Gay Marriage

[overhang]

But that will never change. It's just natural to identify differences and apply the herd or pride prejudices, certainly subliminally if not overtly. It doesn't mean there is hate or disgust involved, but acceptance is something that cannot be legislated.

I disagree, most people now accept and don't think anything of Aboriginals having the right to vote yet I imagine there would have been quite a lot of outrage when the idea was first put forward. I would say the future will look back at this period and say that they can't believe it took so long for marriage equality to be passed.

I recall going through the numbers on this on another discussion board. Coming of a very small base the suicide rate was something like 1 and a bit people per year after the natural rate across all sectors was taken out.

I really need data to take this seriously, any links?

 

[sydboy007]

Not trying to dilute your anger at poofta bashing and the like (which is a low act), but there have been many posts here that, for example, use the deep south black suppression as example for Australia's refusal to accept gay marriage. Applying the same logic it we could say that bashing of ginger headed people around the night club precincts is predicated on the hate for gays?

What would the logical basis of your question be?

I think when someone is using language like fag and pooftah and homo that it's relatively easy to know what the motivation of their actions are.

 

[sydboy007]

Poker machines ? That's more off topic than children in this debate.

Not really. If the claim is to be against SSM to protect the children, but you then promote other areas of society to allow harm to children, well it's either hypocrisy or just using a red herring to divert from your true motivation.

There's plenty of politicians anti SSM but pro pokies and have actively stopped any reform. I'd be willing to bet more children's lives are currently ruined by gambling addiction of parents at the pokies than are ruined by SSM.

So, are you willing to start having a look at Norway / Denmark / Iceland / Greenland / Sweden and show that they have suffered from the issues you believe justify your stance against SSM? I'd think 15-25 years is long enough for your fears to have started to show an impact on their societies.

 

[sydboy007]

I really need data to take this seriously, any links?

i'd take beyond blue as being a reasonably reliable source.

it's hard enough trying to wrap you're mind around the fact your different that your friends and family. harder still when so much of society is, overtly in the past and less so now, and in-overtly telling you that you don't fit in and that you're not normal. That's a lot of stress for anyone, but more so for someone trying to find their way into their early adult lives.

I think I kept telling myself I was going through a phase till I was about 20 and started going to a group at the uni which helped me realise I wasn't so alone with the questions and thoughts that were racing through my head.

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/...lth-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2

The mental health of LGBTI people is among the poorest in
Australia.4
• At least 36.2% of trans and 24.4% of gay, lesbian and bisexual Australians met the criteria for experiencing a major depressive episode in 2005, compared with 6.8% of the general population.5 This rate soars to 59.3% of trans women (male to female) under 30 in a La Trobe University study6

• Lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians are twice as likely to have a high/very high level of psychological distress as their heterosexual peers (18.2% v. 9.2%).7 This makes them particularly vulnerable to mental health problems. The younger the age group, the starker the differences: 55% of LGBT women aged between 16 and 24 compared with 18% in the nation as a whole and 40% of LGBT men aged 16-24 compared with 7%. Results only begin to be similar across the population groups at age 65.8

More than twice as many homosexual/bisexual Australians experience anxiety disorders as heterosexual people (31% vs 14%) and over three times as many experience affective disorders (19% vs 6%). The rates are higher across any age group, country of birth, income level, area of residence or level of education/employment.9
Nearly 80% of LGBT respondents reported having experienced at least one period of intense anxiety in the 12 months prior to completing a 2011 survey, with the highest proportion of those experiencing frequent episodes
of anxiety in this period being lesbian, bisexual and transwomen and transmen.10

 

[SirRumpole]

Not really. If the claim is to be against SSM to protect the children, but you then promote other areas of society to allow harm to children, well it's either hypocrisy or just using a red herring to divert from your true motivation.

There's plenty of politicians anti SSM but pro pokies and have actively stopped any reform. I'd be willing to bet more children's lives are currently ruined by gambling addiction of parents at the pokies than are ruined by SSM.

So, are you willing to start having a look at Norway / Denmark / Iceland / Greenland / Sweden and show that they have suffered from the issues you believe justify your stance against SSM? I'd think 15-25 years is long enough for your fears to have started to show an impact on their societies.

One simple search pulled up scepticism about gay parenting in Norway which has had SSM since 2009. It seems that gays are not content with forcing their way into marriage they want to do it with parenting as well. The subject of gay parenting has divided Norwegian society and I think it will do the same here.

 

[Tisme]

I disagree, most people now accept and don't think anything of Aboriginals having the right to vote yet I imagine there would have been quite a lot of outrage when the idea was first put forward. I would say the future will look back at this period and say that they can't believe it took so long for marriage equality to be passed.

I will have to try to find the datasets I had.

Insofar as aborigines voting, you can gauge the outrage by looking up Trove, say for 1962 in WA

 

[Tisme]

What would the logical basis of your question be?

I think when someone is using language like fag and pooftah and homo that it's relatively easy to know what the motivation of their actions are.

Do people actually direct the poofta, fag and homo tags at actual homosexuals or at hetrosexuals as a taunt?


My logical basis is self evident, just using corrolaries.

 

[SirRumpole]

One simple search pulled up scepticism about gay parenting in Norway which has had SSM since 2009. It seems that gays are not content with forcing their way into marriage they want to do it with parenting as well. The subject of gay parenting has divided Norwegian society and I think it will do the same here.

Link to story

http://sciencenordic.com/norwegians-worry-about-gay-and-lesbian-parenthood

 

[drsmith]

A public vote in my view is a better option than a parliamentary vote.

 

[SirRumpole]

A public vote in my view is a better option than a parliamentary vote.

Yes, and it should be done at the next election not after it.

Abbott is just trying to stall the inevitable. Let the people decide this one, it's not an area where any party should have a policy.

 

[drsmith]

If there is to be a public vote, I don't give a toss as to whether it's at or after the next election.

 

[sptrawler]

Abbott is just trying to stall the inevitable. Let the people decide this one,.

That's a big call, will you shut about it, if it loses the referendum?

Better still, will the media shut up, then most others will.

 

[Value Collector]

That's a big call, will you shut about it, if it loses the referendum?

No, because even if a referendum confirmed that the majority of people wanted gay marriage outlawed, it still does not make it right or lawful to outlaw it.

The majority can not choose to discriminate against a minority.

Eg. If the southern states of the USA had a referendum and the majority voted for slavery, it still would be immoral and unlawful.

The referendum would be good though, because I believe it would confirm that the majority support gay marriage or atleast don't care enough to to ban it.

 

[sptrawler]

No, because even if a referendum confirmed that the majority of people wanted gay marriage outlawed, it still does not make it right or lawful to outlaw it.

The majority can not choose to discriminate against a minority.

Eg. If the southern states of the USA had a referendum and the majority voted for slavery, it still would be immoral and unlawful.

The referendum would be good though, because I believe it would confirm that the majority support gay marriage or atleast don't care enough to to ban it.

People are discriminated against in lots of ways, I know people with disabilities, who are working on minimal money, yet because they work can't access government subsidised aids and services.

There are 60 year old's who can't access a seniors card and subsidies, because age eligibility has changed, that's discrimination.

There are people who have to wait untill 60, to access their super, there are others who don't qualify for a pension untill 67, probably going up to 70. That is discrimination.

But all we hear is gays can't get married, and change the bloody flag, jeez like I said people don't have enough to do.

 

[Value Collector]

People are discriminated against in lots of ways, I know people with disabilities, who are working on minimal money, yet because they work can't access government subsidised aids and services.

There are 60 year old's who can't access a seniors card and subsidies, because age eligibility has changed, that's discrimination.

There are people who have to wait untill 60, to access their super, there are others who don't qualify for a pension untill 67, probably going up to 70. That is discrimination.

But all we hear is gays can't get married, and change the bloody flag, jeez like I said people don't have enough to do.

All the topics you just mentioned are different.

a better example would be if you knew a lady that couldn't get the aged pension because she was black, the government can set certain qualifying rules and age limits etc, that's not abusing human rights.

Saying you have to be 18 to get your drivers licence or 65 to get the aged pensionis obviously very different from saying you have to be white to have a drivers licence or the aged pension.

The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.

 

[SirRumpole]

The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate[sic] against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.

But a majority of politicians can vote to "discriminate" in this way ?

Politicians are supposed to represent us, so surely a vote of the people trumps a vote by politicians ?

 

[Value Collector]

But a majority of politicians can vote to "discriminate" in this way ?

Politicians are supposed to represent us, so surely a vote of the people trumps a vote by politicians ?

Politicians can't just vote to take basic human rights away. The have to follow the constitution and various international conventions.

But my point was to sprawlers question, he asked if a referendum voted down gay marriage, would we shut up.

The answer is no, because a majority vote doesn't make something right or just. In the same way I wouldn't shut up if the majority voted for slavery or racist or sexist laws.

after the vote, the anti gay marriage laws would still be wrong.

 

[SirRumpole]

Politicians can't just vote to take basic human rights away. The have to follow the constitution and various international conventions.

The Constitution says nothing about Gay Marriage, otherwise the laws would have been challenged already.

International "Conventions" ? Well we have self government so we don't have to take any notice of those.

And you neatly sidestepped my point which is that someone has to vote to change the Marriage Act, it's a question of whether you think that the politicians know better than the people on this issue.

 

[Logique]

Oh dear, somebody has been outmanoeuvred. And their slip is showing, how quickly the halo slips.

Penny Wong will find it much harder to brainwash everyday Australians than a small number of timorous parliamentarians.

You're equal Penny. But guess what, we're equal too.

Why such rudeness, Penny?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_such_rudeness_penny/

 

[sptrawler]

All the topics you just mentioned are different.

a better example would be if you knew a lady that couldn't get the aged pension because she was black, the government can set certain qualifying rules and age limits etc, that's not abusing human rights.

Saying you have to be 18 to get your drivers licence or 65 to get the aged pensionis obviously very different from saying you have to be white to have a drivers licence or the aged pension.

The my point is that the majority can not vote to descriminate against another group based on race, sexuality, religion etc.

Discrimination, is discrimination, you can't it tailor to suit you personal circumstances, or sexual preferences.

You can't just say its not discrimination because, it doesn't affect you, or isn't in line with your arguement.lol