Gay unions to be legal in the ACT

ahappychappy said :

Change the word ‘gay’ to ‘incestuous’ or ‘under-age’ and you’ve got yourself the same argument that’s still legitimate in every way mentioned in this thread.

“There are a very large amount of incestuous couples in long term, loyal, monogamous, devoted relationships.”

“[incestuous relationships] are socially accepted relationships between consenting adults”

Nope – doesn’t work at all.

So you *really* don’t recognise any difference between socially-accepted, monogamous relationships between consenting adults of the same gender, and incest (the great bulk of which is constituted by interfamilial child abuse and is considered by the entirity of the human race as a taboo)?

Based on this, I’ve got to ask: why don’t paedophilia and beastility apply to your argument? You’re using a reductive argument (your ‘equal rights argument’ – and to be honest, you haven’t gone beyond this reductive version of the argument for same-sex marriage) that completely ignores the social and historical context in which the argument is occurring. So I can’t see why you wouldn’t lump in paedophilia and beastiality as well.

It’s an entirely fallacious argument and you’re doing yourself a massive disservice by sticking to it.

Posted yesterday, probably got moderated.

There are a very large amount of gay couples in long term, loyal, monogamous, devoted relationships. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighbourhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honour and abide by the law. Many of these couples wish to formalise their relationships (symbolically, as well as legally) by taking part in the institution of marriage.

Change the word ‘gay’ to ‘incestuous’ or ‘under-age’ and you’ve got yourself the same argument that’s still legitimate in every way mentioned in this thread. I’m NOT trying to say homosexual relationships are as taboo as incestuous relationships, or even trying to compare them morally. All I’m trying to do is point out that if the pro-homosexual ‘marriage’ argument is all about ‘equality’, expression of love and formalising human relationships then the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT could be used for ALL HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS. I just wanted to get an idea from the same-sex ‘marriage’ supporters whether they would support incestuous or under-age marriage given they’re all for equality and formalising human relationships.

To simply say that I’m running off on a tangent suggests to me you don’t want to say “No, I wouldn’t support the argument I’m putting forward for my purpose, should it be used by another minority group which I don’t support” as you’ll look like a hypocrite and be exactly what you’ve labelled everyone else. What’s good for one is good for the other.

Tori – I’ve got no clue what you’re on about. If you’d read the comments I didn’t “compare” homosexual relationships to incest, paedophilia or bestiality, I’m just saying an equal rights argument works for ALL parties, not just some. Paedophilia and bestiality never came into this conversation (as they ARE offensive), so I’m not sure why you’ve gone down that road, but obviously you feel passionately about the issue. Can you comment as to whether you’d support your argument if used by another minority group to achieve the same purpose?

I haven’t seen a legitimate argument as to why one minority group should be granted these ‘rights’ where the others should not? Instead of seeing my point, ignoring it and calling me (and the others who have supported my question) ignorant, offensive and the like, perhaps “reasoned argument” could follow as both sides of the argument have called for it on multiple occasions. Or, are you worried that you’ll be shown to be hypocritical, ignorant, bigoted and discriminatory yourselves?

sloppery said :

MrPC said :

@vg #101: Justification cannot be achieved by reiteration.

And that applies to both sides.

Realistically, this is about a minority group saying “me too, and doesn’t hurt you so why not”. That to me is not justification to change a deeply held tradition that’s been around for a long long time.

I would have thought civil unions would (quite rightly) give homosexual couples the rights they desire. No-one here has made what I think is a compelling argument for allowing gay marriage.

And on this, I think we can agree to disagree.

It’s pretty clear to me that ‘civil unions’ don’t give many gay couples what they desire – ‘separate but equal’ is rarely either, and many gay couples argue that being denied marriage (or having it shoe-horned into some marriage-like-but-whatever-you-do-don’t-call-it-marriage thing is insufficient and symbolically expresses their social exclusion). If this wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be anyone agitating for gay marriage.

But I can understand that others will, inevitably, disagree with this.

Whereas I’m quite happy for the ‘tradition’ of marriage to be altered (as I can’t see how it would negatively impact on anyone, but I can see how it would have a positive impact for many couples), I’m aware that others will feel differently.

The changes occurring are by degree – first, gay couples were given some small financial concessions as couples, then there were the ‘civil unions’, and so on.

I do think that it is pretty much inevitable that gay marriage will be legislated in Australia in the near-to-mid future. Give it 10 years, tops.

MrPC said :

@vg #101: Justification cannot be achieved by reiteration.

And that applies to both sides.

Realistically, this is about a minority group saying “me too, and doesn’t hurt you so why not”. That to me is not justification to change a deeply held tradition that’s been around for a long long time.

I would have thought civil unions would (quite rightly) give homosexual couples the rights they desire. No-one here has made what I think is a compelling argument for allowing gay marriage.

I am for the idea, why shouldn’t everyone have the same rights?

Why would it bother someone about what anyone else does? Why not mind your own business and put those disgressions to something more useful 🙂

@vg #101: Justification cannot be achieved by reiteration.

Jim Jones said :

vg said :

Semantically, gramatically and legally you cannot have a same sex ‘marriage’.

Grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of sentences. This has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. Given that we’re all very clear what we’re talking about when we discuss ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’, there’s no semantic confusion.

If what you’re referring to, is the fact that some dictionaries define marriage as being ‘between a man and a woman’, then I fail to see what the issue is. Dictionary definitions change with remarkable frequency: apart from the fact that English is a living, evolving language; all language is a tool with which to engage with the world, and it alters to suit the world, not the other way around. To argue otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. It’s also worth noting that there are any number of dictionaries that include the phrases ‘gay marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’. The English language is not about to fall in a useless heap and leave us staring blankly at each other like confused bystanders at the Tower of Babel just because the dictionary definition of marriage gets a tweak.

Legally, you can have same-sex marriage – in such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Nepal, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, etc. You can’t in Australia, and this is where the argument is occurring.

The only argument I’m really hearing here is: Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. I find this a pretty uncompelling argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. Marriage was ‘traditionally’ only between people of the same race, and religion … and that’s changed.

RE: Incest. I do think that this is just getting silly. The argument for gay marriage pretty much runs thusly:

There are a very large amount of gay couples in long term, loyal, monogamous, devoted relationships. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many of these couples wish to formalise their relationships (symbolically, as well as legally) by taking part in the institution of marriage).

Incestuous relationships are considered socially unacceptable. Indeed, they are universally regarded as taboo for a number of reasons: the most noticable being (a) the obvious problems with inbreeding (b) the fact that the bulk of incest involves sexual abuse (incest between an adult and a child constitutes by far the great bulk of incest).

Now, call me stupid. But stating that the argument for gay marriage (formalising socially accepted relationships between consenting adults) would be the same as the argument for incestuous marriage (formalising a sexual relationship most often defined as child abuse), strikes me as being (a) somewhat offensive (b) a ruse to try and shift the terms of debate elsewhere. If you want to talk about same-sex marriage, go ahead. But to shift the grounds of debate to an unrelated topic is intellectually dishonest.

It’s also noteworthy that, for all the whining about ‘if I express a different opinion, they’ll call me a bigot’, this thread has consisted of reasoned argument. The only people flinging the term ‘bigot’ about are people who seem to delight in playing at being persecuted. FFS, have a little backbone and stick up for yourself through logical debate rather than playing the victim every time someone has the temerity to present you with an argument.

Have a little backbone?

You don’t get round these parts much, do ya?

I’m not playing victim here tough guy, and its not what the dictionary says that’s the problem. A perfunctory glance at the Federal Marriage Act may help you out. I’m all for the civil union and recognition at the level of marriage for same sex couples. Just can’t call it marriage. I’ll help you out

“”marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. “

Change that part and call it what you like. While that exists just don’t call it marriage, because it ain’t. I guess my opinion just got justified

This is one of the stranger threads on RA.

I agree with you Tori; and frankly I couldn’t even be bothered arguing with people who bring up incest in the same thread as sex marriage.

people who compare same sex relationships to incest or pedophilia or bestiality are being deliberately obtuse and offensive – and you damn well know it. you are the same mindset who have resisted any change in society that affects your perceived position of power – whether it’s been ending apartheid, giving women the vote, legalising abortion. don’t bother pretending you’re making a genuine and valid argument because you make yourself look even more stupid than you did in the first place. end of story.

I’ve been giving this some thought, and I have a few ideas for the ACT government and for gay marriage supporters in general.

The following assumptions lead into what I’m going to suggest

1) Divorce is the less sacred part of marriage, but it is how most of them end
2) Divorce is a problem for people of the same gender who marry overseas but then later separate (in Ontario for example any two unmarried people can get married but only Ontario residents can get divorced)
3) “Salami Tactics” are needed to get people and institutions to accept something that’s overall unpalatable but that is OK if digested slice by slice

The ACT government should forget about civil unions. It should focus its energies on legalising gay divorce.

It can accept that people can marry elsewhere under the rules of the jurisdiction that they marry in, but once people become ACT residents, they should be allowed to divorce here regardless of whether their marriage is technically recognized here. This can also apply to polygamous and underage marriages.

The religious community can’t harp on about the sanctity of divorce. Normal folk probably wouldn’t give a damn. It’s just divorce.

Further, for those who think gays shouldn’t be married (to each other anyway), how can they possibly object to allowing the dissolution of such marriages where they already exist?

Later on, people will joke about how gays can get divorced in Canberra but can’t get married in Canberra, the reasons for disallowing gay marriage or the reasons for diluting it into a second class civil union status will gradually fade away, once people realise that marriage is really little more than a temporary arrangement anyway.

vg said :

Semantically, gramatically and legally you cannot have a same sex ‘marriage’.

Grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of sentences. This has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. Given that we’re all very clear what we’re talking about when we discuss ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’, there’s no semantic confusion.

If what you’re referring to, is the fact that some dictionaries define marriage as being ‘between a man and a woman’, then I fail to see what the issue is. Dictionary definitions change with remarkable frequency: apart from the fact that English is a living, evolving language; all language is a tool with which to engage with the world, and it alters to suit the world, not the other way around. To argue otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. It’s also worth noting that there are any number of dictionaries that include the phrases ‘gay marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’. The English language is not about to fall in a useless heap and leave us staring blankly at each other like confused bystanders at the Tower of Babel just because the dictionary definition of marriage gets a tweak.

Legally, you can have same-sex marriage – in such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Nepal, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, etc. You can’t in Australia, and this is where the argument is occurring.

The only argument I’m really hearing here is: Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. I find this a pretty uncompelling argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. Marriage was ‘traditionally’ only between people of the same race, and religion … and that’s changed.

RE: Incest. I do think that this is just getting silly. The argument for gay marriage pretty much runs thusly:

There are a very large amount of gay couples in long term, loyal, monogamous, devoted relationships. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many of these couples wish to formalise their relationships (symbolically, as well as legally) by taking part in the institution of marriage).

Incestuous relationships are considered socially unacceptable. Indeed, they are universally regarded as taboo for a number of reasons: the most noticable being (a) the obvious problems with inbreeding (b) the fact that the bulk of incest involves sexual abuse (incest between an adult and a child constitutes by far the great bulk of incest).

Now, call me stupid. But stating that the argument for gay marriage (formalising socially accepted relationships between consenting adults) would be the same as the argument for incestuous marriage (formalising a sexual relationship most often defined as child abuse), strikes me as being (a) somewhat offensive (b) a ruse to try and shift the terms of debate elsewhere. If you want to talk about same-sex marriage, go ahead. But to shift the grounds of debate to an unrelated topic is intellectually dishonest.

It’s also noteworthy that, for all the whining about ‘if I express a different opinion, they’ll call me a bigot’, this thread has consisted of reasoned argument. The only people flinging the term ‘bigot’ about are people who seem to delight in playing at being persecuted. FFS, have a little backbone and stick up for yourself through logical debate rather than playing the victim every time someone has the temerity to present you with an argument.

Eby said :

annoyedcan said :

Its about time the ACT Govt relasied the ACT is for all australians and not just for people who live in the ACT, and since the Fed Govt is voted by all Australians they have a final say.

huh? Actually, the ACT Government IS for people who live in the ACT….

The ACT is for all Australians. The ACT govt is for those who live here. Big difference.

annoyedcan said :

Its about time the ACT Govt relasied the ACT is for all australians and not just for people who live in the ACT, and since the Fed Govt is voted by all Australians they have a final say.

huh? Actually, the ACT Government IS for people who live in the ACT….

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy said :

vg said :

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

And there is the buzzkiller…

I personally don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t matter either way. It won’t pass.

The legal issue is the conflict with the defined terms of ‘Marriage’. Why does the partnership need to be labelled a marriage? Is it the fancy certificate? Is it the massive ceremony? Surely we can drum these up under different labels?

Should the ACT Government reverse the ‘alcopop’ tax coz they have an alcoholic within their party and constituents disagree with the Federal Governments position?

I’ll prepare to cop it now.

Not agreeing with the popular view on this site seems to make one a bigot. Sigh.

Yeah, unfortunately it seems if you disagree with the majority view you’re labelled as:-

Stupid;
ignorant;
intollerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
a bigot.

But oh well, the beauties of anonymous forums.

That probably happens because the reasons given for disagreeing with the idea of same-sex marriage are, by and large:

Stupid;
ignorant;
intolerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
bigoted.

If it walks like a duck …

If you have an argument against same sex marriage that isn’t any of these things, more power to you, I’d love to hear it.

Yes, we must justify our opinions to you lest we be judged in the criteria above. Semantically, gramatically and legally you cannot have a same sex ‘marriage’. I am neither ignorant or any of the other above categories. Its all about words and, until the Federal Marriage Act is amended this is pointless exercise. I am all for same sex partners being recognised to the same level as de-facto or married couples for the purposes of everything but the dictionary definition of the word marriage.

Its about time the ACT Govt relasied the ACT is for all australians and not just for people who live in the ACT, and since the Fed Govt is voted by all Australians they have a final say.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Guys – the same-sex marriage lobby aren’t arguing that ‘everyone has a right to marry’ – they’re arguing that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. You’re making a big error there. The notion that because a hitherto excluded group may have rights extended, somehow all other excluded groups will somehow find access to these rights is completely off the mark

I’ve been following this during the afternoon, and it seems to me that you’ve completely missed the point – that the same arguments that support same sex marriage apply in exactly the same way to other marriages that would not normally be considered acceptable. Of course the same-sex lobby aren’t saying ‘everyone has a right to marry’, but the arguments they put up are NO DIFFERENT. Once you strip away the name calling, it’s solely about the rights of an individual. In this case the individual is homosexual, but the same arguments apply if the individuals are brother and sister.

Thankyou! I wonder whether he’ll understand my point now?
No matter how many times I said that even though people AREN’T arguing that incestuous couples deserve the ‘right’ to ‘marriage’ the EXACT SAME arguments put forward by those supporting same-sex ‘marriage’ could be used.

Jim – I never said that an incestuous couple would ‘automatically’ be extended the same rights as any other couple when it came to ‘marriage’. I was only pointing out that the arguments and screams put forward by those pro-samesex ‘marriage’ activists could be used by other socially excluded couples looking to further extend/display their love and affection. I was pointing this out to get opinions of those pro-samesex ‘marriage’, and to see whether they were still as supportive. That’s all.

After watching Barr’s pathetic little teary-eyed episode on the news last night, I realised how much I miss seeing Hargreaves on the front bench!

aaaahh…ha ha ha ha ha…did you two do anything at work this afternoon??

…sigh…so funny…he who bigots last, bigots the longest…or so they say… 🙂

If you scroll down the page really fast from post #78 it has a really cool effect!

Jim Jones said :

Guys – the same-sex marriage lobby aren’t arguing that ‘everyone has a right to marry’ – they’re arguing that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. You’re making a big error there. The notion that because a hitherto excluded group may have rights extended, somehow all other excluded groups will somehow find access to these rights is completely off the mark

I’ve been following this during the afternoon, and it seems to me that you’ve completely missed the point – that the same arguments that support same sex marriage apply in exactly the same way to other marriages that would not normally be considered acceptable. Of course the same-sex lobby aren’t saying ‘everyone has a right to marry’, but the arguments they put up are NO DIFFERENT. Once you strip away the name calling, it’s solely about the rights of an individual. In this case the individual is homosexual, but the same arguments apply if the individuals are brother and sister.

ahappychappy said :

The issue is the legal term ‘Marriage’ (ie. between a man and a woman) not the religious idiots preaching it’s against their beliefs.

It’s a remarkably thing to change a legal term – any number of countries have done it, and their legal systems (and societies) are doing fine.

Guys – the same-sex marriage lobby aren’t arguing that ‘everyone has a right to marry’ – they’re arguing that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. You’re making a big error there. The notion that because a hitherto excluded group may have rights extended, somehow all other excluded groups will somehow find access to these rights is completely off the mark

Yes, there are many excluded groups, and these groups do change throughout history – remember once upon a time where interracial marriage was unthinkable (and ‘against tradition)? Before that, inter-religious marriage was unthinkable.

It used to be ‘tradition’ that women weren’t allowed to vote, and that blacks were inferior to whites, and that Catholics were second class citizens.

Things change: that’s kind of the point of same sex marriage argument.

Same sex couples are long term relationships that are accepted in society and bigotry against them is legislated against. Incestuous unions, not so much.

It’s entirely possible that society may, in future, change its views on incestuous unions. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

Not in terms of what has been traditionally accepted by most western sociteies, it’s not.

Perhaps you could explain the difference to me then.

Simple, you can divide them into two groups:
1) Those couplings that are and have been traditionally socially acceptable (ie traditional marriage between man and women of legal age); and
2) Those couplings that have not.

My questions to you is whether you can explain how, under this framework, you can explain why homosexual marriage is acceptable whereas incestuous is not. As ahappychappy says, the same arguments put up in support of gay marriage can be applied to incestuous marriage.

Jim Jones said :

Umm … what point is it that you’re so proudly parading? That there’s no inherent difference between hetero-couples and same-sex couples?

No, that in this sense with ‘marriage’ there’s no inherent difference in ‘rights’ between an incestuous couple and a homosexual couple. What’s good for one, could be good for the other.

The pro-samesex ‘marriage’ arguements here could be put forward for a pro-incestuous ‘marriage’ debate. I was only trying to get comment from the pro-homosexual ‘marriage’ side of things.

GnT said :

This is hilarious! Many people I know refuse to comment on RiotACT because they think it’s a right-wing conservative website, and are worried their lefty hippy views will get shouted down.

I think that belief is unfounded. What it does have is a lot of loopy conspiracy theorists.

ahappychappy said :

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

There you go! Treat yourself! Congratulations.

That was my whole damn point the whole time! Instead of being trivial and avoiding it the whole time you could’ve just realised and said that to begin with!

ahappychappy said :

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

There you go! Treat yourself! Congratulations.

That was my whole damn point the whole time! Instead of being trivial and avoiding it the whole time you could’ve just realised and said that to begin with!

Umm … what point is it that you’re so proudly parading? That there’s no inherent difference between hetero-couples and same-sex couples?

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

There you go! Treat yourself! Congratulations.

That was my whole damn point the whole time! Instead of being trivial and avoiding it the whole time you could’ve just realised and said that to begin with!

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

Not in terms of what has been traditionally accepted by most western sociteies, it’s not.

Perhaps you could explain the difference to me then.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

Not in terms of what has been traditionally accepted by most western sociteies, it’s not.

As I said earlier, homosexuality was also considered (until not too long ago) to be unnatural, just as incest is now. What’s the difference? If perceptions change will you also stand up for incestuous couples? <—- THIS IS MY QUESTION.

I'm neither here nor there on same-sex marriage, I said that earlier. Either way it wont matter as the Feds will squash it anyway. I'm just saying that if a group of people are going to argue for themselves, and call everyone who disagrees bigots/ignorant etc etc then you can't be hypocritical. People will always have differing opinions, and if you're going to judge some then you need to judge all.

But, to again trivialise things in an attempt to move around things is rather silly. I never suggested that there was a moral equivalence between same-sex relationships and incest, just pointing out that the same cries could be made by incestuous couples to acheive the same outcome. In the name of discussion, I was hoping to get some opinions from those crying so loudly here… obviously trivialisation is all I'll get.

sloppery said :

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

The difference is the same as the difference between married heterosexual couples and incestous couples.

GnT said :

This is hilarious! Many people I know refuse to comment on RiotACT because they think it’s a right-wing conservative website, and are worried their lefty hippy views will get shouted down.

(BTW atheism is not the same as no religion)

Yes you are right it is not the same, the category merely covers Atheism. Definition by ABS:
“No Religion, nfd’, ‘Agnosticism’, ‘Atheism’, ‘Humanism’ and ‘Rationalism’.

But having said that Atheism by definition is the opposite to Theism which is belief in at least one deity aka a creator of the universe. No belief is technically no religion. I think Agnostics shouldn’t be categorised as they are just fence-sitters hedging their bets.

But back to topic: who cares about marriage? Seriously, is it such a big thing to get married? It certainly isn’t the sanctity that it used to be given the number of divorces and the number of those who don’t ever get married.

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

It’s a valid question. In the spirit of sensible debate (and without personal attack), how would you describe the difference?

ahappychappy said :

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)?

Dude, you *really* need to get out and meet more people.

Jim Jones said :

Happy Chappy :

I think you’re missing the point that, just because an argument ‘could’ be made for the rights of incestuous couples that is similar to that of same-sex couple, that this argument has some sort of vailidy.

What you’re doing is starting from the assumption that homosexuality is unnatural, and then moving from this assumption to argue: “Well, if you accept the idea of this unnatural marriage, why don’t you accept all the unnatural marriages?”

It’s like me saying to you: “Well, you accept the rights of males and females to get married to each … surely you have to accept the same right of *all* males and females to get married, including male children that are 3 years old getting married to ladies that are 90 years old.”

It’s patently ridiculous, and not much more than a distraction.

If you are opposed to the concept of same sex marriage, fine – whatever. Obviously no-ones gonna change your mind. But don’t insult people’s intelligence by telling them that there’s some sort of moral equivalence between same-sex relationships and incest. It’s just … silly.

Why is it ridiculous? The argument is about whether human relationships other adult male/female (which occurs due to how humans procreate) is acceptable. Incestuous and young relationships can and do occur. Are you suggesting that homosexual relationships are really that different? Why?

Happy Chappy :

I think you’re missing the point that, just because an argument ‘could’ be made for the rights of incestuous couples that is similar to that of same-sex couple, that this argument has some sort of vailidy.

What you’re doing is starting from the assumption that homosexuality is unnatural, and then moving from this assumption to argue: “Well, if you accept the idea of this unnatural marriage, why don’t you accept all the unnatural marriages?”

It’s like me saying to you: “Well, you accept the rights of males and females to get married to each … surely you have to accept the same right of *all* males and females to get married, including male children that are 3 years old getting married to ladies that are 90 years old.”

It’s patently ridiculous, and not much more than a distraction.

If you are opposed to the concept of same sex marriage, fine – whatever. Obviously no-ones gonna change your mind. But don’t insult people’s intelligence by telling them that there’s some sort of moral equivalence between same-sex relationships and incest. It’s just … silly.

ahappychappy said :

Those supporting same-sex marriages don't *have to* support anything. But, I'm saying if they're going to scream 'our rights! our rights!' discrimination/ignorance etc. and persecute those that don't support it, they need to think the arguement through as the exact same arguement can be applied to ALL human relationships.

And that is exactly the point. Why would the rights of a hypothetical incestuous couple be any less valuable or important than the rights of a hypothetical homosexual couple?

To dig a bit deeper, then, would those people here who support gay marriage also support incestuous marriage? Why or why not?

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

You’re sitting here dismissing and trivialising the ‘rights’ of an incestuous couple when they deserve the exact same ‘rights’ as homosexual/heterosexual/any other couple. Is that not what you (and others) were arguing this whole time? Pot calling the kettle black?

Man, you’re off on some bizarre relativistic tangent of your own. Are you really arguing that legalising same-sex marriage would be ‘just the same’ as allowing incestuous marriages?

Do you really believe that anyone arguing that the definition of marriage should include same-sex couples *automatically* backs themselves into a position where they *have to* accept incestuous marriages, or midgets marrying poodles, or whatever weird crap you can think of?

Come on, man. Whatever your position on same-sex marriage, you’re smarter than that.

You’ve missed my point again.

All I’m trying to point out is, the arguement shared by the same-sex marriage supporters here can be used as a pro-incestuous marriage argument. It’s the same situation.

What is the difference between a same-sex couple and an incestuous couple (other than the genetic makeup)? Both were frowned apon at some point in time, neither can legally be ‘married’. By most of the argument shown here, both SHOULD have the same rights. I’m only pointing out what is good for one is good for the other.

As for the marrying anything/everything. I said clearly above HUMAN relationships, there’s no need to be trivial.

This is hilarious! Many people I know refuse to comment on RiotACT because they think it’s a right-wing conservative website, and are worried their lefty hippy views will get shouted down.

(BTW atheism is not the same as no religion)

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

You’re sitting here dismissing and trivialising the ‘rights’ of an incestuous couple when they deserve the exact same ‘rights’ as homosexual/heterosexual/any other couple. Is that not what you (and others) were arguing this whole time? Pot calling the kettle black?

Man, you’re off on some bizarre relativistic tangent of your own. Are you really arguing that legalising same-sex marriage would be ‘just the same’ as allowing incestuous marriages?

Do you really believe that anyone arguing that the definition of marriage should include same-sex couples *automatically* backs themselves into a position where they *have to* accept incestuous marriages, or midgets marrying poodles, or whatever weird crap you can think of?

Come on, man. Whatever your position on same-sex marriage, you’re smarter than that.

You’ve missed my point again.

I’m only pointing out that if the argument FOR allowing ‘marriage’ in same-sex relationships is about equality and rights (which seems to be the sentiment here, argued by people of hetero AND homosexual nature) then the same arguement could be used to support ‘marriage’ within incestuous relationships or any other relationship between two human beings. Those supporting same-sex ‘marriage’ are the first to scream inequality and/or discrimination to support their case, but would they support the idea if it was an incestuous couple? <— There was my question.

It's still a relationship between two people who want to profess their love for each other by getting 'married'? The same arguement can be applied to both scenario, the only difference is one relationship is now commonly accepted (even if it wasn't many years ago).

Those supporting same-sex marriages don't *have to* support anything. But, I'm saying if they're going to scream 'our rights! our rights!' discrimination/ignorance etc. and persecute those that don't support it, they need to think the arguement through as the exact same arguement can be applied to ALL human relationships.

Don't start with the "midgets marrying poodles or whatever else" argument that not everyone/everything can be married to everyone/everything. That's a given, there's no need to do that. But you've basically proved my point by dismissing it with the 'or whatever weird crap you can think of'. That exact line would've been pointed towards homosexual relationships not too long ago.

I understand the calls on my brother/sister etc. were jokes. But somewhat pointless and unconstructive trolling.

ahappychappy said :

[

It’s amazing how minority groups claim the majority is intolerant, ignorant and bigoted. Can’t see past your own nose?

Who is the minority?
2006 Census data on Canberra:
– Only 38% were listed in marriage
– Athiests (aka no religion) is the 2nd most responded category, Catholics the 1st. Who has more clout? Even those who didn’t answer the question ranked 4th.

And besides, it is only the issue of a ceremony here not civil union itself which is no different to a de facto. And who cares about a ceremony anyway, marriage is a dying tradition.

I thought your jokes were pretty funny Jim! I also think it is ‘the regulars’ that tend to disagree with (abuse) each other the most vociferously on this site.

Oh, and BTW, they’re not ‘cheap shots at your sexual orientation’. They’re jokes. Lighten up FFS.

ahappychappy said :

You’re sitting here dismissing and trivialising the ‘rights’ of an incestuous couple when they deserve the exact same ‘rights’ as homosexual/heterosexual/any other couple. Is that not what you (and others) were arguing this whole time? Pot calling the kettle black?

Man, you’re off on some bizarre relativistic tangent of your own. Are you really arguing that legalising same-sex marriage would be ‘just the same’ as allowing incestuous marriages?

Do you really believe that anyone arguing that the definition of marriage should include same-sex couples *automatically* backs themselves into a position where they *have to* accept incestuous marriages, or midgets marrying poodles, or whatever weird crap you can think of?

Come on, man. Whatever your position on same-sex marriage, you’re smarter than that.

I have to agree with ahappychappy and VY…not necessarily about their views on this particular topic but what they say about the ‘regulars’ (for want of another word)on this site. You all are really great at telling everyone to be more tolerant of others differences yet rarely accept opinions that differ to your own. Why is it that only you can be right in any debate that takes place on this site?

Different strokes for different folks…

Jim Jones said :

ahappychappy said :

–
As to linking the conversation to incest – I was merely seeing whether those crying for homosexual couple’s rights would also cry for incestuous couple’s rights? All-in-all it is the same arguement, except one seems to be supported on a wider scale.

Just how do you figure that same-sex marriage is ‘the same argument’ as ‘incestuous couple’s rights’?

I’m genuinely curious.

See VY’s point above – he’s seen my point. The arguement voiced by so many here was about same-sex marriage through the homosexual couple’s ‘right’ to be treated equally.

You’re sitting here dismissing and trivialising the ‘rights’ of an incestuous couple when they deserve the exact same ‘rights’ as homosexual/heterosexual/any other couple. Is that not what you (and others) were arguing this whole time? Pot calling the kettle black?

Or, you can continue to take a few more cheap shots at my sexual orientation (of which you have no idea, I’m happily married though, thanks for asking) to make you feel better after being shown as hypocritical and exactly what you’ve just called everyone else?

… or maybe a hot brother?

ahappychappy said :

–
As to linking the conversation to incest – I was merely seeing whether those crying for homosexual couple’s rights would also cry for incestuous couple’s rights? All-in-all it is the same arguement, except one seems to be supported on a wider scale.

Just how do you figure that same-sex marriage is ‘the same argument’ as ‘incestuous couple’s rights’?

I’m genuinely curious.

deezagood said :

I can’t agree with your views on RA regulars either – there are regulars here from all walks of life, a range of ages, with various political views/levels of education/family statuses etc… represented. I am a relatively conservative, married Mum who lives in the ‘burbs, attends P&C meetings and votes liberal. I don’t even own a bike. I still believe, very strongly, that people should be permitted to marry the person that they love.

I appreciate that your comment about incest was added to invoke fury and rage, but I still feel that it was insensitive and extremely offensive; perhaps more offensive than any previous vitriol levelled at the ‘unintelligent, discriminatory bigots’.

I agree whole-heartedly that there is a rather large demographic of people that comment/read/frequent this site. However over the past month it seems to be the ‘regulars’ banding together in common opinion and jumping down peoples throats for voicing an opinion other than their own. Whether it be based on cycling, homosexual relationships, the persecution of criminals, boat people, the price of eggs in China or whatever you like, it’s become more common.

As to whether my comment about incest was to invoke fury/rage, it wasn’t. I’m merely pointing out that it is basically the same argument, and years ago many people felt similarly to homosexual relationships as many do now to incestual relationships. If I’ve offended any of the homosexual readers then I apologise as it was not meant to offend, only to promote further discussion.

Jim Jones said :

So you’re prepared to whinge and moan about being persecuted for your opinions on a subject, but you can’t be bothered to present a cogent argument (beyond some bizarre moral equation of same-sex marriage with incest – I really don’t know where you’re going with this).

But this is exactly the point – you’ve just trivialised someone else’s opinion without constructively debating. Around here, you either agree with the (hippy lefty) majority, or get shot down under personal attack.

Jim Jones said :

So you’re prepared to whinge and moan about being persecuted for your opinions on a subject, but you can’t be bothered to present a cogent argument (beyond some bizarre moral equation of same-sex marriage with incest – I really don’t know where you’re going with this).

Yeah pretty much. Because I really couldn’t care less about whether a homosexual relationship can be labelled as a ‘marriage’ or not, it’s already recognised as a civil union.

But, each to their own and I applaud people for sticking up for what they believe in.

My point was unfortunately, when someone stands against the majority here on RiotACT (which isn’t always the majority in the wider community) they’re labelled as all the previously stated things and ridiculed – seems some-what hypocritical to be called intollerant for not believing in someones beliefs when they’re intollerant of the law/wider communities beliefs.

As to linking the conversation to incest – I was merely seeing whether those crying for homosexual couple’s rights would also cry for incestuous couple’s rights? All-in-all it is the same arguement, except one seems to be supported on a wider scale.

Maybe happy chappy has a hot sister?

Geez happy chappy; that was a bit harsh. I think the debate here has been relatively moderate compared to some in the past … I can’t agree with your views on RA regulars either – there are regulars here from all walks of life, a range of ages, with various political views/levels of education/family statuses etc… represented. I am a relatively conservative, married Mum who lives in the ‘burbs, attends P&C meetings and votes liberal. I don’t even own a bike. I still believe, very strongly, that people should be permitted to marry the person that they love.

I appreciate that your comment about incest was added to invoke fury and rage, but I still feel that it was insensitive and extremely offensive; perhaps more offensive than any previous vitriol levelled at the ‘unintelligent, discriminatory bigots’.

So you’re prepared to whinge and moan about being persecuted for your opinions on a subject, but you can’t be bothered to present a cogent argument (beyond some bizarre moral equation of same-sex marriage with incest – I really don’t know where you’re going with this).

Many people *will* continue to put forward their opinions on this matter – regardless of whether the Feds knock it on the head or not – because it is important.

If everyone took the lazy attitude of ‘well it won’t get up this time, so why bother trying’, then human civilisation itself wouldn’t have got off the ground, let alone the many features of it that we take for granted that had long histories of setbacks and opposition: women suffrage, civil rights, racial and religious equality, etc.

Jim Jones said :

That probably happens because the reasons given for disagreeing with the idea of same-sex marriage are, by and large:

Stupid;
ignorant;
intolerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
bigoted.

If it walks like a duck …

If you have an argument against same sex marriage that isn’t any of these things, more power to you, I’d love to hear it.

That isn’t my point. I’m not going to sit here and argue (to be flamed until all tomorrow) as it won’t go anywhere… That’s already been done in multiple posts previous to this (on this topic and others), and as I stated earlier – it wont pass the Federal Government’s chopping block anyway, so why bother?

My point is unfortunatley, as soon as someone seems to disagree with the ‘regulars’ of this site (which all seem to be cyclists, homosexuals, lynch mob supporters and human rights activists judging on the past months posts) they’re labelled as unintelligent, discriminatory bigots. It’s amazing how minority groups claim the majority is intolerant, ignorant and bigoted. Can’t see past your own nose?

Hell, while we’re at it, let’s allow incestuous couples to use the term ‘married’ (at least they’d pass the legal definition of ‘marriage’). After all, they’re humans, and are being denied the right to express their love like the homosexual community? Why should they be treated differently to anyone else? Are you going to support that aswell?

watto23 said :

What gets me is most people really don’t care if a gay couple is “married or not”. Its about equality for everyone. If the religous zealots don’t approve of gay couples having rights, then why are they not lobbying to stop de facto couples having rights. After all they are living in sin according to there rules.

The sooner people realise that everyone has a right to be treated equally the better. Australia has so many different religions these days I feel disgusted that any religion feels it has the right to dictate what is right for all Australians.

As a Canberran I feel that everytime the government overturns a decision that my right to be treated equally has been diminished.

The issue isn’t the religious side mate, have you not listened at all?

The issue is the legal term ‘Marriage’ (ie. between a man and a woman) not the religious idiots preaching it’s against their beliefs.

ahappychappy said :

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy said :

vg said :

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

And there is the buzzkiller…

I personally don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t matter either way. It won’t pass.

The legal issue is the conflict with the defined terms of ‘Marriage’. Why does the partnership need to be labelled a marriage? Is it the fancy certificate? Is it the massive ceremony? Surely we can drum these up under different labels?

Should the ACT Government reverse the ‘alcopop’ tax coz they have an alcoholic within their party and constituents disagree with the Federal Governments position?

I’ll prepare to cop it now.

Not agreeing with the popular view on this site seems to make one a bigot. Sigh.

Yeah, unfortunately it seems if you disagree with the majority view you’re labelled as:-

Stupid;
ignorant;
intollerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
a bigot.

But oh well, the beauties of anonymous forums.

That probably happens because the reasons given for disagreeing with the idea of same-sex marriage are, by and large:

Stupid;
ignorant;
intolerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
bigoted.

If it walks like a duck …

If you have an argument against same sex marriage that isn’t any of these things, more power to you, I’d love to hear it.

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy said :

vg said :

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

And there is the buzzkiller…

I personally don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t matter either way. It won’t pass.

The legal issue is the conflict with the defined terms of ‘Marriage’. Why does the partnership need to be labelled a marriage? Is it the fancy certificate? Is it the massive ceremony? Surely we can drum these up under different labels?

Should the ACT Government reverse the ‘alcopop’ tax coz they have an alcoholic within their party and constituents disagree with the Federal Governments position?

I’ll prepare to cop it now.

Not agreeing with the popular view on this site seems to make one a bigot. Sigh.

Yeah, unfortunately it seems if you disagree with the majority view you’re labelled as:-

Stupid;
ignorant;
intollerant;
arrogant;
discriminatory; or
a bigot.

But oh well, the beauties of anonymous forums.

What gets me is most people really don’t care if a gay couple is “married or not”. Its about equality for everyone. If the religous zealots don’t approve of gay couples having rights, then why are they not lobbying to stop de facto couples having rights. After all they are living in sin according to there rules.

The sooner people realise that everyone has a right to be treated equally the better. Australia has so many different religions these days I feel disgusted that any religion feels it has the right to dictate what is right for all Australians.

As a Canberran I feel that everytime the government overturns a decision that my right to be treated equally has been diminished.

lula said :

The most awful part of any wedding is where the celebrant has to read aloud “by law a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN”. Way to bring everyone down. Makes me feel sick every time.

Ergh, I didn’t know that. We’ve been trying to decide whether we get married in NZ or Australia, and if that is a non-optional part of the ceremony in Australia that certainly adds to the case for getting married in NZ where we can opt for a civil union (something which is available to both hetro and homosexual couples.)

simbobloke said :

So the short answer is … this isn’t revolution. This is incremental change.

Revolution through evolution!

There’s a little bit of innacuracy creeping in here, starting with the original post.

Civil unions have been legal in the ACT for a bit over 12 months. The new legislation changes the arrangements slightly – whereas previously, the civil union was not allowed to include any kind of ceremony, now, under the new legislation, it can. It doesn’t have to, but it’s an allowed option.

So the short answer is … this isn’t revolution. This is incremental change. You take a compromise. You step back. Wait a year. And then you come back and see whether you can renegotiate the compromise into something better for you.

It’s really not rocket science.

A really on topic comment was made by Julian Morrow at the Andrew Ollie lecture. There are two audiences – your primary audience and those who are offended. You’ll never make the second crowd happy and they aren’t usually affected by any decision except to be outraged.

Ignore the outraged and make life better for those people in your primary audience

CSRI – The best troll-spotter in the universe 🙂

Seriously people…what is it you want? A legal union…or to be able to say the word ‘marriage’??? I would hope the former.

I am a proud heterosexual Godmother to my best friends’ (a lesbian couple) daughter. I would love to see them joined in holy uniontrimony but could not give a flying f*ck if it was called a ‘marriage’ or not.

It just seems kind of logical for it to be legal…and really, it is such a non-issue to me. It would make my friends happy…and that is all the convincing I need because I love them.

ahappychappy said :

vg said :

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

And there is the buzzkiller…

I personally don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t matter either way. It won’t pass.

The legal issue is the conflict with the defined terms of ‘Marriage’. Why does the partnership need to be labelled a marriage? Is it the fancy certificate? Is it the massive ceremony? Surely we can drum these up under different labels?

Should the ACT Government reverse the ‘alcopop’ tax coz they have an alcoholic within their party and constituents disagree with the Federal Governments position?

I’ll prepare to cop it now.

Not agreeing with the popular view on this site seems to make one a bigot. Sigh.

astrojax said :

and i hope deeza teaches his/her kids to change ‘tack’ – not tact: we’d hope they remain tactful, even dealing with bigots… but otherwise, among the best responses here, ta and big up to you!

‘Change tack’ may technically be the correct idiom, the term ‘change tact’ is also commonly used as an abridged ‘change tactics’ or ‘change in tact’. Please check with Mr Google if you don’t believe me. I stand by my original post and that is what I’m teaching my kids 😉

@lula, that line always makes me feel slightly ill… here we are celebrating someone’s love, and getting reminded that someone else’s love is not legit.

vg said :

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

And there is the buzzkiller…

I personally don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t matter either way. It won’t pass.

The legal issue is the conflict with the defined terms of ‘Marriage’. Why does the partnership need to be labelled a marriage? Is it the fancy certificate? Is it the massive ceremony? Surely we can drum these up under different labels?

Should the ACT Government reverse the ‘alcopop’ tax coz they have an alcoholic within their party and constituents disagree with the Federal Governments position?

I’ll prepare to cop it now.

Whatever my opinion happens to be this is a pointless exercise. The Feds will knock it on the head and the Assembly’s time wasted once again.

sloppery said :

Buzz2600 said :

Sloppery, you’re in the minority in this town. Most Canberrans have supported equal rights, including gay marriage for years.

Quite possibly – and that’s ok. But I bet I’m in the majority federally.

The most recent Newspoll on the subject shows around 60 percent of Australians support gay marriage.

Jim Jones said :

I think people don’t want teh gheys to get married because the weddings would completely out-awesome any run-of-the-mill hetero-wedding and show everyone up.

Haha for sure!
And imagine what an amazing jolt for the local economy it would be – nothing like a wedding to get people to open their pockets!

The most awful part of any wedding is where the celebrant has to read aloud “by law a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN”. Way to bring everyone down. Makes me feel sick every time.

#31

Best ever refuting of the stupid arguments homophobes continually trot out on this issue. Well done Madam/ Sir! 🙂

and #32

Ha! Totally. 🙂

i paticularly like how r. slicker’s 8) became a smiley face; but misses 11) gay marriage will destroy belief in the bible
– and the world’s best selling book couldn’t bear that; which is why mebbe the rudd government caved in and didn’t go with the changes to publishing the industry here fought so hard against..? jim jones’ post describes the missing no. 12)

and i hope deeza teaches his/her kids to change ‘tack’ – not tact: we’d hope they remain tactful, even dealing with bigots… but otherwise, among the best responses here, ta and big up to you!

sloppery said :

Not on this thread… I trolled on the speeding thread to get started, but this place is kinda growing on me. I remember a couple of threads here, though, where the people who didn’t want gay marriage got called all sort of nasty things and were personally attacked for their opinions. I have no desire to go through that, if for no other reason than it achieves zero.

I was one of those people. I expressed an opinion about not liking use of the term ‘marriage’, and got called all sorts of things. I won’t bother again.

I think people don’t want teh gheys to get married because the weddings would completely out-awesome any run-of-the-mill hetero-wedding and show everyone up.

Ten reasons why gay marriage is wrong:

1) Being gay is not natural
– And real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, hearing aids, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay
– In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall, or hanging around black people will make you black.

3) Legalising gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour.
– People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next. Who knows, Mormons might want to have multiple spouses. What’s that? They already do?

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’ t changed at all
– Hence why women are still property, blacks still can’ t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed
– And we can’t let the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55- hour just- for- fun marriage be destroyed

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children
– So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our population isn’t out of control, our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
– Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
– In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in Australia.
(Did I miss the lesson where Jesus says He hates gays? )

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
– Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms .
– Just like we haven ‘t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, multiculturalism, social welfare or longer life spans.

Not on this thread… I trolled on the speeding thread to get started, but this place is kinda growing on me. I remember a couple of threads here, though, where the people who didn’t want gay marriage got called all sort of nasty things and were personally attacked for their opinions. I have no desire to go through that, if for no other reason than it achieves zero.

At the risk of being moderated for pointing out the obvious – sloppery is trolling, have a look at all his/her posts in this and other topics.

Trolls are creatures with a voracious apetite, if you don’t feed them regularly the wither up and disappear.

Just a thought.

Well, that’s no fun.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

I don’t agree with gay marriage at all, and am glad the federal government is (or hopefully will be) acting in my interests.

Umm … how is gay people getting married ‘against your interests’?

This discussion’s been had before on this site, so how about “it’s against my interests”, and we leave it at that.

sloppery said :

I don’t agree with gay marriage at all, and am glad the federal government is (or hopefully will be) acting in my interests.

Umm … how is gay people getting married ‘against your interests’?

Buzz2600 said :

Sloppery, you’re in the minority in this town. Most Canberrans have supported equal rights, including gay marriage for years.

Quite possibly – and that’s ok. But I bet I’m in the majority federally.

Sloppery, you’re in the minority in this town. Most Canberrans have supported equal rights, including gay marriage for years. The Fed should stop meddling. I also look forward to the possibility of the QUILT festival (see separate post) coming to Canberra … it rates as a Queer Little Town too doesn’t it? ;o)

@ #20
I don’t believe that de-facto couples who are too lazy to be married or rubber up should be able to raise children together either.

When is the government going to come to my aid in my chosen field of discrimination?

I don’t agree with gay marriage at all, and am glad the federal government is (or hopefully will be) acting in my interests.

muFasa said :

I can’t wait for Senator Lundy to come out and do her usual “I support it, but I can’t vote against my party” spiel. I find this really annoying, if you truly believed in something you would vote for it regardless of what your party will do to you.

As controversial as this will probably be, I expect elected representatives to vote in support of their stated policies, which they use to become elected. Their personal opinion is irrelevant.

GnT said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

What do you do when an issue that’s personally important to you fails a few times, simply drop it?

Work out another way to solve it. If petitioning your govt repeatedly fails, try something different. If you want to be married to your gay partner, how about doing it in a place where it’s legal? Not to be cynical, but if I lived in a place where my kids weren’t allowed to go to school if they were female, I’d move somewhere where they could.

I’m not suggested people wanting gay marriage should all leave, but thinking of different ways to get the outcome you want rather than trying the same thing over and over could be more effective.

If it were me personally, I’d go ‘get married’ overseas somewhere, then return here and register the union. For some that would be an acceptable outcome, for others not. How about some outside the box thinking…?

People who support gay marriage are not necessarily the people who want to be married to their gay partner. They are people who expect and demand equal rights for everyone.

If I wanted to be married to my gay partner, going overseas to get married because it is not legal here would not be satisfactory. Besides, legal gay marriage overseas is not legally recognised here in Australia.

So you wouldn’t do what I would do. No problem. What WOULD you do?

I can’t wait for Senator Lundy to come out and do her usual “I support it, but I can’t vote against my party” spiel. I find this really annoying, if you truly believed in something you would vote for it regardless of what your party will do to you.

I believe it should definately be passed. I am sick of the bigotry associated with two people wanting to profess their love for each other.

GnT said :

People who support gay marriage are not necessarily the people who want to be married to their gay partner. They are people who expect and demand equal rights for everyone.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

Denying a person fundamental rights based on their sexual orientation is at the very least inequitable and borderline illegal. Here we have the local government actually trying to do something about it, you know, representing as many of their constituents’ interests as possible, for which they should be applauded. The outcome doesn’t affect me at all, but I for one hope they don’t back down.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

What do you do when an issue that’s personally important to you fails a few times, simply drop it?

Work out another way to solve it. If petitioning your govt repeatedly fails, try something different. If you want to be married to your gay partner, how about doing it in a place where it’s legal? Not to be cynical, but if I lived in a place where my kids weren’t allowed to go to school if they were female, I’d move somewhere where they could.

I’m not suggested people wanting gay marriage should all leave, but thinking of different ways to get the outcome you want rather than trying the same thing over and over could be more effective.

If it were me personally, I’d go ‘get married’ overseas somewhere, then return here and register the union. For some that would be an acceptable outcome, for others not. How about some outside the box thinking…?

People who support gay marriage are not necessarily the people who want to be married to their gay partner. They are people who expect and demand equal rights for everyone.

If I wanted to be married to my gay partner, going overseas to get married because it is not legal here would not be satisfactory. Besides, legal gay marriage overseas is not legally recognised here in Australia.

It is very saddening that there are so many bigots in australia that want to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

i am against gay marriage……that will lead to gay divorce……and THAT will be bitchy…..

Thoroughly Smashed said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

What do you do when an issue that’s personally important to you fails a few times, simply drop it?

Work out another way to solve it. If petitioning your govt repeatedly fails, try something different. If you want to be married to your gay partner, how about doing it in a place where it’s legal? Not to be cynical, but if I lived in a place where my kids weren’t allowed to go to school if they were female, I’d move somewhere where they could.

I’m not suggested people wanting gay marriage should all leave, but thinking of different ways to get the outcome you want rather than trying the same thing over and over could be more effective.

If it were me personally, I’d go ‘get married’ overseas somewhere, then return here and register the union. For some that would be an acceptable outcome, for others not. How about some outside the box thinking…?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

What do you do when an issue that’s personally important to you fails a few times, simply drop it?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

I hope it is because the ACT government is not a bunch of quitters … I am trying to teach my kids that if you fail at something, then try and try again, change tact, review strategy and never, ever give up. You just never know – this might be the time they succeed. I’d really love to see the ACT lead the way on this issue.

Sepi, that is just cynical enough to be right. Will be interesting to see.

Perhaps if the sri lankan immigration debacle goes on much longer, rudd will allow ACT to have same sex marriage, just to get something else on the front of thse papers for a few days.

And compared to Africa and the Middle East the attitude here is enlightened. So what?

For right or wrong, it’s always been a divisive issue and probably will be for a long time. I for one support it. I certainly feel very strongly about our elected assembly being overruled by the Federal Government, irrespective of the issue.

Jim Jones said :

It would actually be nice to see Rudd try to flatten this, if only so it could go to the High Court and become a national issue.

Compared to Europe in particular, the political attitude towards gay marriage in Australia is stupidly backwards and out of date.

Agreed. This plus the recent asylum seeker debacle makes me wonder if we really did vote Howard out? We did, didn’t we?

It would actually be nice to see Rudd try to flatten this, if only so it could go to the High Court and become a national issue.

Compared to Europe in particular, the political attitude towards gay marriage in Australia is stupidly backwards and out of date.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

On a more serious note, we’ve been down this path before, and wasted time and effort. Why do it again?

They talked about this yesterday on Triple J’s Hack.

As much as I am opposed to the idea, I agree with Gary Humphries that the ACT should be allowed to make its own laws in the same way the states can.

If there is indeed a conflict with the marriage act then that is a matter for the High Court.

How long do we have to keep it up?