|
On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. 
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
|
On October 21 2011 14:24 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html. Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage. On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same. Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all. What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind. What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples. My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference. In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. So you support the segregation of gay people? "They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
|
On October 21 2011 14:18 dtvu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:14 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood? The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything. I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah). I would rather vote for our carbon tax at this point, all this Marriage stuff for gay people are diversions to deflect the heat from the introduced carbon tax which the people are not allowed to vote for. Don't even mention the border protection, our prime minister is jumping in circle cuz her Malaysian solution was slam by High Court. Political Circus at it's best, that's all it is.
Just thought I should point out that this issue is about people's rights. It is about the foundation of the family unit and the institution of marriage is a huge part of our functioing society. This is an issue.
We did vote on the carbon tax. It is not a tax, it is a temporary price prior to floating on the ETS. Which was both liberal and labor policy at the 2007 election. The whole deal with Asylum seekers is ridiculous as it is hardly an issue. The numbers arriving is less than 10K a year.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts_05/refugee.html#q3
Against a population of 20 million that is again rapidly. There are difficulties with this issue but it gets blown way out of proportion. Worse is there is absolutely no compassion shown to those legitimately seeking asylum.
|
I don't recognize any tradition in marriage. You guys allow any young gold digger to marry old guys, and you allow people to divorce and marry multiple times. What fucking tradition?
|
On October 21 2011 14:29 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background. What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
|
On October 21 2011 14:28 Legatus Lanius wrote:
the labor party is all about giving dole money to westies can i get an amen?
Problem with our politicians. People may complain that American politicians are all lawyers, and businessmen and that scientists and engineers should be up there 'running' the country too. In Australia parliament is made up of uneducated union boss' and religious bigots.
|
On October 21 2011 14:34 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:29 Rhine wrote:On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background. What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment. No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
Christian marriage maybe. Too bad the Church doesn't have a monopoly on marriages.
|
On October 21 2011 14:33 TOloseGT wrote:
I don't recognize any tradition in marriage. You guys allow any young gold digger to marry old guys, and you allow people to divorce and marry multiple times. What fucking tradition?
My point was that this is an issue worth debating. I am not arguing of the merits of marriage just that it has been the basis of our society for a long time and so this discussion is worth having.
|
On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:24 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html. Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage. On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same. Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all. What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind. What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples. My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference. In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. So you support the segregation of gay people? "They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine" Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
|
On October 21 2011 14:34 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:29 Rhine wrote:On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background. What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment. No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text." Why not change the text? Marriage used to be far more varied, from women being under the authority of the man of the house, to marrying newborns.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
|
On October 21 2011 14:34 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:28 Legatus Lanius wrote:
the labor party is all about giving dole money to westies can i get an amen? Problem with our politicians. People may complain that American politicians are all lawyers, and businessmen and that scientists and engineers should be up there 'running' the country too. In Australia parliament is made up of uneducated union boss' and religious bigots.
Don't forget the tree-huggers and big hat wearing cowboy. The anti-pokies crusader and the other two...
At least this parliament isn't boring.
|
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote:
It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
|
On October 21 2011 14:39 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:34 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 14:29 Rhine wrote:On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background. What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment. No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman. That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text." Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
That's fine, just don't call it marriage.
(lol)
|
On October 21 2011 14:39 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:34 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 14:29 Rhine wrote:On October 21 2011 14:20 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition. Well said Brett Holman. But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background. What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment. No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman. That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text." Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
They already have the full rights entitled to any proper couple, with the exception that their piece of paper says "de facto" instead of "married".
|
And what would happen if it were called marriage?
|
de facto sounds cooler than married anyway
|
Yeah, dropping down the latin does sound cool 
|
On October 21 2011 14:43 Legatus Lanius wrote:
de facto sounds cooler than married anyway
that's why
|
Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
|
On October 21 2011 14:43 Rhine wrote:
And what would happen if it were called marriage?
The fact that marriage has been debased into a meaningless piece of shit doesn't mean that there needs to be another nail hammered into the coffin.
I'd much rather have significant reform of marriage and divorce laws, but the solipsism of modern people make that impossible. Pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
