Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Canberra’s most creative
residential property specialists

Debate on same-sex civil union continues …

By GnT 24 November 2009 85

The debate on same-sex civil unions continues, with a press release from Jon Stanhope stating the new legislation is not ‘anti-Christian’, as the Australian Christian Lobby asserts, but about ‘inclusiveness’. Jim Wallace has in turn responded that Stanhope has no mandate as claimed.

There has been some vigorous debate on this site about the merits of same-sex civil unions (or otherwise) but a big part of the issue is the right of the ACT to govern for its citizens which have elected it. If a state passed similar laws, as Victoria and Tasmania are likely to do, the federal government would not be able to overturn them so easily, despite what they thought of the actual laws. The feds forced self government upon us, but won’t allow us to govern ourselves if our laws don’t meet their moral criteria. Butt out Rudd!


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
85 Responses to
Debate on same-sex civil union continues …
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
5
Hells_Bells74 11:59 am 08 Dec 09

sloppery said :

KidKenosha said :

Considering the number of original baby boomers about to hit retirement age, I would imagine those of us born since the 80s are going to be too busy subsidising adult nappies and hip replacements to fight wars…

The baby boomers are going to be working for a while yet. As a generation they have spent lots and generally not invested enough for the retirement they think they’ll have. In the US, a lot of retirement planning now assumes working until 70!

I think you’re right there sloppery.

My bf and I went to his work (fencing) xmas party on Saturday night and there were two elderly men there. One was still working and one had been let go last year at the ripe old age of 84. I’m pretty sure they both fall into the age group for retiring at 55.. Madness!

Good on ’em for keeping them on!

sloppery 8:47 am 08 Dec 09

KidKenosha said :

Considering the number of original baby boomers about to hit retirement age, I would imagine those of us born since the 80s are going to be too busy subsidising adult nappies and hip replacements to fight wars…

The baby boomers are going to be working for a while yet. As a generation they have spent lots and generally not invested enough for the retirement they think they’ll have. In the US, a lot of retirement planning now assumes working until 70!

KidKenosha 2:35 am 08 Dec 09

johnboy said :

Incidentally Peter Costello’s baby boom is going to see Australia all geared up for some war fighting in the early 2020s just to thin out the ranks of the youth bubble. Coincidence?

Considering the number of original baby boomers about to hit retirement age, I would imagine those of us born since the 80s are going to be too busy subsidising adult nappies and hip replacements to fight wars…

georgesgenitals 4:13 pm 28 Nov 09

johnboy said :

Actually Watto, even ostensibly religious wars like the Crusades night on a millenia ago were really more motivated by economic factors.

If there’s economic opportunity at home most people like to stay home, if not they go wandering, and depending on how the locals react to their arrival you get wars or not.

Incidentally Peter Costello’s baby boom is going to see Australia all geared up for some war fighting in the early 2020s just to thin out the ranks of the youth bubble. Coincidence?

Good point. I’d suggest, though, that Australia’s economic situation 10-15 years from now could well be so good that the only fighting would be keeping the rest of the world from coming and grabbing our (massive) supply of useful resources. When nuclear energy generation gets rolled out large scale in other parts of the world (eg China or India), we could well be the Saudi Arabia of the 21st century.

johnboy 8:19 am 28 Nov 09

Actually Watto, even ostensibly religious wars like the Crusades night on a millenia ago were really more motivated by economic factors.

If there’s economic opportunity at home most people like to stay home, if not they go wandering, and depending on how the locals react to their arrival you get wars or not.

Incidentally Peter Costello’s baby boom is going to see Australia all geared up for some war fighting in the early 2020s just to thin out the ranks of the youth bubble. Coincidence?

BigDave 6:22 pm 27 Nov 09

Post #58 Spot on!

watto23 4:39 pm 27 Nov 09

Nick Sundance said :

Name a recent war where religion wasn’t involved?
World War II (for example on what religious basis did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour?)
The Cold War
Korea (clearly communism vs democracy)
Vietnam (clearly communism vs democracy)
Afghanistan (no clear ‘christian’ motive although it is plausibly tenable that the ‘taliban as a religion’ attack against a foreign government could slightly be attributed to ‘religion’
Iraq (regime change)
Straight back at you Watto – what recent wars have there been where religion has been involved ?
I’ll start the list for you:
Internet Porn/Religion dominance war

Given my lack of knowledge on wars before WWII I’ll start with WWII – Yeah Hitler invaded poland because he thought poland looked nice. Had nothing to do with them being jewish. Japanese chose an ally, they didn’t start the war, still they are not christian are they.

Cold war communism vs democracy still a difference of religion which can lead to a difference of ideals relating to communism vs democracy.

Korea and Vietnam i’ll agree with mainly, yet other countries got involved based on their religios views and hatred of communism as a result.

Afghanistan is all about religious differences. So is Iraq. Religion gives people a set of ideals they follow. Different religions have different ideals and beliefs. People then fight about those differences, yeah its not a war because Religion A hates Religion B, but the religious differences are the foundation.

This is way off topic but you really didn’t answer any of my questions. Besides how does one know which religion is right? They can’t all be right and chances are none of them are.

As it stands it looks like the law is going to stay. I’m so glad that other people in my community can be happy and do what they want to do that affects no one else but themselves.

Jim Jones 2:32 pm 27 Nov 09

Finally – there are very good reasons why incestuous couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

For example, the vast bulk of incest occurs in interfamilial child abuse – to legitimise such relationships such as this would be to legitimise and formalise child abuse.

Similarly, it’s all too easy to raise objections to such alliances as under-age children marrying older adults, etc.

None of these issues apply to gay marriage.

You can’t compare apples and oranges – it’s so obvious it’s an idiom.

Jim Jones 2:17 pm 27 Nov 09

ahappychappy said :

Simply stating one is an orange and one is an apple doesn’t really work as a counter argument.

Why not?

According to your argument it’s okay to ‘compare apples and oranges’?

I can’t think of many people that would accept that line of argument at all. It’s a fundamental point of logical contention that you’re rejecting with the line: “it doesn’t work”.

Colour me unconvinced.

ahappychappy said :

B) Again, you’ve not read a thing I said. I don’t feel all human relationships are equal, but if one side is going to pul the equality card, then they need to accept their own point.

Again, you’re insisting that apples and oranges are all the same. When talking about equality in any arena, people will necessarily ask ‘equality of what with what’.

ahappychappy said :

Why do you believe convicted paedophiles should have less rights than the indigenous people? Why should the average Australian have more rights than someone with a criminal record? They deserve the same ‘right’ of opinion and vote? Who’s being discriminatory now?

It was an example for the sake of argument. Very clever of you though, to start flinging around accusations of discrimination. But according to you, I’m a hypocrit because I’m in favour of same sex marriage but not incestuous marriage.

ahappychappy said :

I think you’ll see a few people have said you’re not responding to my point, and they also see the validity.

Well, that’s a convincing argument. If you have a look back, there were just as many people who thought that you were being offensive by likening same-sex marriage to incest.

Whatever, dude. Keep ignoring the points made against your argument (which is founded on a false premise and is based on the assumption that apples and oranges are completely the same).

Same sex unions are happening in the ACT. Same sex marriages are happening across the world and will occur in Australia in under 10 years.

Eventually, everyone will look back on this issue the same way they looked back at civil rights debates such as racial equality and women suffrage, and they’ll wonder just how in hell people could argue against it.

sloppery 1:23 pm 27 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Yeah, right :rolls eyes:

So your idea of a solid argument runs like this –

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “There are major problems with that. For example, B and C.”

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “Are you going to bother to respond to criticism of your argument?”

ahappychappy: “You don’t understand. My argument is A”.

jim jones: “You’re an idiot, I give up.”

georgesgenital: “Oh. Name calling. Hypocrisy. I win.”

That’s just solid George, real solid.

You’re kidding yourself if you think you’ve made logical or convincing arguments.

To put it another way, I’m not a fan of gay marriage, but am not convinced to even consider alternatives to my viewpoint based on your arguments. You’ve attacked happychappy’s arguments as ridiculous, even though you have never really addressed his point of accepting multiple relationship types under the same arguments as apply to gay marriage, even going so far as to make up examples that noone else raised (such as women getting the vote and Aboriginal rights).

Anyway, I’m gettng kinda bored with this issue. Have a fun weekend.

ahappychappy 12:12 pm 27 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

“I’m just saying that if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right.”

You’re ignoring my point again:

A) not all human relationships are equal – same-sex relationships are radically different to incestuous relationships, and it is this difference that makes people accept one and not the other.

B) if you insist that all human relationships are equal, and reject the idea of extending marriage to minority groups, then you’d also be forced to reject previous extentions of marriage to such minority groups as interracial marriage and inter-religious marriage.

“If you’re going to say, in a situation (take ‘marriage’ for example), that equality is needed for a minority, then ALL minorities could/should be granted equality in that situation.”

Again, this is a complete fallacy. I can argue that a certain minority should have equal rights in a particular situation, for example, “aboriginals should have equal political rights” and then deny this right to another minority group based on the status of the minority. For example: “convicted paedophiles should not have equal political rights”.

There’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in this at all – not all ‘minorities’ are equal. Just because someone argues for equal rights for *a* minority doesn’t make them duty bound to accept equal rights for *all* minority groups.

As I keep saying, it’s you that is arguing that “if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right”, no-one else.

Many people are supportive of same-sex marriage without somehow being in support of incestuous marriage or marriage of children with adults or whatever else.

Beyond that, really, what is your argument here? Are you seriously saying that, if gays get married, then incestuous couples will be next? If you’re not saying this, what is the point of your argument?

I’ll respond.

A) You’re only using incestuous relationships as the draw card. I also asked for positions on other relationships between humans unable to marry at the moment. Underage etc. Sure, they’re radically different, yet the argument can be applied still. Simply stating one is an orange and one is an apple doesn’t really work as a counter argument. Plus, not all people accept same-sex relationships.

B) Again, you’ve not read a thing I said. I don’t feel all human relationships are equal, but if one side is going to pul the equality card, then they need to accept their own point.

Why do you believe convicted paedophiles should have less rights than the indigenous people? Why should the average Australian have more rights than someone with a criminal record? They deserve the same ‘right’ of opinion and vote? Who’s being discriminatory now?

I think you’ll see a few people have said you’re not responding to my point, and they also see the validity.

Jim Jones 8:38 am 27 Nov 09

georgesgenitals said :

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Yeah, right :rolls eyes:

So your idea of a solid argument runs like this –

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “There are major problems with that. For example, B and C.”

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “Are you going to bother to respond to criticism of your argument?”

ahappychappy: “You don’t understand. My argument is A”.

jim jones: “You’re an idiot, I give up.”

georgesgenital: “Oh. Name calling. Hypocrisy. I win.”

That’s just solid George, real solid.

Hells_Bells74 8:21 am 27 Nov 09

Oh that’s right, they called women a minority too.. Go figure!

Hells_Bells74 8:16 am 27 Nov 09

It’s a bit funny to hear gays spoken of as a minority, in my weird and wonderful world they almost sometimes seem the majority lol

Of course statistically they wouldn’t be, just saying.

vg 7:37 am 27 Nov 09

GnT said :

In order to overturn a state’s law, the Federal government would have to argue the laws were unconstitutional, in particular infringing on their exclusive right to legislate on marriage. Since the Howard government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, any state’s same-sex civil union laws could not possibly be considered anything to do with marriage. The High Court would never rule they were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth would have a hard time overturning any state’s same-sex union laws, compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.

I’m not a complete nincompoop – I think I have considered some of the ‘realities of law’ in my ‘rant’.

Tell me this post is a wind up

State laws don’t have to be ‘constitutional’, as they are STATE laws. When they are inconsistent with Federal laws s109 of the Constitution can apply to give Fed law primacy.

As for the rest, please do some reading on what is and what isn’t Conlaw 101

georgesgenitals 9:39 pm 26 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it.

Pot, kettle, etc.

georgesgenitals 9:35 pm 26 Nov 09

Granny said :

chewy14 said :

Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

Oh, really? Who do I hang around with?

Anyone that offers emotional acceptance, based on what you post on this site.

Skidbladnir 6:41 pm 26 Nov 09

The ACT has temporarily been given a reprieve from veto for now…
Apparently Corbell and McLellan have struck a deal, where same-sex couples will get a second class process, but can have public ceremonies.

(Why is government involved in recognising social partnerships? Blame Calvin and the counter-reformationists)

Granny 5:11 pm 26 Nov 09

chewy14 said :

Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

Oh, really? Who do I hang around with?

GnT 4:47 pm 26 Nov 09

People, people, people!!!

Please exit the roundabout! I think this argument went round in the same circles on the other thread.

I’ve tries to focus this thread on the Territory versus Commonwealth aspect of the debate. Do you have an opinion on this?

5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site