|
I love that figure of 0.2% "even all the homosexuals in Australia don't want to get married! There's only 40 000 odd people in Australia who want it!"
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
I'm trying to figure out what they mean by 'hold the rest to ransom'. THEY'LL MAKE US WATCH THE GAY WEDDINGS
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Please never stop tying to make rainbows sinister.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I don't suppose anyone thought to mention that the aim is to make SSM legal, not compulsory?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:I don't suppose anyone thought to mention that the aim is to make SSM legal, not compulsory? You never know which way the slippery slope will go until it starts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
 The Brisbane River? No mortal can survive such acidity!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
I can't help but think if they just improved the rights of a Civil Union to be equal to that of mawwiage there wouldn't be all of this garbage going on. For a lot of the idiots opposing this it is purely about that word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I can't help but think if they just improved the rights of a Civil Union to be equal to that of mawwiage there wouldn't be all of this garbage going on. For a lot of the idiots opposing this it is purely about that word. The problem is that it's a very "separate but equal" ideal. When that came up here in the states studies showed that people didn't respect it enough or didn't understand the concept enough to allow for enforcement of its protections. Marriage also carries great social and cultural weight behind it, whereas a civil union does not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I can't help but think if they just improved the rights of a Civil Union to be equal to that of mawwiage there wouldn't be all of this garbage going on. For a lot of the idiots opposing this it is purely about that word. The process to get a civil union certificate is roughly the same as getting a dog licence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:Anyone who says this had exactly zero intention of voting yes and was just looking for an excuse to justify their bigotry. Correct. And too cowardly to just come out and say it. gay picnic defence posted:I don't suppose anyone thought to mention that the aim is to make SSM legal, not compulsory? Since when have facts been a consideration for bigots and religious fanatics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:The process to get a civil union certificate is roughly the same as getting a dog licence. Pretty sure I could rent a hall then invite all my friends and family to dress up and celebrate my dog licence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Brisbane City Council reveals what they expect Brisbane will look like in 2022:   
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
It should be compulsory for no voters to marry someone of the opposite sex when they lose
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Looks like a cheap casino. Very fitting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Brisbane City Council reveals what they expect Brisbane will look like in 2022: They may as well post screenshots from random city builder games on Steam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
I'm the patch of grass on a high rise building.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I'm the patch of grass on a high rise building. I'm the giant purple lights helping people to think they are in a red light district.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
The purple lights reflect Brisbane's deep connection to the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Can't wait to avoid being in the city even more
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:I'm the giant purple lights helping people to think they are in a red light district. I'm the weird sky balcony that totally won't be used for suicides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Looks like a poor mans Singapore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Looks like a poor mans Singapore. The parts of Brisbane in the background look a bit like a distant favela. Maybe a hint of South American slum with a rich/poor divide illuminated in lurid purple? Just so long as the road to the airport is in good condition they can always put up visual barriers in front of the rest of the city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Wow, the Utopia season finale must have had quite the CGI budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:The process to get a civil union certificate is roughly the same as getting a dog licence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I can't help but think if they just improved the rights of a Civil Union to be equal to that of mawwiage there wouldn't be all of this garbage going on. For a lot of the idiots opposing this it is purely about that word. Nah. It's all about people who are different from you having less rights under the law. Call it whatever you like, allowing people who are different to have the same things as you lessens you personally, don't you understand? John Howard would've done the same thing to civil unions if he had to back in the day. It's a culture war all the way done, and old white guys think they're the most put upon people on earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
In other news the SA Electoral Commission redistribution is heavily tipped to hit Mayo. Why can't they hit up my seat? It's been safe Labor for so long we get absolutely 0 pork barreling 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
What rights do married people have that those in a civil union don't? I mean, other than the right to call yourself married.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The problem is that it's a very "separate but equal" ideal. When that came up here in the states studies showed that people didn't respect it enough or didn't understand the concept enough to allow for enforcement of its protections. You also have to amend a ton of laws to say "marriage or an equivalent status" or you can just amend marriage to say men, women, whatever. open24hours posted:What rights do married people have that those in a civil union don't? I mean, other than the right to call yourself married. It depends on how laws around visitation, inheritance, adoption, etc. are worded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
open24hours posted:What rights do married people have that those in a civil union don't? I mean, other than the right to call yourself married. This covers it pretty decently I think http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/12-civil-unions-are-not-enough/ quote:To address the practical legal problems faced by unmarried same-sex partners, some people advocate civil unions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:The parts of Brisbane in the background look a bit like a distant favela. Maybe a hint of South American slum with a rich/poor divide illuminated in lurid purple? That's just Logan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:This covers it pretty decently I think http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/12-civil-unions-are-not-enough/ Doesn't this imply that they do have the same rights? I understand that they might get hassled by people who don't know the law properly, but that's a different problem and one that will probably continue even after SSM is legalised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
starkebn posted:For a lot of the idiots opposing this it is purely about that word. Imagine if a women couldn't get a drivers license, but instead had to get a 'womens road license' which were equal in every other way besides name. Do you think society would treat women drivers as they do today, or would there be some additional baggage in having a women's license? People wouldn't tolerate this sort of discrimination in any other form of official paperwork. So you have to question why this is the one exception. The civil union argument only sounds good on paper because people only ever frame it as an ideologically pure, abstract hypothetical. There is this bubble where A = B ipso facto, logically the human brain will treat A = B. But even in the best case scenario it isn't true, since the people who strongly prefer different terms are acknowledging a semantic difference between the terms. There is social baggage in the term marriage that isn't in civil union, and as a result are treated differently. It gives the person who perceives a difference a justification for perceiving the difference, when there legally isn't one. Also creating two functionally identical terms creates confusion and implies a difference to someone ignorant of the issue, or simply doesn't have the time to give it enough thought (mistakes get made). People's brains don't work like machines, so if there is a difference in language people are going to wonder why the language is different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
My idea would be that the government only ever issues Civil Unions and if you want to get "married" that is something a church does purely as a symbolic ritual. Completely pie in the sky but I also have no idea why people want to get married apart from the legal rights anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
starkebn posted:My idea would be that the government only ever issues Civil Unions and if you want to get "married" that is something a church does purely as a symbolic ritual. The civil concept of marriage as a joining of two people is much older than any modern religion's concept of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
If you're going down that route why even bother with civil unions? Defacto couples have the same rights as married couples so there's no need for the government to be involved at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
open24hours posted:If you're going down that route why even bother with civil unions? Defacto couples have the same rights as married couples so there's no need for the government to be involved at all. That's how I live my life but what is it with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:This covers it pretty decently I think http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/12-civil-unions-are-not-enough/ Regarding the international bit, how many countries that don't allow same-sex marriages still recognize those from other countries? Even relatively progressive Germany didn't recognize any kind of civil union (same-sex or otherwise) presumably until they approved same-sex marriage two months ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Regarding the international bit, how many countries that don't allow same-sex marriages still recognize those from other countries? Even relatively progressive Germany didn't recognize any kind of civil union (same-sex or otherwise) presumably until they approved same-sex marriage two months ago. I seem to recall a couple did. Israel, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Teddybear posted:The civil concept of marriage as a joining of two people is much older than any modern religion's concept of it. open24hours posted:If you're going down that route why even bother with civil unions? Defacto couples have the same rights as married couples so there's no need for the government to be involved at all. Ding! and that's why, absurd as it is, the importance of the marriage debate is about legitimacy. Marriage legitimises the relationship in the eyes of many (especially the No camp), and one would hope those benefits trickle down through civil unions to de factos. Nevertheless, the No campaign understands very well that this is a fight for legitimacy and not about the words, hence the preemptive squealing about religious "freedom".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 04:15
|
|
