Maqqa wrote on Apr 1
st, 2013 at 2:54am:
This is not a debate about if you think it's right or wrong
Currently we don't have gay marriages. A change in the law would benefit the voters
So do you want gay marriages?
If you vote yes - how does it change you or the ability to feed and clothed your family
If no - then you've voted for the status quo.
I vote no gay marriages
It does not impact me so why should I vote yes?
Must I vote yes to everything that does not impact me because someone is going to call me names?
If the Greens believe in this sooooo strongly - let them make this their election centre-piece
If Wong believes in this soooo strongly - let her make this the centre-piece at the next election
No political party will do it!!!
Not even the Greens.
Gay marriages is a second thought now because the Greens leader is not gay!!
Moral disapproval in the absence of any other harm cannot, and should not, be the basis for a prohibitive law.
The issue is one of liberty, not whether or not it affects you.
If a group in society is being deprived of a certain right, no matter how dim your view of that group, I cannot see how you can agree with this ban and still purport to stand for liberty.
To see an issue like this with clarity you need to ask yourself some simple questions.
Pretend you do not yet know what the right to be granted is and to whom it is to be granted to; then ask yourself:
Would the granting of this right cause any actual harm other than to offend?
If the answer is no, could I in good conscience stand against it?
If the answer is yes, does this mean that I should also stand for the suppression of offensive speech, offensive art or offensive opinions to be ideologically consistent?It should be pretty straightforward for you from there.