Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

That the injustice might continue due to the bigoted opinions of the public.

That's a pretty arrogant position imo, you are implying that the majority of the public are bigots. What is your evidence for that ? The majority of Parliamentarians are bigots, they have continually voted against SSM, so you should be supporting a plebiscite if you want a considered view from rational people.

 

[Tisme]

Usual mixing of a cocktail to justify an ambiguity.

Human rights is a nonsense when it comes to destruction of an institution that was devised to provide human rights and legitimacy to infants. The creation of an outcast generation is the reality and none of the bleeding hearts are bleating about that, because the prize is really winning against the moral majority who have never accepted and never will, the proposal that homosexuality is a normal human condition.

We all know it's anomaly, whether it be a congenital defect or the most truthful; a protest lifestyle choice and the marriage thing is just another "look at me" activity that people with the affliction want to parade and the relatives whose lives have been shattered need, to legitimise their anguished and begrudging acceptance rather than beating themselves up.

You only have to look at the facial expression of the mums and dads of homosexuals to know nature is telling them they are fighting the indefatigable primal morality encoding that binds them to the survival/health of the tribe over pandering to the weak of mind.

 

[Value Collector]

That's a pretty arrogant position imo, you are implying that the majority of the public are bigots. What is your evidence for that ? .

I am not implying that they are, I don't know if they are or not, I am just saying that if they are, then they vote may be no, which is a risk that we shouldn't have to take.

Also, goo people can be swayed by logical fallacies put forward by bigots, you only have to look at FB posts to see that.

 

[SirRumpole]

Also, goo people can be swayed by logical fallacies put forward by bigots, you only have to look at FB posts to see that.

So can politicians. Especially if they have to deal with in your face lobbyists from either the churches or the rainbow set.

 

[wayneL]

Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?

 

[luutzu]

Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?

Big and apparently important enough that some people don't want the homosexuals to have it.

 

[Value Collector]

Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?

Would the Australian public be happy if they were denied marriage, and instead only offered a "Civil union".

I guess you can argue that the back seat of the bus goes to the same destination as the front seat, so denying blacks the right to sit at the front seat is ok, because they should just be happy with the back seat, because it gets them to the destination. Would you accept a law that restricts blacks from sitting in certain seats on the bus? I mean they still get to ride the bus.

As, Luutzu pointed out, there obviously is a difference, other wise people wouldn't be trying to restrict gays to civil unions.

-------------------------

What Is Marriage? Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union? A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level.

Nothing wrong here hey? I mean they all get to the destination.

 

[wayneL]

Would the Australian public be happy if they were denied marriage, and instead only offered a "Civil union".

I guess you can argue that the back seat of the bus goes to the same destination as the front seat, so denying blacks the right to sit at the front seat is ok, because they should just be happy with the back seat, because it gets them to the destination. Would you accept a law that restricts blacks from sitting in certain seats on the bus? I mean they still get to ride the bus.

As, Luutzu pointed out, there obviously is a difference, other wise people wouldn't be trying to restrict gays to civil unions.

-------------------------

It's not answering the question, it merely brings in extraneous issues and the subject of a different debate (and for the record I don't really care one way or the other, no skin off my nose)

***Is there a legal difference?***

 

[Value Collector]

***Is there a legal difference?***

Marriages are universally recognised, eg a marriage in france is recognised here, a civil union is recognised in that state or country, it doesn't automatically get recognised else where.

no skin off my nose

That's another problem isn't it, when dealing with something involving the rights of minorities, it's no skin off the nose of 98% of the population. Hence that's why the majority can not vote to deny human rights to minorities.

I mean as a White, English speaking, straight male, there are lots of things I can say "no skin off my nose too" but that doesn't mean I have the right deny rights I have from other groups.

 

[Knobby22]

I am not implying that they are, I don't know if they are or not, I am just saying that if they are, then they vote may be no, which is a risk that we shouldn't have to take.
.

It's called democracy. I don't really want to live under a tyranny run by "right thinking people". But you rightly point out the real reason for stopping the vote.

 

[Value Collector]

It's called democracy. .

A constitutional democracy, is not the same as "Majority rules".

The rights of minorities do not cease to exist just because they are outnumbered, it is the job of the elected officials to protect the rights of all citizens not to feed a sheep to the wolves simple because the sheep was out numbered.

They should have the balls to stand up and say that regardless of public opinion, we will not discriminate based on sexual orientation, Just as they would on any other race or gender issue.

___________________________________________________

people seem to think that this picture below sums up democracy, but the rights of the sheep must always be protected.

 

[SirRumpole]

Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?

De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.

In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.

But anyway, I prefer to trust the good sense of the voters rather than some of the people we end up with as politicians.

 

[SirRumpole]

Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?

De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.

In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.

But anyway, I prefer to trust the good sense of the voters rather than some of the people we end up with as politicians.

De facto relationships and family law

This fact sheet provides information about the laws affecting de facto couples. The laws cover property division, maintenance, financial agreements and the superannuation of people in de facto relationships. All de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property. Same-sex relationships are included within the definition of 'de facto couple' in federal laws. The Child Support (Assessment) Act also applies to same-sex couples.

http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publ...efacto-relationships-and-family-law-factsheet

(my bolds)

 

[Junior]

It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.

Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it. It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude. In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.

As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue? Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?

 

[SirRumpole]

It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.

Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it. It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude. In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.

As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue? Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?

The real issue now seems to be whether there should be a plebiscite or not. There should have been one at the last election imo.

It's scary how the politicians want the public taken out of every decision making process, and they just assume they have a God given right to speak for us on every subject. Nick Xenophon has now decided to oppose a plebiscite. Was this an election platform that he ran on ? If it was I didn't see it. Pollies seem to think they can say "vote for me, I'll decide later what is best for you".

I've had a gutful of that sort of thing.

 

[Value Collector]

Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?

.

The United nations charter of human rights.

De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.

No big deal, the blacks can sit in the back of the bus, it gets to the destination at the same time.

In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.

Which area is that?

 

[CanOz]

It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.

Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it. It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude. In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.

As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue? Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?

Yeah agree, but I think Tink is a pretty reliable voice for conservation of marriage. I think she might reflect the majority of the views held by the anti gay marriage tribe.

 

[Ves]

It's scary how the politicians want the public taken out of every decision making process, and they just assume they have a God given right to speak for us on every subject. Nick Xenophon has now decided to oppose a plebiscite. Was this an election platform that he ran on ? If it was I didn't see it. Pollies seem to think they can say "vote for me, I'll decide later what is best for you".

I've had a gutful of that sort of thing.

Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.

His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality, but his underlying principle is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward, cost effective manner.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.

 

[SirRumpole]

Which area is that?

Taking partners of the same sex, contrary to 95% of the population.

 

[Knobby22]

Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.

His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality, but his underlying principle is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward, cost effective manner.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.

True, so we know the policy the Libs went to the election with, why should they break it?
The result will be wait till next election and another rending of flesh by the likes of Value Collector and similar "my way or the highway" complainants. This is how we didn't get the Republic.

You can't trust Labor to support it next election in any case if they see it as a vote loser. Gillard saw it as a vote loser last time.