I think the government should be involved, and in fact has a duty to, because of the procreation and rearing of children. It should encourage the union of a man and a woman and to the children that are born of the fruit of that union. When gender and children are taken out of the equation as it is with SSM, then government has no reason to be involved.That’s the problem with the government getting involved.
No, in fact they succeed, as many of these agenda driven activists want to do away with marriage altogether, and by pluralizing it, it becomes unmanageable and they are left with the solution you offer now which is what they wanted all along.The government simply cannot be trusted, and if they get out of the marriage business altogether, the SSM movement loses a lot of wind of their sails.
Don’t be fooled. This postal survey is indeed a vote, and it will become binding just like a vote. It’s a disgrace that the Liberal Nationals have let us down with such a flimsy postal vote and it’s a disgrace that we have had to fight tooth and nail for our right to vote in a democracy.Again. It’s not a vote. We are not voting, we can’t vote
Very foolish thing to say. It may not be binding on our legal system at the present time, but it will certainly be binding on our politicians and campaigners who will then make the result law. The result can and will change the law.It’s not binding. It’s just seeking opinions. It can’t change the law
It’s about time people wake up and take this seriously.It’s about time people started calling it out for what it is.
Josh ,this survey, your marking yes or no, won’t change the status quo.Very foolish thing to say. It may not be binding on our legal system at the present time, but it will certainly be binding on our politicians and campaigners who will then make the result law. The result can and will change the law.
Of course it will.Josh ,this survey, your marking yes or no, won’t change the status quo.
Which they obviously will, and if they were to vote opposite to the survey result, then they will be accused of being dictators and denying the will of the people.The politicians then have to vote in parliament if, and a very big if, they decide to.
It gives the parliament a mandate by the people.Josh, what legal rights does this survey have? Point me in the direction please.
It’s the only option we have been given, and if you don’t vote, or treat it with such disregard, then you deserve all the consequences that follow.This isn’t even going to be a true representation of what the population wants.
Yes… I’m increasingly in agreement with the idea the government should get out of the marriage business to begin with. In fact, it’s actually surprising how many people still seem to think that keeping the matter under the government’s purview is conducive to keeping the definition as that of a man and a woman, considering the frequency in which that action (keeping it under the government’s purview) has resulted in the exact opposite happening. This happening in the US feels like it should have been a wakeup call that maybe you shouldn’t be leaving this sort of thing up to the government… but I guess people haven’t learned.That’s the classical argument and the one I’ve previously made, but the problem is the government just can’t do it anymore because the cultural forces that once took marriage seriously are gone from much of the First World. It’s not government that has been the driving force, it’s the culture. Government is just a reflection of what culture is, especially in a democratic government.
The SSM issue isn’t something that happens overnight----this is the product of a decades long decay of the institution of marriage that has been ridiculed and assaulted even in sectors of the religious community. In fact, when the debate was raging in America, people joked why GBLT would want to suffer through such a thing.
The government simply cannot be trusted, and if they get out of the marriage business altogether, the SSM movement loses a lot of wind of their sails.