View Full Version : Government Backs Gay Marriage?
Can someone explain this to me please? What's happening, does it mean the marriage act was voted to change?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8384050/labor-backs-gay-marriage
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 12:54
The Federal Labor Party has voted to make an amended Marriage Act part of their policy platform.
That means at some point the Govt will draft amendments to the Marriage Act allowing same sex marriage and then introduce them into the Parliament.
The PM was successful in getting ALP support for a conscience vote in the issue rather than requiring MPs to vote in line with party position.
mummykitty
03-12-2011, 12:57
:) so it looks like it may actually happen then :D
smallpotatoes
03-12-2011, 13:10
It might, but as far as I can tell is that it also makes it a conscience vote, which means that members could vote against it without being kicked out of the Labor party. A number of Labor MPs have already said that they wouldn't support an amendment to the Marriage Act, so some Liberal members would need to cross the floor in order for it to pass (given the minority Government status).
I'm really hoping this gets through
mummykitty
03-12-2011, 13:18
Hopefully a few liberal members do then.. This definitely deserves to pass :)
SassyMummy
03-12-2011, 13:21
I think it's a fantastic strategic move.
The Coalition has not (at the moment) allowed a conscience vote for their members, so they will vote against this amendment in line with the party policy (the same policy that 149 of the 150 current MPs went to the last election with). Which means it will not make it through the lower house.
This is just another example of how Gillard can backflip on a pre-election promise. It now just looks like she was only telling the electorate what she thought they wanted to hear - and doesn't really have any strong opinions about anything.
I hope that this amendment will get strongly voted down - which I think it will. The government does not have a mandate for such a large social change.
It will be interesting to see what now happens in the next Newspoll.
Waiting for the attacks to come:rolleyes:
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 15:32
The Coalition has not (at the moment) allowed a conscience vote for their members, so they will vote against this amendment in line with the party policy (the same policy that 149 of the 150 current MPs went to the last election with). Which means it will not make it through the lower house.
This is just another example of how Gillard can backflip on a pre-election promise. It now just looks like she was only telling the electorate what she thought they wanted to hear - and doesn't really have any strong opinions about anything.
I hope that this amendment will get strongly voted down - which I think it will. The government does not have a mandate for such a large social change.
It will be interesting to see what now happens in the next Newspoll.
Waiting for the attacks to come:rolleyes:
Although strictly speaking the Coalition doesn't prohibit voting against the party line. The ALP will kick you out of the party, but the Coalition won't. Or at least the Liberal Party won't.
Remember Ruddock crossing the floor in the 80s when John Howard was Opposition Leader?
FearlessLeader
03-12-2011, 15:37
Although strictly speaking the Coalition doesn't prohibit voting against the party line. The ALP will kick you out of the party, but the Coalition won't. Or at least the Liberal Party won't.
Remember Ruddock crossing the floor in the 80s when John Howard was Opposition Leader?
Yes that's right. As the 'liberal' party this is actually a strong core value of the party, that members aren't expected to always toe the party line.
Obviously the liberal party is different at the local council then! In Bris a local member from the Lib party was kicked out by Can-Do Campbell for not "toeing the line" and voting against the party. How dare a person elected by the people actually vote for what the PEOPLE wanted!! That was almost two years ago and the member is still being victimised and bullied by Libs on a regular basis!
I really hope the changes to the marriage act go through.
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 16:01
Obviously the liberal party is different at the local council then! In Bris a local member from the Lib party was kicked out by Can-Do Campbell for not "toeing the line" and voting against the party. How dare a person elected by the people actually vote for what the PEOPLE wanted!! That was almost two years ago and the member is still being victimised and bullied by Libs on a regular basis!
I really hope the changes to the marriage act go through.
Who?
How dare a person elected by the people actually vote for what the PEOPLE wanted!!
Labor and the Carbon (dioxide) Tax anyone?
Nicole Johnston - Tennyson Ward Brisbane City Council. Google her and the Sherwood Bus Depot and read the controversy!
She's now an independent.
DaddyLarge
03-12-2011, 16:44
The idea of a mandate is a quaint notion. There hasn't been a government in my lifetime that hasn't "backflipped" on election promises.
People vote on the totality of a candidate's platform. A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of every policy, it is merely a reflection that the sum of their platform is preferred to that of the other candidates. Until we implement citizen-initated referenda and recall powers, we're stuck with a system where election promises are fluid and changeable.
Labor has done it. There was also another party that introduced the term "non-core promise" to the political lexicon. Pretty sure they weren't Labor, though.
In this instance, it is a changed policy that is actually reflecting the will of the people. I can't remember seeing a single poll in the last few years that has indicated that a majority of the country didn't support permitting same-sex marriage, despite the scare-mongering and bigotry.
To be honest, the gay marriage issue is one of the most valuable debates we've had in this country, for two reasons.
Firstly, it is a very accurate insight into the nature of a person. The human rights and equality implications of same-sex marriage are clear and indisputable, as is the reality that allowing gay marriage negatively impacts no one. That some would seek to deny others a benefit that would bring no cost to them or society is a startling insight into their character and humanity.
Secondly, it makes crystal clear the folly of allowing religious corporations to cower behind "separation of church and state" as a justification to avoid paying tax on their massive profits. The idea that we have this privileged class or corporations that is permitted to avoid contributing to society according to their wealth and income while demanding their right to impart their views and bigotry on society.
The concept of religious corporations being exempt from tax is based on the idea that the church is not a political entity. The second that they insert themselves into the political debate they lose the moral right to that exemption.
Separation of church and state is a two-way street. Either the church remains exempt and keeps itself out of politics, or it retains its place in the discourse and contributes in the same way as any other corporation.
Firstly, it is a very accurate insight into the nature of a person. The human rights and equality implications of same-sex marriage are clear and indisputable, as is the reality that allowing gay marriage negatively impacts no one. That some would seek to deny others a benefit that would bring no cost to them or society is a startling insight into their character and humanity.
So would I be correct to assume that you would also support and endorse polygamy then?
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 17:03
Nicole Johnston - Tennyson Ward Brisbane City Council. Google her and the Sherwood Bus Depot and read the controversy!
She's now an independent.
She quit though didn't she?
And um, well.
DaddyLarge
03-12-2011, 17:26
So would I be correct to assume that you would also support and endorse polygamy then?
Firstly, there is a world of difference between "support" and "endorse".
There would be a lot more tax and welfare considerations to be sorted out before polygamy was able to be implemented. Gay marriage involves nothing outside of signing a piece of paper - every other consideration already exists as a part of the Marriage Act.
But from a moral point of view, provided that all parties were adults and all entered into the arrangement willingly, it doesn't concern me in the slightest. Whilst it isn't something that I would be interested in, who am I to tell grown adults what they should do with each other?
I have a novel approach to freedom. I believe that if grown adults are happy and aren't affecting anything or anyone else, they should be left the hell alone to live their life. I don't believe that freedom only means the right to do stuff that I'd also choose to do.
Alexander Beetle
03-12-2011, 17:33
So would I be correct to assume that you would also support and endorse polygamy then?
How ridiculous. They aren't even similar. Anyway DL has answered perfectly as usual.
I hope that this amendment will get strongly voted down - which I think it will.
Waiting for the attacks to come:rolleyes:
Do u mind if I ask why? Cool if you don't want to answer
delirium
03-12-2011, 17:55
Polygamy is not something I would partake in, but if it involves consenting adults, who am I to judge? As someone else said, you can support a choice even if you wouldn't make it yourself. On a sexuality scale, I'm up the top end of hetro, never been even remotely attracted to another female ever. But just bc I wouldn't marry a woman doesn't mean I don't support another female marrying another woman.
It's really as simple as that to me.
How ridiculous. They aren't even similar. Anyway DL has answered perfectly as usual.
I agree, DL has answered the question very well. His views are universal.
It seems that yours, on the other hand, are not, as you seem to think it is a ridiculous suggestion that consenting adults (3) may want to get married. Do you not think that they should be free to get married too?
Do u mind if I ask why? Cool if you don't want to answer
I am of the view that 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman. It's a simple as that.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions to show their commitment to each other and receive legal recognition - just don't call it 'marriage'.
Alexander Beetle
03-12-2011, 18:53
I agree, DL has answered the question very well. His views are universal.
It seems that yours, on the other hand, are not, as you seem to think it is a ridiculous suggestion that consenting adults (3) may want to get married. Do you not think that they should be free to get married too?
I have no issue what consenting choose to do actually. But I still don't think they are similar issues.
Atlantic Puffin
03-12-2011, 18:55
I am of the view that 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman. It's a simple as that.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions to show their commitment to each other and receive legal recognition - just don't call it 'marriage'.
I am 110% supportive of gays/lesbians and civil unions and having legal recognition also, but do tend to agree that the actual word "marriage" is used to describe a man an woman.
With regards to civil unions.... I am absolutely thrilled that parliament has passed this and given the rights for legal recognition......... Small steps but such a great direction to be heading in for equality between australians!!!!! :cheerleader1:
Proudly brought to you by Mumma Puffins portable telecommunication device!
waterlily
03-12-2011, 19:16
I REALLY hope it gets through but it won't :(
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 19:23
I REALLY hope it gets through but it won't :(
I think it's going to be really close.
In fact it's going to be fascinating watching. (outs self as nerd).
Stephen Jones and Adam Bandt have both said they'll introduce a Private Members Bill. Will it get to that or will Govt introduce a Govt bill?im kinda disappointed Parliament doesn't resume until Feb!
DaddyLarge
03-12-2011, 19:32
I think it's going to be really close.
In fact it's going to be fascinating watching. (outs self as nerd).
Stephen Jones and Adam Bandt have both said they'll introduce a Private Members Bill. Will it get to that or will Govt introduce a Govt bill?im kinda disappointed Parliament doesn't resume until Feb!
The government won't sponsor a bill. They will leave it to a Private Member's Bill in order to try to insulate themselves from the inevitable wailing from the church.
It will only be close if the Libs also agree to a conscience vote, which would surprise me. Abbott plays politics on absolutely everything, and allowing it to go to a conscience vote would negate his ability to get his nightly buzzwords on the news every night. He can't exactly rail against the government on the issue if a heap of his own members are going to support it.
Not to mention the fact that Abbott's own bigotry will make him fight to keep a party line. As health minister, he fought tooth and nail against the move to allow a conscience vote on removing his ability to maintain the ban on RU486 because it meant that he wasn't going to be able to impose his hardline religious views on the rest of us.
It would be close (but not guaranteed) as a parliament-wide conscience vote, but I doubt it'll happen. If the Libs vote as a bloc it won't be close at all.
NancyBlackett
03-12-2011, 19:36
I think he'll allow a conscience vote.
The Party Room will make him.
He'll call the PM's conscience vote bluff.
Janesmum123
03-12-2011, 19:37
Yep I doubt it will happen as well. But I still think it's that once step closer then we where before. It will happen one day. One day we will be all treated equally, I have faith in that.
SassyMummy
03-12-2011, 20:47
"Marriage" is also a term used to describe the union women can be forced/pressured into by their fathers/other male relatives, when they are but children themselves... and often to much older men.
I have much more of a problem with that being called marriage, than two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex having a "marriage."
I have no problems at all with two men or women being "married." Applying the word "marriage," to same sex marriages doesn't make heterosexual marriage any lesser. Two women getting married, using that word, doesn't make my heterosexual marriage (if I ever get married... lol) any less valid or important. It has no impact on it whatsoever.
I agree, DL has answered the question very well. His views are universal.
It seems that yours, on the other hand, are not, as you seem to think it is a ridiculous suggestion that consenting adults (3) may want to get married. Do you not think that they should be free to get married too?
No your suggesting that 3+ people getting married is the same as 2 people getting married which is why it's a stupid comparison. Why don't you minus the gender of the couple and look at it that way, is polygamy now on the same boat??
Hootenanny
03-12-2011, 21:06
I certainly don't think it is a done deal but it gives me hope that same sex couples can enjoy the same choices and rights that heterosexuals have. It is only a matter of time................
delirium
03-12-2011, 21:16
Yeah I don't think it will happen sadly. The religious zealot Abbott will do what he always does and bring his own religious beliefs into the political arena bc that's his constant agenda. His bigotry makes me want to throw up in my mouth...
Super Trooper
03-12-2011, 21:40
Daddylarge - your a deadset champ! :)
And i don't get how people can be against calling gay marriage "marriage" ... as sassy mummy has already said, a same sex couple getting married does not devalue hetero marriage, nor negatively impact on anyone else. If the word and concept of marriage were so special and sacred that it may only be applied to a union between a man and a women, wouldn't there be harsher penalties for infidelity and wouldnt divorce be abolished? Infidelity and divorce do more to damage the sanctomony of marriage than gay couples...
And allowing gay couples to have a a civil union but not a marriage is not equality
Sent from my MB525 using Bubhub
delirium
03-12-2011, 21:44
Infidelity and divorce do more to damage the sanctomony of marriage than gay couples...
Agreed, and sadly hetro couples have a 60% cheat rate and a 50% divorce rate... so who is ruining the 'sanctity' of marriage I wonder? :rolleyes:
One day we will be all treated equally, I have faith in that.
If you really want 'all treated equally', I think there are more important issues than this.
For example, the disgusting treatment of LGBT people in Palestine. You cannot be openly gay in the Palestinian Authority. People have had to flee TO Israel in order to avoid abuse, including torture and murder, from the Palestinian people including the police. This treatment is disgusting and a much more important human right than 'marriage'. But despite this, I have yet to see a protest against the Palestinian treatment of homosexuals. Why is this?
DaddyLarge
03-12-2011, 22:12
No your suggesting that 3+ people getting married is the same as 2 people getting married which is why it's a stupid comparison. Why don't you minus the gender of the couple and look at it that way, is polygamy now on the same boat??
In fairness, I think that the comparison was drawn because of the absolute in my post. The question was based more on my assertion that grown adults can make their own decisions and where I would draw the line, rather than being a direct comparison between the two.
At least I HOPE it was.
The question was based more on my assertion that grown adults can make their own decisions and where I would draw the line, rather than being a direct comparison between the two.
At least I HOPE it was.
Yes it was.
DaddyLarge
03-12-2011, 22:25
If you really want 'all treated equally', I think there are more important issues than this.
For example, the disgusting treatment of LGBT people in Palestine. You cannot be openly gay in the Palestinian Authority. People have had to flee TO Israel in order to avoid abuse, including torture and murder, from the Palestinian people including the police. This treatment is disgusting and a much more important human right than 'marriage'. But despite this, I have yet to see a protest against the Palestinian treatment of homosexuals. Why is this?
All due respect, but that is a pretty silly diversionary argument. Citizens of this country are able to affect the laws in this country, making protest and campaigning an effective and useful tool.
I would also suggest that there is an element of "glass houses" in play. Any such protest wouldn't have a great deal of validity or impact if our own house isn't in order first.
Human rights throughout the Arab world is abysmal, and I don't see it changing any time soon. I could list a dozen examples (treatment of homosexuals definitely being one of them) of things that are horrible and should change - as Australians, the best way we can help effect that change is to set the example of being a country that is able to achieve success while shunning bigotry.
If the treatment of homosexuals in the Palestinian territories aggrieves you, the feel free to start that protest and best of luck to you. I'm a pragmatist - I believe that my efforts can help achieve a necessary change in this country, so that's where my energies will be focused.
But the fact that there are countries elsewhere treat their gay community worse than we do doesn't excuse us from getting rid of blatant discrimination here. Nor does it make the push to redress this discrimination any less valid.
So would I be correct to assume that you would also support and endorse polygamy then?
Hell yes I would :D
Polygamy is not something I would partake in, but if it involves consenting adults, who am I to judge?
:iagree: I want a sister wife :fingerscrossed:
trishalishous
03-12-2011, 23:05
what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business.
Though DH has jokingly suggested extra wives (he can have 4) but then complains thats Im too much trouble, imagine 4 of me:freakingout:
There are plenty of polygamous families in Australia already.
I am of the view that 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman. It's a simple as that.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions to show their commitment to each other and receive legal recognition - just don't call it 'marriage'.
they will. they already have been. to those couples it's a marriage, no matter what the government calls it. you won't find someone proposing to someone to civil union them, they'll call it a marriage. don't like it? don't marry a man.
and to answer one of your previous points regarding precedent for social change, yes there is. women getting the vote springs to mind.
In fairness, I think that the comparison was drawn because of the absolute in my post. The question was based more on my assertion that grown adults can make their own decisions and where I would draw the line, rather than being a direct comparison between the two.
At least I HOPE it was.
The argument is used by people against gay marriage that if you allow gay marriage, more 'types' of marriage will have to be acknowledged like polygamy. I'm sure it was in response to your post, but I'm answering the underlying tone of that opinion that most anti gay marriage folk have and use to deflect the argument.
lilypily
04-12-2011, 07:39
I can't beleive we have (in this day in the year 2011), so many old fuddy duddys with out dated opinions.
Get with the program people, this will happen, maybe not this time but within the conceivable future. This is a massive step forward and if it got some big momentum it might get over the line.
Otherwise, we just wait till the narrow minded people pass on and the younger more accepting generation get it over the line.
Jessandmeltrappel
04-12-2011, 08:11
Yes I am a lesbian and I am engaged to my partner. We are waiting for gay marriage to go through. To us, we don't do anything different to anyone else... We live the same lives, do the same.jobs, buy houses and have families just like everyone else. I believe that I speak for the gay community that unless we get full marriage equality meaning we are legally allowed to call it marriage the same as everyone else, its still discriminating us.... We all feel like were lower than everyone else cuz the government treats us worse, and gives us less rights that criminals and pedofiles ... ? How can that make sense... Allowing us to get married wont hurt anyone, it will mean that the wedding industry would get a massive massive boost meaning that its good for the economy as well ...really. come on Julia ... All you have to do is tick the box and let it happen .... And that would be all. It would change my life forever and I can't stress it enough.... Plz. Vote for gay marriage ...
Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Bubhub
CallaLilly
04-12-2011, 08:54
Allowing us to get married wont hurt anyone, it will mean that the wedding industry would get a massive massive boost meaning that its good for the economy as well
It would also be great for tourism. It's a pity that money even has to come into it, but Politicians do seem to like the concept of extra cash..
DaddyLarge
12-12-2011, 03:11
I think he'll allow a conscience vote.
The Party Room will make him.
He'll call the PM's conscience vote bluff.
Unfortunately, Abbott has confirmed that he'll oppose a conscience vote. The party room could oppose him, but they won't. It would be a huge blow for his authority as leader seeing as he has come out publicly and forcefully, and would basically make him a lame duck leader. Unless they want to roll him and install a new leader they'll have to back him.
The last poll says that 81% of coalition voters support a conscience vote on the issue. There's nothing like a politician reflecting the will of his constituents...
He has done his best to soften his image over the past few years, but if nothing else this shows that Abbott is still the same hardcore fundamentalist religious zealot that he has always been. He has always - and WILL always - revert back to trying to inflict his religious agenda onto the country at every opportunity, regardless of the country's feelings on the matter.
Gillard has been atrocious as PM - but I'd take a million ineffective Gillards over one bible-and-pitchfork crusading Abbott any day. The 1950s weren't all that kind to women - give him power at your peril.
mummykitty
12-12-2011, 03:22
Unfortunately, Abbott has confirmed that he'll oppose a conscience vote. The party room could oppose him, but they won't. It would be a huge blow for his authority as leader seeing as he has come out publicly and forcefully, and would basically make him a lame duck leader. Unless they want to roll him and install a new leader they'll have to back him.
The last poll says that 81% of coalition voters support a conscience vote on the issue. There's nothing like a politician reflecting the will of his constituents...
He has done his best to soften his image over the past few years, but if nothing else this shows that Abbott is still the same hardcore fundamentalist religious zealot that he has always been. He has always - and WILL always - revert back to trying to inflict his religious agenda onto the country at every opportunity, regardless of the country's feelings on the matter.
Gillard has been atrocious as PM - but I'd take a million ineffective Gillards over one bible-and-pitchfork crusading Abbott any day. The 1950s weren't all that kind to women - give him power at your peril.
:iagree:
:gloomy: :gloomy: why is this even an issue :( I wish they would oppose him but sadly it is unlikely they will. Time for new leaders :yes:
I am of the view that 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman. It's a simple as that.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions to show their commitment to each other and receive legal recognition - just don't call it 'marriage'.
Semantics.
Gay people being 'married' will have absolutely no effect on you, your marriage or your life unless you choose to have a gay marriage, so why do you feel the need to oppose it?
The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee,(2) namely, a formal, monogamous and heterosexual union for life.
I find it interesting that the above is in the Australian Constitution and is used for the basis of definition for the term "marriage", which is essentially a legal contract, yet adultery is not punishable by law and divorce (and subsequent remarriage) is perfectly legal. So we can be flexible enough with the monogamous bit (open marriage anyone?), the "for life" part is meaningless, but the man and woman part we just cannot budge on? Puhh-leeease.
mummykitty
12-12-2011, 04:08
Father (I cbf finding the post to quote on my phone but it's the one used above)
Does it make a difference to you if mark and Mary next door are married? No? Then why should it matter it Amy and Mary are married? Or mark and John? Indeed how would you know? Why should it matter? If someone else being happily married really causes so Many issues with the idea of marriage for you I'd suggest it's not their marriage that needs looking at. Since when were heterosexual couples of a higher class than same sex couples? What makes anyone think we have the right to limit another persons access to what is a privilege enjoyed by the majority of the population (as an option even if one not used) I do not think of marriage as a right it is a profound privilege on a number of levels but it is one that should be available to EVERYONE who wishes- be they male female or transgender if they are in love and want that commitment go for it. Should you wish to separate yourself you're welcome to have a 'civil union' if it's good enough to suggest as a substitute and equal I'm sure you won't mind?
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 07:31
DL - he has indicated that he will stick to the Coalition's position from the last election. By describing it that way he is trying to wedge Gillard and highlight she has back flipped. Given the popular support for same sex marriage and a conscience vote the recess is more than likely to demonstrate to him that this isnt a wedge that will work.
Abbott's leadership is by no means safe and the Party Room will do what it takes to win the next election. This issue could be the opportunity Turnbull has been waiting for ;)
Ana Gram
12-12-2011, 08:44
What was the Coalition's position?? Saying no to everything. No wait, that has been the Coalition's position during Gillard's time in leadership.
I kind of think that this is quite a masterful move by Labor. Will the majority of gay people really care that Labor has backflipped on this issue? Nope.
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 08:48
I agree Ana Gram - which is why I don't think the Party Room will agree with Abbott that it is an effective way to wedge.
I'm fairly sure that people who voted for the ALP at the last election didn't do so based on Gillard's statement that under her PM'ship marriage would remain between a man and a woman.
rainbow road
12-12-2011, 08:59
Everything DL has said.
Marriage is a human right. For everyone. The UDHR does not specify it being between opposite sex parties, unlike Australia's Marriage Act.
Prohibiting gay marriage is a blatant human rights abuse but because they're not torturing citizens it's okay?
just because something is less horrible doesn't make it less valid.
I am of the view that 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman. It's a simple as that.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions to show their commitment to each other and receive legal recognition - just don't call it 'marriage'.
I haven't read the responses, but what makes you think that the rest of the counry should abide by your morals when it comes to marriage? If marriage to you is between a man and a woman, then marry a woman. Marriage to me is about love. It's not harming your marriage if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman.
I agree Ana Gram - which is why I don't think the Party Room will agree with Abbott that it is an effective way to wedge.
I'm fairly sure that people who voted for the ALP at the last election didn't do so based on Gillard's statement that under her PM'ship marriage would remain between a man and a woman.
Sorry for not replying to everyones questions directed at me. They are pretty much all the same. My generic response will be - "this is how I feel, and I am entitled to such an opinion". The perils of a free society I guess.
In regard to Lucy's comments above. I think you are neglecting the Christian ALP voters. Gillard was specifically asked this question from a Christian group. I can't see this being a vote winner for Labor, but there will be 'traditional' Labor voters that may well have to jump ship over this move (amongst others) towards the Greens.
Marriage to me is about love. It's not harming your marriage if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman.
Another supporter of polygamy. There was a good article in the Australian over the weekend about the 'slippery slope' and the push for polygamy has already started.
Everything DL has said.
Marriage is a human right. For everyone. The UDHR does not specify it being between opposite sex parties, unlike Australia's Marriage Act.
Prohibiting gay marriage is a blatant human rights abuse but because they're not torturing citizens it's okay?
just because something is less horrible doesn't make it less valid.
I do agree. Imagine if legislation suddenly meant that people of different races could no longer marry, or those with disabilities.
Oh no.... but this is 'different'... this is just a bit of good old fashioned homophobia :rolleyes:
Another supporter of polygamy. There was a good article in the Australian over the weekend about the 'slippery slope' and the push for polygamy has already started.
Well... I do want a wife. Do you know how AWESOME it would be to have someone else help with the weekly clean and the school pickups? :D
Well... I do want a wife. Do you know how AWESOME it would be to have someone else help with the weekly clean and the school pickups? :D
Yes. It's called an Au-pair. A hell of a lot cheaper than another wife!:D
Chocolate All Gone Now
12-12-2011, 09:18
Well... I do want a wife. Do you know how AWESOME it would be to have someone else help with the weekly clean and the school pickups? :D
I second that ;)
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 09:19
Sorry for not replying to everyones questions directed at me. They are pretty much all the same. My generic response will be - "this is how I feel, and I am entitled to such an opinion". The perils of a free society I guess.
In regard to Lucy's comments above. I think you are neglecting the Christian ALP voters. Gillard was specifically asked this question from a Christian group. I can't see this being a vote winner for Labor, but there will be 'traditional' Labor voters that may well have to jump ship over this move (amongst others) towards the Greens.
I genuinely don't believe that even the majority of Christian voters would have made their decision based solely on Gillard's position on same sex marriage. When I say Gillard's, I mean her Govt's. I don't think her own position has changed - that's why she pushed so hard for a conscience vote and not a blanket change in their platform.
Ana Gram
12-12-2011, 09:21
Just on the 'slippery slope' idea, if one type of marriage causes a slippery slope towards different sorts of marriage, then so does hetero marriage. Solution, no-one gets married.
Just on the 'slippery slope' idea, if one type of marriage causes a slippery slope towards different sorts of marriage, then so does hetero marriage. Solution, no-one gets married.
Marriage has been around for 1000s of years. I think it has proven that the slope is not very slippery when limited to heterosexuals.
Lucy, you can believe what you want. Are you a Christian? If not, you probably aren't in the best position to speak on their behalf.
Ana Gram
12-12-2011, 09:29
Polygamy has also been around for 1000s of years, gay marriage is clearly not going to cause a slippery slope towards it since gay marriage has not been around for 1000s of year. It now points us back to hetero marriage being a slippery slope, or perhaps polygamy was a slippery slope towards hetero marriage.
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 09:32
Father - please don't be so naive as to think the Government won't have done extensive polling on this. Especially with respect to the Christian vote.
Even the Greens have said churches won't be forced to conduct marriages they feel are not in accordance with their beliefs. So unless a church feels theologically comfortable with marrying a same sex couple they don't have to. In the same way they don't have to marry a couple now if they don't feel comfortable doing it.
It's then exactly the same sort of marriage as a couple who choose to be married by a celebrant or in a registry office now.
Chocolate All Gone Now
12-12-2011, 09:37
I'm Christian and it's got my vote ;)
God hates the sin not the sinner... But that's another story...
Also, treat others how you want to e treated.. So if you deny marriage to anyone, then why should you be allowed to marry?
I am Christian and it has my vote too:yes:.
rainbow road
12-12-2011, 10:05
Homosexuality exists in hundreds of species. Homophobia exists in only one. So which one is abnormal?
rainbowchild
12-12-2011, 10:20
Daddylarge i think i love you :laughing::laughing:
alwaysinthekitchen
12-12-2011, 11:41
An interesting debate which I'm sure no doubt will decend into oneuping and the time honoured tradition of rejecting other's opinions based on fear and misunderstanding :rolleyes:
My WIFE to be and are expecting our first child in Feb and we have all but accepted the fact that we might end up being perpetually engaged because the country that we both been born and raised in is unable to extend to us the same basic human rights as our heterosexual peers. We have the same rules imposed on us in every aspect of our lives together as a married couple would, yet we are unable to say we are married or even able to plan for a time when we will be married. And don't get me started on the unions...
I would much rather be able to say "we got married" as oposed to "we got unionised". A civil union or a civil partnership or whatever you want to call it doesn't exactly conjure up images of white dresses and cake toppers... more likely of boardrooms and binding contracts. A marriage is not a business trasnaction and a gay marriage does not deviate from any of the characteristics of a heterosexual marriage so why is there a need to call it something different?
As for the polygamy debate - open relationships aren't illegal. A man or woman can be married and have as many mistresses or boyfriends as they like, wouldn't it be better if it was all done above the board and out in the open? Who cares.
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 16:41
DL - I'm sure you saw Abbott's comments today about the Shadow Cabinet endorsing the Coalition's existing position on same sex marriage and no conscience vote.
Interesting times ahead!
DaddyLarge
12-12-2011, 16:56
Yep. Abbott isn't particularly popular within the party room, but it's no secret that they'll be able to ride the News Ltd wave into power at the next election. They won't risk losing that golden ticket by dumping Abbott.
And Abbott won't tolerate being leader of a party that doesn't oppose gay marriage to the death. So they (and we) are stuck.
NancyBlackett
12-12-2011, 17:02
It's the little old ladies of the party that ensured Abbott became leader - and to be fair to him he did knock off Rudd - but MPs are going to have to spend the recess very seriously thinking about the electorate's mood on the issue and they'll bring that back to the Party Room in the new year.
He's more popular than Turnbull was as leader in the party room, but that is largely because Abbott has a lot more experience in dealing with them.
.
Lucy, you can believe what you want. Are you a Christian? If not, you probably aren't in the best position to speak on their behalf.
Father, are you a homosexual? Just wondering, since you wish to make such a huge decision on THEIR behalf.
Sorry for not replying to everyones questions directed at me. They are pretty much all the same. My generic response will be - "this is how I feel, and I am entitled to such an opinion". The perils of a free society I guess.
So if I was of the opinion that black people/old people/people with physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry, you'd be ok with that because I'm "entitled to such an opinion", right? Even though it is blatant discrimination against a group? Even though having a law preventing marriage for anyone in these categories would be a clear breach of human rights? Father I'm sorry but this is not a matter of opinion, it's not acceptable by world standards to deny access to marriage to anyone based on gender or sexuality. To stick to the letter of the wording in our constitution we would also have to ban divorce and criminalise infidelity (consensual or not). Why are you so hung up on the "male and female" part when the other two requirements in our constitution's outdated definition are clearly and legally bypassed?
So if I was of the opinion that black people/old people/people with physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry, you'd be ok with that because I'm "entitled to such an opinion", right? Even though it is blatant discrimination against a group? Even though having a law preventing marriage for anyone in these categories would be a clear breach of human rights? Father I'm sorry but this is not a matter of opinion, it's not acceptable by world standards to deny access to marriage to anyone based on gender or sexuality. To stick to the letter of the wording in our constitution we would also have to ban divorce and criminalise infidelity (consensual or not). Why are you so hung up on the "male and female" part when the other two requirements in our constitution's outdated definition are clearly and legally bypassed?
To answer your first question - No I am not a homosexual.
And no, I am not making a decision on their behalf. There is no decision to be made, as it is not legal. Nor do I have the power to make such a decision. The only thing I can do is vote for a party with a policy that I agree with. And I would hope that that party would then adhere to the policy that I had voted for.
To the post above:
Yes, you are entitled to that opinion. Of course you are. It is not discrimination to have an opinion. It may be controversial, but not necessarily discrimination. It shows how dangerous the current system has become, where people can't make a comment without people throwing out the 'discrimination', 'homophobia', or 'racist' card.
Am I being discriminatory against the young by saying that 17 year olds should not be allowed to get married? Is this in breach of their 'human rights'?
Which leads me onto the 'human rights' card. Is marriage a human right? Really? I have had a bit of look at some human rights websites, and the 'right to marry' really isn't a player. If it is a human right then why can't 5 year olds get married. Wouldn't stopping them getting married by your definition be against their 'human rights' too? You are a human at 7 years of age afterall. Can you name another 'human right' that is not applicable to a 7 year old?
In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.
This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.
This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
and you know marriage went down that slope with straight people getting married. gay people marrying is hardly going to make it any worse. marriage was designed to legally bind people who love each other together. i don't get how that changes if gay people get married?
Opinionated
13-12-2011, 20:11
marriage was designed to legally bind people who love each other together.
I don't believe that. Marriage is about the transferance of property, ownership and children. That's why most marriages were originally arranged. The love part is secondary.
What I don't understand is why it is a big deal to anyone if gay people are allowed to have civil marriages. What will it change for anyone else except the people involved? I just don't understand what people are scared of. What do you think will happen if gay people marry? It would be a boon to the economy, imagine all those gay weddings.:) Earlier this year I flew to the other side of the world to attend the wedding of Australian citizen to his partner. How ridiculous that he couldn't get married here at home. It was probably the most touching wedding I have ever attended.:)
Equal rights for all Australians.
Hootenanny
13-12-2011, 20:25
Father, are you a homosexual? Just wondering, since you wish to make such a huge decision on THEIR behalf.
Best reply ever.
It amazes me that people feel that they are justified in making decisions for others, don't like it? Don't do it.
People who are gay don't need to be treated like naughty children who need your guidance and control exerted over them, this change is going to happen, it's just a matter of when. And I will cheer and cry and be grateful that I don't live in a world where I can be married because I am 'straight'.
I don't believe that. Marriage is about the transferance of property, ownership and children. That's why most marriages were originally arranged. The love part is secondary.
that only makes it even worse.
it also means that marriage has already been removed from its original 'purpose', so father's point on this is moot.
To answer your first question - No I am not a homosexual.
And no, I am not making a decision on their behalf. There is no decision to be made, as it is not legal. Nor do I have the power to make such a decision. The only thing I can do is vote for a party with a policy that I agree with. And I would hope that that party would then adhere to the policy that I had voted for.
To the post above:
Yes, you are entitled to that opinion. Of course you are. It is not discrimination to have an opinion. It may be controversial, but not necessarily discrimination. It shows how dangerous the current system has become, where people can't make a comment without people throwing out the 'discrimination', 'homophobia', or 'racist' card.
Am I being discriminatory against the young by saying that 17 year olds should not be allowed to get married? Is this in breach of their 'human rights'?
Which leads me onto the 'human rights' card. Is marriage a human right? Really? I have had a bit of look at some human rights websites, and the 'right to marry' really isn't a player. If it is a human right then why can't 5 year olds get married. Wouldn't stopping them getting married by your definition be against their 'human rights' too? You are a human at 7 years of age afterall. Can you name another 'human right' that is not applicable to a 7 year old?
In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.
This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
But the question IS whether it should be legal- and you, a non-homosexual , are saying no, it should not, despite it having no impact on you whatsoever because you are not part of that group.
Your argument re children getting married is not really relevant. We are clearly all talking about consenting adults. As for marriage not being a human right, I'm not sure what kind of websites you have visited but there is plenty of others who think differently.
"Article 16, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."
For more than a decade, this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle and many countries have responded by bringing their domestic laws into line with this principle in a range of spheres including partnership rights.
It doesn't get much clearer than that Father. Marriage equality is indeed a human rights issue.
You would be happy to ban divorce? Really? What about domestic violence victims? You'd make them stay married to their abuser? ...interesting.
Witwicky
13-12-2011, 21:11
To answer your first question - No I am not a homosexual.
And no, I am not making a decision on their behalf. There is no decision to be made, as it is not legal. Nor do I have the power to make such a decision. The only thing I can do is vote for a party with a policy that I agree with. And I would hope that that party would then adhere to the policy that I had voted for.
To the post above:
Yes, you are entitled to that opinion. Of course you are. It is not discrimination to have an opinion. It may be controversial, but not necessarily discrimination. It shows how dangerous the current system has become, where people can't make a comment without people throwing out the 'discrimination', 'homophobia', or 'racist' card.
Am I being discriminatory against the young by saying that 17 year olds should not be allowed to get married? Is this in breach of their 'human rights'?
Which leads me onto the 'human rights' card. Is marriage a human right? Really? I have had a bit of look at some human rights websites, and the 'right to marry' really isn't a player. If it is a human right then why can't 5 year olds get married. Wouldn't stopping them getting married by your definition be against their 'human rights' too? You are a human at 7 years of age afterall. Can you name another 'human right' that is not applicable to a 7 year old?
In regard to criminalising infidelity and divorce, I would be happy with that. I think marriage has lost some of it's meaning in recent decades. It used to be 'till death do us part', but this doesn't seem the case anymore. And I am very much against infidelity, that I would not have a problem if that was illegal - because in my eyes, it is. So I am not just 'hung up on' the male and female part only.
This aside, I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors (provided it is legal), I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
That suggestion is ridiculous. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) outlines the fundamental rights of children, including the right to be protected from economic exploitation and harmful work, from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, and from physical or mental violence.
Laws are put in place to restrict the marriage of a child to another until a child’s maturity has evolved enough to eliminate as much exploitation as possible, many of which would be a bi-product of marriage at such an age. As you know a child of 5 is unable to make such an impacting decision. An adult is able to, and should have the right to make that decision for themselves, be it one of same sex orientation or not.
The right to equality before the law is one of the most fundamental of all human rights principles yet the Marriage Act is among a raft of Australian laws which deny this basic right to gay and lesbian couples and their children.
rainbow road
13-12-2011, 21:17
UDHR article 12: the right to marry and start a family
UDHR article 2: the right to have all human rights granted regardless of race, religion, economic status or any other factor (I.e. sexuality).
I don't know them verbatim and I'm not on a computer, but yes, the right to marry is a human right and all human rights are expected to granted regardless of any status.
delirium
13-12-2011, 21:18
I also don't understand why it effects hetros? I'm hetro, I married a man....but how does gays marrying change anything between Dh and I? Hetros have made a right mockery of marriage ourselves, yet two same sex people that love each other are worse than Brittany Spears and her 12 hour marriage?
I think sometimes how I would feel, completely hetro and if I was born into a society of 90% gay and 10% straight, where I was only allowed to marry a woman. That the man I loved and I were shunned and our rights to marriage taken away. I could never marry a woman just to 'fit in' with society, so I would spend my life, totally in love with a man and not being able to have it legally acknowledged. That would be a terrible feeling :(
That suggestion is ridiculous. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) outlines the fundamental rights of children, including the right to be protected from economic exploitation and harmful work, from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, and from physical or mental violence.
Laws are put in place to restrict the marriage of a child to another until a child’s maturity has evolved enough to eliminate as much exploitation as possible, many of which would be a bi-product of marriage at such an age. As you know a child of 5 is unable to make such an impacting decision. An adult is able to, and should have the right to make that decision for themselves, be it one of same sex orientation or not.
The right to equality before the law is one of the most fundamental of all human rights principles yet the Marriage Act is among a raft of Australian laws which deny this basic right to gay and lesbian couples and their children.
I agree- the child marriage issue is nothing more than a strawman on Father's part.
Witwicky
13-12-2011, 21:20
I agree- the child marriage issue is nothing more than a strawman on Father's part.
I have no doubt but felt I should address it nevertheless.
I have no doubt but felt I should address it nevertheless.
:yes: agreed- thank you :)
rainbow road
13-12-2011, 21:24
I thought I should add that Australia has ratified the convention of civil and political rights, which echoes the sentiments of the UDHR with regards to marriage, which makes the right to marry for all in Australia a matter of international law as ratification of the CCPR makes it subject to international law for violations.
DaddyLarge
13-12-2011, 21:30
Seventeen year olds (and sixteen year olds) can actually get married in at least some states, as it happens...
Strangely enough, those howling about "the sanctity of marriage" - including the church - have traditionally either ignored or opposed moves to outlaw this.
Witwicky
13-12-2011, 21:31
I just don't think that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it was originally intended for.
I'm really glad that so many laws have been amended in our society over time. For example - womens and aboriginal voting rights. The law originally intended for males only to have the right to vote. I don't think 'originally intended' means anything in the scheme of things. We are constantly evolving towards a fair and just society, this is just another hurdle which will be overcome ;)
delirium
13-12-2011, 21:47
Seventeen year olds (and sixteen year olds) can actually get married in at least some states, as it happens...
Strangely enough, those howling about "the sanctity of marriage" - including the church - have traditionally either ignored or opposed moves to outlaw this.
Yes bc somehow 2 16 year old straight children should have more rights to marriage then 2 consenting, gay adults :rolleyes:
It's also important to note that if this goes thru, churches won't be forced to marry homosexuals. So their delicate sensibilities need not be challenged ;) and if I was gay, I would rather stab myself in the eye rather than marry in a church that preaches I'm a sinner purely based on how i was born....
"Article 16, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."
For more than a decade, this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle and many countries have responded by bringing their domestic laws into line with this principle in a range of spheres including partnership rights.
It doesn't get much clearer than that Father. Marriage equality is indeed a human rights issue.
You would be happy to ban divorce? Really? What about domestic violence victims? You'd make them stay married to their abuser? ...interesting.
Yes. It doesn't get much more clearer than that. The fact that some people would like to think that there is a hidden "sexual orientation" line in that sentence means nothing. I don't see that connection. It clearly only says race, nationality, and religion.
Yes. There are obvious exceptions to all laws, and abuse would be an appropriate exception.
rainbow road
13-12-2011, 22:27
Yes. It doesn't get much more clearer than that. The fact that some people would like to think that there is a hidden "sexual orientation" line in that sentence means nothing. I don't see that connection. It clearly only says race, nationality, and religion.
Yes. There are obvious exceptions to all laws, and abuse would be an appropriate exception.
Yes but article 2 of the UDHR states:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Other status would include sexuality, and Article 2 is the package all the other Articles come in.
UDHR article 12: the right to marry and start a family
UDHR article 2: the right to have all human rights granted regardless of race, religion, economic status or any other factor (I.e. sexuality).
I don't know them verbatim and I'm not on a computer, but yes, the right to marry is a human right and all human rights are expected to granted regardless of any status.
I'll actually quote those articles for you. Above I have shown that article 16 is not relevent.
Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
A bit of a stretch for you to interpret that the way you did.
Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
"Other status". Is this the out clause for everything?
Here are some more articles:
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Do you feel that you two (and all the others who seem to think that I can not have an opinion) have acted towards me in a spirit of brotherhood?
Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I could say to call me 'archaic', 'bigoted', and my views 'rubbish' is "degrading treatment". I wouldn't do that though, because you are entitled to your opinion.
Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It seems that people that are so determined to have 'human rights' are also very willing to sacrifice this particular one.
I don't need anyone to agree with me. I was merely expressing my opinion which is clearly a 'human right' according to article 19. You don't have to read things into that article. Nor do you have to rely on the "other status" out clause. It cannot be any more clear.
This is my opinion. You don't have to agree. But you shouldn't attack me and call me names because I have such an opinion. You really cannot get on your "high horse of human rights" (I might copyright that:)) whilst at the same time be hypocritical and take away my 'human right' to have an opinion.
Witwicky
13-12-2011, 22:41
Not to mention the article stipulating that ALL are EQUAL before the law. I believe it's article 6 or 7, but can't check at the present time.
Ana Gram
13-12-2011, 22:44
It's one thing to have an opinion, it's entirely another to impose that opinion on the lives of others who have absolutely nothing to do with your own marriage.
A gay couple getting married has absolutely NO effect on a straight persons marriage. None. As a non-gay person, I can get married to whoever I want which also has absolutely no effect on anyone else's marriage. Why should I be allowed to get married and Forkie can't? It makes absolutely NO sense.
Do you feel that you two (and all the others who seem to think that I can not have an opinion) have acted towards me in a spirit of brotherhood?
you are entitled to an opinion. you are not entitled to belittle other people with it, especially when you're in an increasing minority. belittling others with your minority opinion is not acting in a spirit of brotherhood. if you are trying to convince forkie to take your point of view you will fail as she is in a committed relationship with another woman. that is their right. they are planning children, as is also their right. there is nothing to stop them from applying together for a home loan should they choose to do that. they are in no way different from a straight couple, except that the government has written blatant discrimination against them into legislation.
that clause "and other status" has to be there for the same reason as an "other" option has to appear in any poll on this site. there's always something that gets missed for whatever reason. sexuality is covered by that clause. the inclusion of that clause shows that the authors of that document are opening that human right to anyone, no matter what may have slipped their minds at the time of writing.
i have spoken to forkie outside of the hub and she is very level-headed and sensible. she has acted very civilly in this thread compared to what i would have done if moderation and infringement weren't an issue.
Not to mention the article stipulating that ALL are EQUAL before the law. I believe it's article 6 or 7, but can't check at the present time.
Article 7:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Now this is very dangerous ground so I'll tread lightly. Aboriginal entitlements. Why are we Australians not all equal according to the law? Why is race factor in some laws?
It's one thing to have an opinion, it's entirely another to impose that opinion on the lives of others who have absolutely nothing to do with your own marriage.
A gay couple getting married has absolutely NO effect on a straight persons marriage. None. As a non-gay person, I can get married to whoever I want which also has absolutely no effect on anyone else's marriage. Why should I be allowed to get married and Forkie can't? It makes absolutely NO sense.
I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. As I said before, I can't personally change the law (or not change it in this case). It is just an opinion. It is not an action.
And Forkie can get married like everyone else. She just has to marry someone of the opposite sex, as this is one of the requirements according to our laws.
wow, not even going to touch that one. heteronormalcy makes me sick.
Ana Gram
13-12-2011, 22:53
Oh Maude...
Suggesting that Forkie can get married only if she marries a man is unbelievably vile.
Your opinion and those of people like you HAVE been made into action by denying gay people the right to get married. And going by the most recent polls, our society is being held up by a minority since the majority of Australians support gay marriage.
you are entitled to an opinion. you are not entitled to belittle other people with it, especially when you're in an increasing minority. belittling others with your minority opinion is not acting in a spirit of brotherhood. if you are trying to convince forkie to take your point of view you will fail as she is in a committed relationship with another woman.
Increasing minority or decreasing??? Doesn't matter.
I am in no way belittling anyone. Please direct me to a quote where I have done such a thing.
I am not trying to convince her and get her to change her mind. Why would I want to do that? I was merely commenting on the thread about the government backing gay marriage. Am I not entitled to do this because of my 'minority' view?
yes, you are! i said that! but you seem to think that your way is the only right way. that is my perception, so shoot me. if you were just commenting you wouldn't have made this many posts in this one thread. if you didn't want to convey that you think your view is more correct or important or whatever you would've gone okay, whatever, that's my opinion, and bowed out. which sounds like an appealing course of action right about now.
shrinking minority might be a better way of saying it. tired.
ps. maybe one day i'll meet my mrs right too.. and marry her. i'd like to do that. my sister is getting married in january and that's really really special. i'd like that too. there is no single reason why i shouldn't be allowed to marry someone i love. sexuality shouldn't be a barrier. and i will be wearing a suit and tailcoat for the ceremony. no dresses for me.
And going by the most recent polls, our society is being held up by a minority since the majority of Australians support gay marriage.
If you feel that this is the case, then good on you.
You might want to read this article from the ABC then.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2870676.html
Witwicky
13-12-2011, 23:04
Article 7:
Now this is very dangerous ground so I'll tread lightly. Aboriginal entitlements. Why are we Australians not all equal according to the law? Why is race factor in some laws?
Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have access to special benefits in recognition of the fact that they are the most economically and socially disadvantaged group in Australia today.
That's why.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.
ETA...nm
if you were just commenting you wouldn't have made this many posts in this one thread. if you didn't want to convey that you think your view is more correct or important or whatever you would've gone okay, whatever, that's my opinion, and bowed out. which sounds like an appealing course of action right about now.
People keep responding to my posts, so I feel obligated to answer their questions of me.
I my opinion is of such little worth, then why is everyone repeatedly questioning my opinion? I would be more than happy if I am ignored and not constantly being attacked because of my views.
As this thread has turned very personal - I will now close it for cleaning
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.