EPTAustralia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shewklad
Sweden482 Posts
| ||
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive. If you want my opinion, this is the opposite of progressive. Putting a human right to a vote shouldn't be considered progressive. You can argue that certain religions should be free to maintain their own definition of marriage, and while I'm not religious, I'm not against this. In the eyes of the state, however, this should be considered a basic human right. Two adults should be able to engage in a consensual relationship and have the formal support/recognition of the state. The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level. If you don't like gays or whatever, brother that's your business, but you don't have to actively work against their rights. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:02 Shewklad wrote: How is this not legal in every country that isn't a third world country... Because religious undertones in Western countries can be very powerful; i am not saying it's right, because it's disgusting. Gay marriage should be legal absolutely everywhere, but that is my opinion. This just seems like the current party in power grasping at straws to please their MPs; if it results in a positive vote for gay marriage i guess it is a means to an end. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been) 1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state. 2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only) Solves both problems - the religious and legal. Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him. Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been) 1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state. 2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only) Solves both problems - the religious and legal. Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him. No, Jews and Christians disagree about homosexuality is a sin. Christians don't all get lumped together like that. Like any massive group of people, they disagree about everything. Not all churches hate gay people. And not all marriages are Christian anyway. Your stance makes very little sense to me. Why not just call everything partnerships and let marriage be a strictly religious thing? You're just calling it something different, which is just frankly insulting to homosexual relationships. Homosexuals want marriages just as much as heterosexuals do. | ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa wrote: Whenever someone says "I hope I won't be banned for this" then whatever they say after that is always an opinion. I reported him for martyring because that's exactly what it is and always will be when opened with those lines.You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.  AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though. Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit  | ||
|
Darkalbino
Australia410 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:03 sevencck wrote: If you want my opinion, this is the opposite of progressive. Putting a human right to a vote shouldn't be considered progressive. You can argue that certain religions should be free to maintain their own definition of marriage, and while I'm not religious, I'm not against this. In the eyes of the state, however, this should be considered a basic human right. Two adults should be able to engage in a consensual relationship and have the formal support/recognition of the state. The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level. If you don't like gays or whatever, brother that's your business, but you don't have to actively work against their rights. I call it progressive because its the closest australia will get to gay marriage in 3-6 years. | ||
|
LashLash
Australia28 Posts
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgwGFHFd0TUIdExCbkNZWllUaVRsRG9yZXVVTXhUN0E&hl=en_US#gid=0 It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage. My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country. | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa wrote: Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit What do you mean? We felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down but we lost by a bit? Completely confused . | ||
|
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:11 LashLash wrote: In the 2010 election, there was this user/party spreadsheet with the policy stances of different parties then: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgwGFHFd0TUIdExCbkNZWllUaVRsRG9yZXVVTXhUN0E&hl=en_US#gid=0 It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage. My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country. Lol mandatory internet filter at the ISP level - Support by labor? That spreadsheet is good - highlights the big issues like carbon tax, NBN, mining tax and workplace agreements | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote: I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. User was banned for this post. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... No there isn't. That's TL's stance, and it makes sense to me as well.... Saying "please don't ban me" is in itself matrydom really because if you do get banned you've turned yourself into one. On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote: Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Only issue I see is it could totally fuck tax law. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... Martyring, if you preface a post with "I'm going to get banned for this" or "Please don't ban me for this but..." etc. then you will be banned, regardless of the content of the rest of your post. OT: I see no problem with gay marriage and I don't see why anyone would be offended by it but then again there's a lot of things that people do/feel that don't make any sense to me. Hopefully it passes. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... Looking through his post history, he was a bad poster. Second, the gist of what he said is in the same vein as martyring. I guess the mods added both together. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Indeed, why the hell did he get banned? He simply expressed his opinion in a civil manner, even stating that he would never force his opinion onto others since it was just his personal taste...Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... edit: got explained Anyway, it's just weird to see first world countries that haven't legalised a legal bonding between two people of any sex. Why does there even need to be a vote on this? Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. Another gift of religion. Maybe when all the old fuddy-duddies die out in the next 30 years, enough % of the population will be in support to allow it. The fuddy-duddies will die out and we'll be ready to take their place to bitch about the next new trend/media/whatever, as it has always been. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote: Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing. | ||
| ||
