View Poll Results: Do you support gay marriage?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    53 69.74%
  • No, but civil unions

    10 13.16%
  • No, just unregistered co-existance

    1 1.32%
  • No, ban homosexuality!

    3 3.95%
  • Gay? Isn't that a synonym for happy?

    9 11.84%
Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3240414243 LastLast
Results 616 to 630 of 644

Thread: Gay marriage views?

  1. #616
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Having read the first few pages again, I must admit I'm struggling to really understand Bench's opposition to gay marriage. Opposition seems to be mainly technical, calling it a marriage is therefore a symbolic change, etc. Am I close?

    Gay friends I have sorta think, even if symbolic, it means a lot and will feel a lot more like something they can hang their hat on as far in being recognised as equal to non-gay people (especially gay females with kids or who want kids, I've noticed). If it's nothing more than symbolism, does that make it unimportant?
    really cbf getting into it again, but let me re-iterate my support for equal rights between same sex and difference sex couples.

    Let me also make note that marriage is a legal principle, not a religious one, and my opposition to the legalisation is not based on religious grounds.

    The traditional legal definition of marriage stipulates that it is between a man and a woman. I see no reason to change that. It should be between male and female, not male and camel, female and gorilla or anything other.

    The argument along equal rights is total horse **** because since when has marriage been a legal right?

    It's a symbolic measure which does not need to be made at the expense of a long standing traditional institution.

    The main thing is that they are afforded equal rights. And I am a strong advocate for that.
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  2. #617
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I don't get the whole definition and sanctity of marriage argument at all. I could get married and divorced 5 times in one week and that's all cool, but a gay person can't.
    lol pick the guy has no idea about marriage laws.

  3. #618
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,598
    So basically you'd advocate a civil union type thing which in the eyes of the law is completely identical save to it being called "civil union"?
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  4. #619
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,553
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    lol pick the guy has no idea about marriage laws.
    It was an obvious exaggeration for dramatic effect. Do we really have to argue phrasing here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh


  5. #620
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    So basically you'd advocate a civil union type thing which in the eyes of the law is completely identical save to it being called "civil union"?
    Yes. It's why I have voted "No, but civil unions"

  6. #621
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,183
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    really cbf getting into it again, but let me re-iterate my support for equal rights between same sex and difference sex couples.

    Let me also make note that marriage is a legal principle, not a religious one, and my opposition to the legalisation is not based on religious grounds.

    The traditional legal definition of marriage stipulates that it is between a man and a woman. I see no reason to change that. It should be between male and female, not male and camel, female and gorilla or anything other.

    The argument along equal rights is total horse **** because since when has marriage been a legal right?

    It's a symbolic measure which does not need to be made at the expense of a long standing traditional institution.

    The main thing is that they are afforded equal rights. And I am a strong advocate for that.
    No, traditionally the act didn't define marriage. That was a Howard goverment-era amendment to the act, if I recall correctly.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 27-11-2012 at 05:15 AM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  7. #622
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,598
    But then here's the thing for me: if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck? If it's identical to marriage in all but name, then doesn't it simply make more sense to just call it marriage and be done? I see your point re: traditional institutions, but what about the symbolic importance of the individual being able to say "Yes, Bob and I are married" as opposed to "Yes, Bob and I are civilly unioned". I don't think the the latter is really important enough to justify the lack of the former, tbh.

    Ideally Cribb's original idea would be best IMO, and we'd just give everyone civil union licenses and let everyone work it out amongst themselves whether they want to call them marriage licenses or not, but that's also borderline semantics and would be a technical cluster****.

  8. #623
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    No, traditionally the act didn't define marriage. That was a Howard goverment-era amendment to the act, if I recall correctly.
    Nah it's basically a constitutional definition. The 2004 amendment was so it fell in line with the definition intended in s51.

  9. #624
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    No, traditionally the act didn't define marriage. That was a Howard goverment-era amendment to the act, if I recall correctly.
    Yep. 2004.

    EDIT: I'm reading that it was a bring-it-into-line-with-common-law thing though

    EDIT2: Never mind.

    EDIT3: Wait really re: s51? I'm not a lawyer, but...

    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

    ...

    (xxi) marriage;
    And that's it. Seems light on definitions to me.
    Last edited by Spark; 27-11-2012 at 05:26 AM.

  10. #625
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,183
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Nah it's basically a constitutional definition. The 2004 amendment was so it fell in line with the definition intended in s51.
    Yeah I remember but there were plenty at the time who thought it should have remained a residual power of the states rather than brought into line with the constitutional definition.

    Anyway, this reduces the argument to a fairly technocratic one and, well, I'm not a lawyer so take what I'm about to say with the appropriately large mound of salt.... But anyway, if a constitutional court upheld a change to the definition, that means you'd support it, yes?

  11. #626
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Yep. 2004.

    EDIT: I'm reading that it was a bring-it-into-line-with-common-law thing though

    EDIT2: Never mind.

    EDIT3: Wait really re: s51? I'm not a lawyer, but...



    And that's it. Seems light on definitions to me.
    He did say "intended" rather than "included" to be fair.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  12. #627
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Yep. 2004.

    EDIT: I'm reading that it was a bring-it-into-line-with-common-law thing though

    EDIT2: Never mind.

    EDIT3: Wait really re: s51? I'm not a lawyer, but...



    And that's it. Seems light on definitions to me.
    Well you would be aware of the two methods of statutory interpretation yes? Purposive and literal.

    At the time the Constitution was written, a man and a woman, like in Australia today, were the only ones allowed to get married. Therefore if there's no scope for literal interpretation (no strict written definition), one is by no other choice bound by the purposive method in times of debate, which would define it between a man and a woman.

  13. #628
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,598
    Fair enough.

  14. #629
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Yeah I remember but there were plenty at the time who thought it should have remained a residual power of the states rather than brought into line with the constitutional definition.

    Anyway, this reduces the argument to a fairly technocratic one and, well, I'm not a lawyer so take what I'm about to say with the appropriately large mound of salt.... But anyway, if a constitutional court upheld a change to the definition, that means you'd support it, yes?
    I would definitely disagree with their findings because I would feel it was based upon no legal ground, however theoretically - yes. But I do hope it doesn't get to that stage because I think the court would have made a mistake.

  15. #630
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    At the end of the day, there's no way you can term my opposition to same sex marriage as homophobia. People who do so, and people who can see no other objections to it other than homophobia are ignorant, plain and simple.

Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3240414243 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Marriage
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 31-03-2010, 12:18 AM
  2. Neutral Views
    By roseboy64 in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 07:25 AM
  3. Why I'm Against Gay Marriage...
    By Matteh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 07:22 AM
  4. Most Disappointing Team?
    By Waughney in forum ICC Champions Trophy 2004
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 14-09-2004, 12:13 PM
  5. Views on CWC99 game (cricket world cup 99)
    By san769 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2002, 09:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •