherwise they would be all over it.

Not in itself, but it’s certainly a high-profile issue to add to the list of reasons not to vote for Tony ArseClown & Co.

Bubblecar said:

AwesomeO said:

That is my point from the other night. I think those opinion polls and focus groups show it to not be the automatic vote generator that invested people assume. Otherwise they would be all over it.

Not in itself, but it’s certainly a high-profile issue to add to the list of reasons not to vote for Tony ArseClown & Co.

As indicated, there are plenty of people on both sides of politics that aren’t in favor of changing the definition of marriage. What you need to do it understand the position of your local member and vote for the candidate that you think best represents your point of view on the matter.

Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

>Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Not those in the Liberal Party, since they’re under the jackboot of the Vatican for the foreseeable future.

Bubblecar said:

>Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Not those in the Liberal Party, since they’re under the jackboot of the Vatican for the foreseeable future.

:rollseyes:

yes dear

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

AwesomeO said:

That is my point from the other night. I think those opinion polls and focus groups show it to not be the automatic vote generator that invested people assume. Otherwise they would be all over it.

Not in itself, but it’s certainly a high-profile issue to add to the list of reasons not to vote for Tony ArseClown & Co.

As indicated, there are plenty of people on both sides of politics that aren’t in favor of changing the definition of marriage. What you need to do it understand the position of your local member and vote for the candidate that you think best represents your point of view on the matter.

Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Very similar to the Republic referendum. Inner city, wealthy ‘conservative’ electorates voted aye.

Australian politics is way more nuanced than blue vs red.

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

>Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Not those in the Liberal Party, since they’re under the jackboot of the Vatican for the foreseeable future.

:rollseyes:

yes dear

You think Tony will be replaced by a small-l liberal if he wins the next election? Seems wildly unlikely.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Not in itself, but it’s certainly a high-profile issue to add to the list of reasons not to vote for Tony ArseClown & Co.

As indicated, there are plenty of people on both sides of politics that aren’t in favor of changing the definition of marriage. What you need to do it understand the position of your local member and vote for the candidate that you think best represents your point of view on the matter.

Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Very similar to the Republic referendum. Inner city, wealthy ‘conservative’ electorates voted aye.

Australian politics is way more nuanced than blue vs red.

perxactly…

even the inner-city economic conservatives tend to have a bent towards social liberalism

Don’t get me wrong, I think there will be a time in the not to distant future where even the pollies can’t deny the social call for change – all I’m saying is that time isn’t right now.

My suggestion is if you want change then you need vote for the individual that best share your views and the hope they have the political gamesmanship to affect change from within.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

>Simply voting for the ALP may not give you the result you want – in fact I’d suggest it’s the small ‘L’ liberals that are your best chance for reform.

Not those in the Liberal Party, since they’re under the jackboot of the Vatican for the foreseeable future.

:rollseyes:

yes dear

You think Tony will be replaced by a small-l liberal if he wins the next election? Seems wildly unlikely.

you really think that even if the ALP win the next election and a free vote is offered that the majority of sitting members will vote in favor of a legislative change?

seriously, unless one side comes out and applies a binding vote on the issue it will always be a line ball

>Australian politics is way more fucked up than blue vs red.

fixed

Bubblecar said:

>Australian politics is way more fucked up than blue vs red.

fixed

maybe you should enroll to vote Bubbles

>you really think that even if the ALP win the next election and a free vote is offered that the majority of sitting members will vote in favor of a legislative change?

I think they will be under enormous pressure to do so. Failure to pass such a simple reform, when it’s a key part of Labor’s platform and is supported by over 70% of the electorate, and is one of the high-profile issues that would help them win, would be too big a FAIL for them to explain away.

Anyway enough politics, I’m off out for a tasty breakfast. Actually more like brunch by now.

Bubblecar said:

>you really think that even if the ALP win the next election and a free vote is offered that the majority of sitting members will vote in favor of a legislative change?

I think they will be under enormous pressure to do so. Failure to pass such a simple reform, when it’s a key part of Labor’s platform and is supported by over 70% of the electorate, and is one of the high-profile issues that would help them win, would be too big a FAIL for them to explain away.

did you not catch the latest debate in the ALP party room about binding verses conscious votes on the issue??

the ALP will not take a binding vote on the issue to the election, of that you can be sure.

One good reason to vote for same sex marriage is that this will the be the end of it.
After thousands of years of activists pushing the boundaries this will complete their log of claims and we will see no more sexual envelopes.

>did you not catch the latest debate in the ALP party room about binding verses conscious votes on the issue??

You were arguing that “conscience votes” on an issue like this are actually more likely to be driven by electoral fears in regard to this or that seat. Perceptions like that will change after an election win. And remember this is not a static issue – support for marriage equality has been steadily building and will continue to do so.

Bubblecar said:

>did you not catch the latest debate in the ALP party room about binding verses conscious votes on the issue??

You were arguing that “conscience votes” on an issue like this are actually more likely to be driven by electoral fears in regard to this or that seat. Perceptions like that will change after an election win. And remember this is not a static issue – support for marriage equality has been steadily building and will continue to do so.

I would like to agree with you, I really would… But I just don’t see it playing out like that.

I think we are still closer to a decade away from a majority consensus within the parliament on the issue.

except that single parent ‘families’ live thrive and survive. Families that have lost a parent due to illness or accident also, live thrive and survive.

I dislike all these concerns, because they make it sound like there is only one way to live… which is a ridiculous notion. This isn’t about same sex marriages, this is about allowing people to live ***in equality*** you know, like the black and women folk do now…

too far?

Arts said:

!https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMNPHiQW8AAnxYG.jpg

except that single parent ‘families’ live thrive and survive. Families that have lost a parent due to illness or accident also, live thrive and survive.

I dislike all these concerns, because they make it sound like there is only one way to live… which is a ridiculous notion. This isn’t about same sex marriages, this is about allowing people to live ***in equality*** you know, like the black and women folk do now…

too far?

Way too far, I want my dishes and house cleaned daily…now I have to pay exorbitant rates as I can’t get a slave, wife or Man Friday to do it.

Arts said:

this is about allowing people to live ***in equality*** you know, like the black and women folk do now…

too far?

Just a tad, for most folks, yeah.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

!https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMNPHiQW8AAnxYG.jpg

except that single parent ‘families’ live thrive and survive. Families that have lost a parent due to illness or accident also, live thrive and survive.

I dislike all these concerns, because they make it sound like there is only one way to live… which is a ridiculous notion. This isn’t about same sex marriages, this is about allowing people to live ***in equality*** you know, like the black and women folk do now…

too far?

Way too far, I want my dishes and house cleaned daily…now I have to pay exorbitant rates as I can’t get a slave, wife or Man Friday to do it.

it must be tough to be a white male, aged 23 – 40.

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

!https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMNPHiQW8AAnxYG.jpg

except that single parent ‘families’ live thrive and survive. Families that have lost a parent due to illness or accident also, live thrive and survive.

I dislike all these concerns, because they make it sound like there is only one way to live… which is a ridiculous notion. This isn’t about same sex marriages, this is about allowing people to live ***in equality*** you know, like the black and women folk do now…

too far?

Way too far, I want my dishes and house cleaned daily…now I have to pay exorbitant rates as I can’t get a slave, wife or Man Friday to do it.

it must be tough to be a white male, aged 23 – 40.

I think it’s not so much the 23 – 40 age bracket, the real issue lies in the ruling class of 40 – 60 year olds.

Which I think is good because it means we’re within a decade we should enough of the now 30 somethings into positions where they can effect change.

Politicians on both sides who are in the no camp on gay marriage are discriminating aren’t they?

Its very difficult to see them being otherwise

catch my little pun?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Politicians on both sides who are in the no camp on gay marriage are discriminating aren’t they?

Its very difficult to see them being otherwise

catch my little pun?

Well done.

The fact you’d use religion to not support same sex marriage already shows how delusional you are, probably little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

Cymek said:

The fact you’d use religion to not support same sex marriage already shows how delusional you are, probably little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

your not making any sense

the fact is a lot of religious people see same sex marriage as a sin or as something that does not fit in with traditional male female marriage

another fact is that a lot of politicians are religious

another fact is that religion is fiction created by people to control people

it has been shown that differences across sexuality are genetic

it has been verified by three separate universities

why discriminate against a natural cause

here are most of the possibilities of genetic switching in sexuality

heterosexual male
heterosexual female
bisexual male
bisexual female
homosexual male
homosexual female
transsexual male
transsexual female
asexual male
asexual female

I think a lot of people who discriminate do not understand why there are differences in sexuality.

and from a scientific viewpoint where differences in sexuality have been shown to be genetic it would be foolish to keep discriminating against a natural genetic cause

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

The fact you’d use religion to not support same sex marriage already shows how delusional you are, probably little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

your not making any sense

the fact is a lot of religious people see same sex marriage as a sin or as something that does not fit in with traditional male female marriage

another fact is that a lot of politicians are religious

another fact is that religion is fiction created by people to control people

it has been shown that differences across sexuality are genetic

it has been verified by three separate universities

why discriminate against a natural cause

here are most of the possibilities of genetic switching in sexuality

heterosexual male
heterosexual female
bisexual male
bisexual female
homosexual male
homosexual female
transsexual male
transsexual female
asexual male
asexual female

I think a lot of people who discriminate do not understand why there are differences in sexuality.

and from a scientific viewpoint where differences in sexuality have been shown to be genetic it would be foolish to keep discriminating against a natural genetic cause

What I meant was they are using a belief in something non provable based on misguided faith and distorted doctorine to justify discrimination against something that is real.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Politicians on both sides who are in the no camp on gay marriage are discriminating aren’t they?

Its very difficult to see them being otherwise

catch my little pun?

and i guess one could argue that not allowing a 6 year old child to drink alcohol is also discriminating too.

The_observer said:

and i guess one could argue that not allowing a 6 year old child to drink alcohol is also discriminating too.

One, maybe. Which could well be only you.

Of course it is discriminating. Not all discriminating is innately bad.

buffy said:

Of course it is discriminating. Not all discriminating is innately bad.

tick