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 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243
Results 631 to 644 of 644

Thread: Gay marriage views?

  1. #631
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Again, fairly technocratic, but. I know many at the time saw the reigning in of states rights as less about preventing crap like the NT restricting Aboriginal marriages based on caste membership and more about stopping gay people from eventually wanting to call their legal union a 'marriage' as is happening now.

    I mean, if the argument is merely a legal one, it just adds fuel to the fire of those who insist it's the definition that needs to change. Before 1965, my Dad was legally not a citizen of this country (despite being born on the Pt Pearce Mission) but registered in the census as livestock. Of course, giving someone like him personhood is a bigger fish to fry (legal rights to own land, vote and whatnot) but you can imagine it wouldn't make gay people looking to have their relationships recognised as equal in every way feel much better to look at it that way considering that one did eventually get changed even before the referendum.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 27-11-2012 at 05:47 AM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  2. #632
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    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.
    One of the problems with other folk being able to use that ****ing monkey as their avatar is that when I see a serious legal point being made in a post I automatically assume it's not benchmark, as he doesn't do that sort of thing, but then I see it does in fact appear to be him, so I start thinking that sledger must have hacked his account. So can the mods please let him have sole use of the bloody thing?

  3. #633
    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
    Again, fairly technocratic, but. I know many at the time saw the reigning in of states rights as less about preventing crap like the NT restricting Aboriginal marriages based on caste membership and more about stopping gay people from eventually wanting to call their legal union a 'marriage' as is happening now.

    I mean, if the argument is merely a legal one, it just adds fuel to the fire of those who insist it's the definition that needs to change. Before 1965, my Dad was legally not a citizen of this country (despite being born on the Pt Pearce Mission) but registered in the census as livestock. Of course, giving someone like him personhood is a bigger fish to fry (legal rights to own land, vote and whatnot) but you can imagine it wouldn't make gay people looking to have their relationships recognised as equal in every way feel much better to look at it that way considering that one did eventually get changed even before the referendum.
    I think you summed it up with the bigger fish to fry thing.

    As long as same sex couples are afforded the exact same rights as their heterosexual counterparts (and they are), I really can't grasp the reason for change, seeing as though the symbolic argument never carries much weight with me.

    The indigenous Australian issue was vastly, vastly more important because they actually were disgracefully denied basic human rights.
    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.

  4. #634
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Fair play that it's a symbolic thing and that doesn't bug you but I thought I remembered that (speaking of symbolism) Ruddock's moral opposition to gay marriage was what drove the push to remove marriage as residual right, purportedly out of fear of gay couples here being able to adopt overseas and also a specific attack on gay marriages recognised legally elsewhere, ensuring they couldn't be recognised here. Reading Hansard at the time is illuminating on that issue, I have to say and confirms what I (barely) remember.

    (yes you've got me reading Hansard now)

    Now it's merely a symbolic change but, from what I'm reading/remembering, it was pushed through hard by the Howard government when it was up for grabs legally so it's fairly easy to see why gay rights types would view the current debate as part of a longer game against them.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 27-11-2012 at 06:08 AM.


  5. #635
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    ParlInfo - ADJOURNMENT : Marriage Legislation

    I mean, have a look just at this fragment for example, Ruddock is quoted in it;

    "This bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of Ğmarriageğ."

    I will come to that point very shortly. He also said:

    "It is a central and fundamental institution.

    It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children."
    If that's not a moral/symbolic thing, I don't know what else is because even then the available scientific evidence contradicted the children angle and the rest is pretty much politics.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 27-11-2012 at 06:18 AM.

  6. #636
    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
    ParlInfo - ADJOURNMENT : Marriage Legislation

    I mean, have a look just at this fragment for example, Ruddock is quoted in it;



    If that's not a moral/symbolic thing, I don't know what else is because even then the available scientific evidence contradicted the children angle and the rest is pretty much politics.
    I'm not sure if that's a moral argument, I think he, like many, believe that the ideal environment to raise children is in a loving heterosexual marriage.

    That argument is not central to my opposition at all, so I won't comment on it. I wouldn't necessarily call it symbolic or moral though. I think it's more a practical thing in his opinion.

  7. #637
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,663
    Love how the argument now boils down to "does opposing gay marriage automatically make you homophobic, or does it just make you a general ****?"
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  8. #638
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Reckon? I'm sure he believes it but the science has him pretty cold on this one, is what I'm getting at. Again, I'm not a lawyer nor totally up-to-speed with federal legislative machinations so dunno at what point the science on the issue can come into play. But, were I a gay bloke looking to become a married gay bloke, I might be awfully tempted to look at the course of events in a fairly cynical light and strongly believe that, for moral reasons, law was passed to **** me and others like me over.

    If you want a specific area where it really hurts people, try getting both of your names on your kid's birth certificate as a gay couple. A court needs to validate your 'domestic partnership' before doing so here in SA, not just a stat dec either. There's a clash of legislation between state and federal law but were they able to be married, total non-issue. Of course, that makes it no different to a de-factor partnership but those in said relationship have the option of getting married whereas gay couples don't.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 27-11-2012 at 06:37 AM.

  9. #639
    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 Uppercut View Post
    Love how the argument now boils down to "does opposing gay marriage automatically make you homophobic, or does it just make you a general ****?"
    The intelligent debaters keep rolling in.

  10. #640
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Reckon? I'm sure he believes it but the science has him pretty cold on this one, is what I'm getting at. Again, I'm not a lawyer nor totally up-to-speed with federal legislative machinations so dunno at what point the science on the issue can come into play. But, were I a gay bloke looking to become a married gay bloke, I might be awfully tempted to look at the course of events in a fairly cynical light and strongly believe that, for moral reasons, law was passed to **** me and others like me over.

    If you want a specific area where it really hurts people, try getting both of your names on your kid's birth certificate as a gay couple. A court needs to validate your 'domestic partnership' before doing so here in SA. There's a clash of legislation between state and federal law but were they able to be married, total non-issue. Of course, that makes it no different to a de-factor partnership but those in said relationship have the option of getting married whereas gay couples don't.
    In theory, this would be neutralised by a proper civil union, wouldn't it? Still seems a bit semantic to me, mind, but that would be the solution.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


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

  11. #641
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,663
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    The intelligent debaters keep rolling in.
    Can't even get my head around this. You suck balls at debating because you constantly go ad hominem at the first opportunity, but your latest form of ad hominem is to attack people's debating skills. It's like you're trying to take a lack of self-awareness to the next level.

  12. #642
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    In theory, this would be neutralised by a proper civil union, wouldn't it? Still seems a bit semantic to me, mind, but that would be the solution.
    You'd think so. Don't know enough about it to be sure.

  13. #643
    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 Uppercut View Post
    Can't even get my head around this. You suck balls at debating because you constantly go ad hominem at the first opportunity, but your latest form of ad hominem is to attack people's debating skills. It's like you're trying to take a lack of self-awareness to the next level.
    Your debating skills extend to saying one line in an attempt to ridicule the other party, but in turn you look like a complete fool because you can't actually comprehend what is being debated. As usual you find yourself out of your depth.

  14. #644
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,637
    Sigh. Can't keep warning you all forever, thread closed.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

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

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243


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
  •