rapturefish
Kingdom Citizen, Spiritual Nomad
The ramifications of voting Yes do indeed extend to all the other issues that some think are peripheral or irrelevant. They are not irrelevant or peripheral because what here being decided is a basic definition. If people cannot agree on a basic definition, then you are basically fighting over [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is right and wrong.
Is believing that marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others bigotry? Is saying it hate speech? To one side it is beyond debate - yes, it is. To the other, it is still being argued in the secular arena that it is not, but believe it is something for agreeing to disagreeing with.
But you can't have it both ways. When there is a disagreement of truth, in the secular democracy we have it should come down to best practice. Traditional marriage is the basic unit of society's cohesiveness - strong, stable families make for a strong, stable society. Marriage is an institution committed not only to stable, committed relationship, but also extends to stable families, therefore stable and good society. Research already says clearly that marriage is the best way to do this. Same-sex relationships are not because they do not overall lead to stable family units - this is what the research says.
By redefining marriage, you establish a status quo to be upheld and defended and promoted and marginalise all others. Those who believe in traditional marriage will become marginalised and the effects will reach far and wide. If one doesn't believe that to be the case, we have the precedent of what is already happening in the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK, countries who are most similar to Australia and one only has to look on the internet to see what changes have taken place.
To me, it beggars belief that any Christian would not vote No. It is also unbelievable how ignorant and uninformed people are about this over such a long time now. If you imagine the evil one to have his way to destroy Christians, then attacking the very identity of humanity is a prime root to chop away at.
To the Yes camp, since believing anything other than SSM as being marriage is basically bigotry, then don't expect the current deplorable behaviour against Margaret Court, the ACL, businesses like Corrs and others like the party organiser and Pansy Lai who have had to lose their jobs or be pressured to to stop. It is simply one side believing beyond debate that it is bigotry while the other side still thinks there is room to tolerate both views.
You cannot change basic definitions and not expect serious changes to occur. And you cannot expect a group outside the status quo to survive easily. A read of Arduous Huxley's Brave New World would be a good reminder of what to expect.
Is believing that marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others bigotry? Is saying it hate speech? To one side it is beyond debate - yes, it is. To the other, it is still being argued in the secular arena that it is not, but believe it is something for agreeing to disagreeing with.
But you can't have it both ways. When there is a disagreement of truth, in the secular democracy we have it should come down to best practice. Traditional marriage is the basic unit of society's cohesiveness - strong, stable families make for a strong, stable society. Marriage is an institution committed not only to stable, committed relationship, but also extends to stable families, therefore stable and good society. Research already says clearly that marriage is the best way to do this. Same-sex relationships are not because they do not overall lead to stable family units - this is what the research says.
By redefining marriage, you establish a status quo to be upheld and defended and promoted and marginalise all others. Those who believe in traditional marriage will become marginalised and the effects will reach far and wide. If one doesn't believe that to be the case, we have the precedent of what is already happening in the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK, countries who are most similar to Australia and one only has to look on the internet to see what changes have taken place.
To me, it beggars belief that any Christian would not vote No. It is also unbelievable how ignorant and uninformed people are about this over such a long time now. If you imagine the evil one to have his way to destroy Christians, then attacking the very identity of humanity is a prime root to chop away at.
To the Yes camp, since believing anything other than SSM as being marriage is basically bigotry, then don't expect the current deplorable behaviour against Margaret Court, the ACL, businesses like Corrs and others like the party organiser and Pansy Lai who have had to lose their jobs or be pressured to to stop. It is simply one side believing beyond debate that it is bigotry while the other side still thinks there is room to tolerate both views.
You cannot change basic definitions and not expect serious changes to occur. And you cannot expect a group outside the status quo to survive easily. A read of Arduous Huxley's Brave New World would be a good reminder of what to expect.
Upvote
0
