|
From the movie What happens in Vegas.
Judge R. D. Whopper: [referring to Jack and Joy] Gay people aren't ruining the sanctity of marriage, you people are!
|
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.
I'm not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural at all. I think that's nonsense. I'm not arguing their inability to conceive is prohibitive in any way to them being a good parent. I've not seen any evidence of that at all. In my view, none of that has anything to do with marriage. I'm also not arguing they shouldn't have the same rights or benefits as a hetero couple. It's purely the name of it that I don't agree with.
|
On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote:
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.
Worlds greatest neanderthal 
Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott
|
On October 21 2011 14:40 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah US citizens take note... we have to put up with 3 fox news' =/.
|
On October 21 2011 14:37 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote: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?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
|
Question for the Australians: were there ever restrictions on aboriginal Australians being allowed to marry white people?
|
In my opinion, marginally "debasing" the definition of marriage further (the negative terminology, by the way, would be the exact thing that gays and lesbians are fighting against) is worth the effort into bringing to light relationships, love, biology and ethics and in the process, hopefully lead to a lot of people feeling a bit better someday.
|
On October 21 2011 14:47 Brett wrote:
I'm not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural at all. I think that's nonsense. I'm not arguing their inability to conceive is prohibitive in any way to them being a good parent. I've not seen any evidence of that at all. In my view, none of that has anything to do with marriage. I'm also not arguing they shouldn't have the same rights or benefits as a hetero couple. It's purely the name of it that I don't agree with.
Ok, well at least i agree with you on all those fronts. There are a lot of people who use those arguments to somehow lower same sex relationships without evidence (i have sourced many studies that say the opposite).
|
On October 21 2011 14:50 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:37 Alay wrote:On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote: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? They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
Political correctness gone out of hand mate, it's become an obsession...
|
On October 21 2011 14:40 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is incredibly depressing because it's so true  . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
|
On October 21 2011 14:48 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote:
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. Worlds greatest neanderthal Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott
You've got to be kidding, really? Must have been a really bad year academically here lol.
I would consider voting Liberal if literally anyone else was their leader. They currently have no policy except criticising Labor's policy and the man is dangerous.
I thought Julia was against gay marriage? Maybe she's just having the vote for lols to piss off Abbott, she's already female, unmarried, childless and athiest why not add gay-friendly to the list 
|
On October 21 2011 14:54 hoppipolla wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:40 Scarecrow wrote: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. This is incredibly depressing because it's so true . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
I agree that the majority of Australians are very tolerant and open-minded, problem is that this is expressed in a laid-back attitude and who gives a shit mindset (which i love and is what people from other countries love about Australia). This means the batshit fringe run things.
|
On October 21 2011 14:54 hoppipolla wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:40 Scarecrow wrote: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. This is incredibly depressing because it's so true . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
It's pretty bad when Dave Hughes is on the most reliable current affairs program in the country rofl
You also forgot 60 minutes, the kings of fear-mongering and inaccurate tripe
|
On October 21 2011 14:50 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:37 Alay wrote:On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote: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? They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
Separate but equal, eh?
-_-
|
On October 21 2011 15:04 fant0m wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:50 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 14:37 Alay wrote:On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote: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? They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation. Different but equal, eh? ^_^
Fixed that up for you.
|
On October 21 2011 14:51 KSMB wrote:
Question for the Australians: were there ever restrictions on aboriginal Australians being allowed to marry white people?
It was always allowed. However, the children of a white/black pairings would be taken away, if the parent(s) wanted to live the tribal lifestyle of the natives.
|
On October 21 2011 14:50 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:37 Alay wrote:On October 21 2011 14:31 Brett wrote: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? They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
If of course there is a law that prohibits any and all discrimination between a "marriage" and a "civil union" and that all (and I mean ALL) rights and responsibilities that apply to one must by law apply to the other, I think it would be fine. Barring that, I think the usage of the term "marriage" is the simplest and most effective way to achieve equality.
|
Personally I don't care about this issue, carbon tax is more important
I agree that the majority of Australians are very tolerant and open-minded, problem is that this is expressed in a laid-back attitude and who gives a shit mindset (which i love and is what people from other countries love about Australia). This means the batshit fringe run things.
Would kinda disagree with this. Mention muslims and all we think of is terriosts in some backwater country. Not to mention wogs
|
On October 21 2011 14:59 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:48 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote:
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. Worlds greatest neanderthal Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott You've got to be kidding, really? Must have been a really bad year academically here lol. I would consider voting Liberal if literally anyone else was their leader. They currently have no policy except criticising Labor's policy and the man is dangerous. I thought Julia was against gay marriage? Maybe she's just having the vote for lols to piss off Abbott, she's already female, unmarried, childless and athiest why not add gay-friendly to the list
He isn't that bad, tbh. He is doing the smart thing, and letting labor self-destruct.
Labor is fucked anyway. Their traditional base, (blue collar workers) are being slowly taken over by the liberals (it helps that Abbott has the alpha male, family man persona), while their other base, the intellectual, progressive types, are going to the greens.
The next decade is going to be interesting in aussie politics.
|
it will not get passed in australia 99% of australians do not want anything to do with the gay men and women. they are almost shuned from society.
myself and every single person i know would vote no
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
