[POLL]Bring it On, Same Sex Marriage result by xmas

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Court Jester, Aug 8, 2017.

?

Do you Support Changing the marrage act in support of same sex couples.

  1. Yes

    37.8%
  2. No

    62.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. serial

    serial Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,915
    Likes Received:
    1,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    wa
    So it states.
    "It’s true that in Tasmania unmarried couples can obtain a certificate by signing a deed of relationship, something Ben and Nathan had not done."
    Which means they could have entered into a legal contract together that would have extended the same benefits as a married couple but the chose not to. If having the same rights as a married couple was the only issue then the law has options they can take.
    But that isn't what they want, so they find stories like this that they can twist and add legitimacy to with unsubstantiated comments that i bet are either fully fabricated or at the very best devoid of the salient details.
    Yet another red herring from Facebook
     
    jnkmbx and Gullintanni like this.
  2. Court Jester

    Court Jester Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,986
    Likes Received:
    2,282
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    This is what most bothers me about this whole debate, and I don’t mean any disrespect to you Julie, others rely upon the notion of equal rights as the rationale behind their justification for a whole range of topics. It’s probably the most commonly abused line of reasoning and a line of reasoning that both absolves the State for creating the problem in the first place and legitimises those that would seek to abuse the power of the State for their own ends.

    Our rights exist whether they are lawfully protected or not. I prefer the justification for such things as gay marriage to be along the line of that the State shouldn’t hamper our freedoms unless it is upholding our right to be free of the coercive influence of others.

    Both the left and the right are guilty of impairing our freedom, whether it’s GetUp!, the AMA or One Nation, all are guilty of attempting to impose legislated restrictions on affairs that are the property of individuals.
     
    Gullintanni and Silver bullitt like this.
  4. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    True the language is difficult but the fact is the State oppresses and we try to live as we can. "Rights" are the leeway we have and we should all have the same leeway.

    In a parallel universe perhaps people don't require and won't allow State controls. Perhaps in a parallel universe people don't require supervision.
     
  5. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,986
    Likes Received:
    2,282
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Protection rather than supervision, which is such a paternalistic notion.
     
  6. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,598
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    Or, rather than trying to come up with hacks and work-arounds, the parliament could just change the law (back) so that all the legal issues are taken care of simply and easily.

    As someone rather eloquently put it recently
     
  7. Gullintanni

    Gullintanni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The more i think about this whole thing the more i realize i do not have particular strong feelings on it either way concerning the law.
    My only objection would be that traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman and i do like some traditions.
    So if asked my opinion in say a vote i would most likely abstain or vote for marriages for anyone ,BUT hold a small bit of resentment that all our traditions GOOD AND bad are being removed to cater fr minority concerns and the majority no longer matters.

    I can just imagine that if we have a small group of martians land and survive ,say a group of 500 that we will have to eventually conform to their requests for the right to eat aborted fetuses of neighbours because in their homeland it was the norm.
    Of course the above is about as likely as a democratically elected president being told by a few un-elected judges that he/she does not have the right to decide who and who does not enter the country of those people that elected him/her.
     
    Arch Stanton likes this.
  8. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    From my perspective it is protection under the law. The Deed of Relationship as I read it, pretty much is a workaround for Tasmania, but as pointed out earlier, in a wide range of laws "Marriage" is the ruling definition - and gay marriage isn't allowed, so the gays don't have access to the same law as other Australians.

    The Deed of Relationship presumably gives a sound basis to challenge the legal "Marriage" laws in court, at least in Tasmania, but wouldn't it be fairer to allow people to join together under 'Marriage' and not have to go through legal hoopla in order to enact the same rights as 'married' people?
     
  9. jnkmbx

    jnkmbx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Thanks for that. I had some time to read through the first link and some of your discussion in your second link.
    It was refreshing to read that someone else had taken the time to use the precision of measurements in stating a case for objectivity - the first time I was asked "how long is a piece of string?", I paused to construct an argument based on our current understanding of physics, but I was quite quickly informed that it was "just a rhetorical question" once I started my long answer. @[email protected]

    "You are attempting to justify the State's intervention into the personal lives of individuals by appealing to notions of enfranchisement, which is fine when the people are asked their opinion on objective matters, such as property rights, violence, taxation etc, but it is no justification for asking the people's opinion on subjective matters, such as religion, sexuality, what should be taught in schools or sock colour etc.". -mmm....shiney!

    Perhaps it is being understood that way, but I do not intend to appeal to any notions of enfranchisement - I will make it clear that there are winners and losers in the democratic process.

    I am attempting to nullify your statement "There is not a single sound nor objective reason why gay people should be prevented from being married."
    by explaining that there is at least one objective reason framed within the scope of governance*, that being the outcome of the democratic process, upheld by the State within its responsibilities.

    *Since we changed the scope from what I would regard as a "universal statement" to one in the context of government overstep


    My observation is:
    A minority brought the issue to the State and the State is acting on its responsibility by continuing to parse it through the democratic process.
    They have chosen to go to the plebs, but could also have voted internally - either option would abide by protocol.
    If the state extends marriage to homosexuals, it will be a result of the process that was initiated by the people approaching the State.
    The issue is subjective and the process will draw a line in the sand. Enfranchisement won't come without disenfranchisement.


    I think you are making the case that this is unjust because the State will interfere with the personal lives of individuals, however I am not sure if you are making this case acknowledging or denying that the reason to do so is objective based on the scope of governance.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  10. jnkmbx

    jnkmbx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Who are you trying to kid? :p
    It will remain the government's business until you abolish all acts regarding marriage.


    At least you point out the irony in your vote :D
     
  11. jnkmbx

    jnkmbx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    btw. I don't support those who are having a cry simply because society doesn't conform to them or accept them, especially since I harshly look down on society in the first place!

    e.g. Transexual Men that want to be women according to social constructs (i.e. wearing make-up and dresses) when they really just want to be part of the program, the program consisting of being a bunch of drones in a mechanised farm.

    No respect given to the guy next door that wants to get a car loan just to keep up with the Jones and self-validate that they are a strong "independent" person. >_>
     
  12. Bullion Baron

    Bullion Baron Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,513
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Adelaide
  13. PeterS

    PeterS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Sydney
    On the let our elected representatives decide idea, I am in North Sydney electorate. Should I be confident Trent Zimmerman would consider what maybe the view of the majority of his constituents rather than the fact he is a homosexual?
     
  14. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,598
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well, the people of North Sydney elected a representative with the lived experience of being a gay man. The way I see it, if he's good enough to represent the people's interests in federal parliament, he should be good enough to make his own decisions about marrying whomever he wants to.
     
  15. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,598
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    Only if "making up the protocol as you go along" counts.

    We're having a voluntary, non-binding, survey via post which is not administered by the AEC. It's not a vote in a referendum or a plebiscite.

    It has never been done in this country before, so no, it isn't abiding by protocol at all, especially given that the the Marriage Act was last changed just 14 years ago by the parliament in the normal course of it's business.
     
  16. jnkmbx

    jnkmbx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I suppose the High Court have no idea and approved funding for something that bends the rules. :p

    It's too late for the left to cry crocodile tears when they were the ones trying to block a proper plebiscite.
     
  17. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    So I haven't actually seen any arguments against granting equal access to marriage law, apart from a concept of it destroying a religious perspective on "traditional marriage". Are there any actual arguments against that hold water?
     
  18. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Homosexual men cannot perform sex acts with one another, they merely get sexual gratification. The basis for this definition is that men are unable to procreate with and amongst one another. Thus, a genuine sex act can only occur when the opportunity for procreation exists, as is the case with two human beings of different genders - man and woman. All other sexual activities, where reproductive opportunities are not provided, as with acts between two men, are simply called sexual gratification. Of course, the sexual activities between two partners of different genders who are both or individually infertile are also considered sex acts. Of importance here is only that the two are of different gender.
     
  19. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    It's not actually an argument about equal access to marriage law.
     
  20. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm just re- expressing my opinion again on why I'll be voting no. Hopefully no one here will hate me for it. I'm of the opinion that marriage should only apply to a man and woman where the opportunity for procreation exists - a family born out of it.

    2nd page -
    Why marriage? Who's stopping gays from having lifelong unions?


    .
     
    Seven of nine likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page