Re: Beer Garden
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:34 pm
Mono, we get all that. I think only the hard-core religious would argue that 'marriage' belongs exclusively to religion.
The point is that it's a potential compromise. I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)
My feeling (and, yes, it's just my personal impression) is that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people in the no camp. I reckon only a very small percentage of those voting no are doing so because they're actually homophobic, bigoted, etc, etc. Main reasons I have observed for voting no are 'my religion says no', 'I have a traditional view of marriage', 'I think children should have a mother and a father', etc. I don't think there are many people voting no because they object to same-sex couples having the same practical legal rights as hetero couples.
Surely being able to say you're 'married' would be the 'cream on top' in comparison to the 'cake' of your same-sex union being legally equivalent to a hetero union. Couldn't you live without the word 'marriage' if it meant the debate was settled peacefully amongst the vast majority of Australians...? (Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority. I reckon if the word 'marriage' was removed from the equation, this figure would probably get closer to 90% or higher.)
The point is that it's a potential compromise. I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)
My feeling (and, yes, it's just my personal impression) is that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people in the no camp. I reckon only a very small percentage of those voting no are doing so because they're actually homophobic, bigoted, etc, etc. Main reasons I have observed for voting no are 'my religion says no', 'I have a traditional view of marriage', 'I think children should have a mother and a father', etc. I don't think there are many people voting no because they object to same-sex couples having the same practical legal rights as hetero couples.
Surely being able to say you're 'married' would be the 'cream on top' in comparison to the 'cake' of your same-sex union being legally equivalent to a hetero union. Couldn't you live without the word 'marriage' if it meant the debate was settled peacefully amongst the vast majority of Australians...? (Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority. I reckon if the word 'marriage' was removed from the equation, this figure would probably get closer to 90% or higher.)