Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

From civil unions Simon cracks on to gay marriage

By johnboy 23 August 2012 36

After getting his Civil Unions legislation through the Assembly last night Simon Corbell has announced a more ambitious push just so we’re all clear where he’s coming from:

“Marriage equality is an issue that deserves a collaborative approach and I am pleased that my Tasmanian counter-part, Attorney General, Hon. Brian Wightman MP, has agreed to proceed with discussions that would see our two progressive governments work together to further state and territory-based legislation to promote same-sex marriage.

“The Tasmanian Government has announced its support for legislation to grant marriage equality for same-sex couples in Tasmania within the current term of Government. Following my discussions with Mr Wightman we have agreed to share information that may assist the other jurisdiction to develop laws that provide for same-sex marriage.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
From civil unions Simon cracks on to gay marriage
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
stillflying 9:08 am 24 Aug 12

switch said :

stillflying said :

These talks are so disheartening because they never work, you can never make a bigot see sense. You just have to wait for them and their kind to die out.

There’s always one more bigot.

Yeah but they’re mostly old, and as that generation departs so will their ideas. The younger generations are mostly for gay marriage.

switch 8:21 am 24 Aug 12

stillflying said :

These talks are so disheartening because they never work, you can never make a bigot see sense. You just have to wait for them and their kind to die out.

There’s always one more bigot.

stillflying 8:03 am 24 Aug 12

While I understand the need to discuss this issue from everyone, fat little good it ever does. You never change a bigots mind. They are always determined to refuse to see reason. Even if you manage to successfully dispute one of their stupid ideas such as gay marriage opening the gates to beastiality and pedophilia (who ever heard of such a preposterous idea to begin with) they’ll switch to another idea and plug that for a while.

These talks are so disheartening because they never work, you can never make a bigot see sense. You just have to wait for them and their kind to die out.

DrKoresh 1:34 am 24 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

What f***ing planet do you come from? Of course they’re not happy, they’re still being arbitrarily discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

No they aren’t. Nobody’s saying they can’t marry. Marriage is a union between man and wife. That’s reality.

No, it’s arbitrary and unreasonable. Allowing two homosexuals to marry eachother does nothing to devalue other people’s traditional relationships. I can see people maybe not caring enough to support marriage equality but the folks who are actively against mollify me, it’s needless and petty.

chewy14 11:01 pm 23 Aug 12

Jethro said :

chewy14 said :

Fantastic reasons why we should be getting rid of the whole ridiculous notion of government sanctioned marriage.

If our goal is to end discrimination and have equality then we shouldn’t be extending the definition, we should be getting rid of it altogether. Civil unions for everybody.

Aoart from the fact civil unions still involve government but remove the whole cultural meaning thing.

They’re only needed for the legal recognition and even then its a stretch. The rest is just window dressing.
Governments have no business in people’s love.

LegalNut 10:39 pm 23 Aug 12

Marriage is, at best, a social construct. We have long since moved on from the idea that blacks can’t marry whites and so on, so what’s the real difference between that and homosexual marriage? The answer is that there isn’t a difference. So, if you have some ridiculous “religious” objection to it, go live in Russia, the US or some similarly bigoted country as your opinions are hardly useful in Australia.

milkman 10:16 pm 23 Aug 12

Yawn.

This again? Really?

Jethro 9:50 pm 23 Aug 12

chewy14 said :

Fantastic reasons why we should be getting rid of the whole ridiculous notion of government sanctioned marriage.

If our goal is to end discrimination and have equality then we shouldn’t be extending the definition, we should be getting rid of it altogether. Civil unions for everybody.

Aoart from the fact civil unions still involve government but remove the whole cultural meaning thing.

LSWCHP 9:46 pm 23 Aug 12

I’d love it if the (admittedly few) gay blokes I know would get married. They they’d stop banging on (as it were) about all the sex they get, and start banging on about how much they’d like to have sex, just like the rest of us older married men.

Older married men, you know it’s true.

chewy14 9:28 pm 23 Aug 12

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Marriage is a union between man and wife. That’s reality.

montana said :

There is no such thing as same sex marriage. simple as that. that is the definition of marriage- between a man and a woman.

The ‘the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman’ argument may very well be the stupidest of a pretty sad bunch of reasons to continue discriminating against a significant minority of people in our community.

Marriage is a legal and social institution that reflects the social norms of the society it exists within. At different places and times marriage has included marriage between a man and many women, adults and children, a man and his dead brother’s wife, or a rape victim and her attacker. At other times it has been limited to only allow marriage between couples of the same race or nationality. I’m certainly not arguing that all of these definitions of marriage should be allowed to exist in Australia today – far from it; however, I am saying that the definition of marriage can and does change to reflect the values of the people in the society it serves, so your point is demonstrably false.

In Australia today the vast majority of people recognise homosexual relationships as completely legitimate and our marriage laws should reflect this. Just because our legal system currently defines marriage as between a man and woman does not mean this is set in stone. As our society has progressed and realised that there is nothing wrong with being gay we have changed our laws to reflect that. Homosexuality used to be a capital offense in Australia and it wasn’t all that long ago that it was a criminal offense. Changes to marriage laws are just another step in recognising the value and validity of homosexual people and their relationships.

The slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to child-adult marriage is complete nonsense. As I mentioned, child-adult marriage has existed in many cultures and places throughout history. Gay marriage was not a pre-requisite for this to occur. What was a pre-requisite was a different set of social and cultural values that are almost universally condemned in today’s Australia. The very vast majority of people recognise that child marriage has no place in a modern Western society governed by Enlightenment values that recognise and respect the rights of children to be free from sexual coercion at the hands of adults, as well as their right to be free from being treated as property. Likewise, we recognise that children do not have the ability to consent to particular behaviours. In fact, many of the more abhorrent marriage practices I mentioned find their roots in highly theocratic societies, and reflect certain religious notions regarding the role of women and male ownership of female sexuality, so the religious argument put forward by montana can also be dismissed.

Fantastic reasons why we should be getting rid of the whole ridiculous notion of government sanctioned marriage.

If our goal is to end discrimination and have equality then we shouldn’t be extending the definition, we should be getting rid of it altogether. Civil unions for everybody.

Jethro 6:20 pm 23 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

Marriage is a union between man and wife. That’s reality.

montana said :

There is no such thing as same sex marriage. simple as that. that is the definition of marriage- between a man and a woman.

The ‘the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman’ argument may very well be the stupidest of a pretty sad bunch of reasons to continue discriminating against a significant minority of people in our community.

Marriage is a legal and social institution that reflects the social norms of the society it exists within. At different places and times marriage has included marriage between a man and many women, adults and children, a man and his dead brother’s wife, or a rape victim and her attacker. At other times it has been limited to only allow marriage between couples of the same race or nationality. I’m certainly not arguing that all of these definitions of marriage should be allowed to exist in Australia today – far from it; however, I am saying that the definition of marriage can and does change to reflect the values of the people in the society it serves, so your point is demonstrably false.

In Australia today the vast majority of people recognise homosexual relationships as completely legitimate and our marriage laws should reflect this. Just because our legal system currently defines marriage as between a man and woman does not mean this is set in stone. As our society has progressed and realised that there is nothing wrong with being gay we have changed our laws to reflect that. Homosexuality used to be a capital offense in Australia and it wasn’t all that long ago that it was a criminal offense. Changes to marriage laws are just another step in recognising the value and validity of homosexual people and their relationships.

The slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to child-adult marriage is complete nonsense. As I mentioned, child-adult marriage has existed in many cultures and places throughout history. Gay marriage was not a pre-requisite for this to occur. What was a pre-requisite was a different set of social and cultural values that are almost universally condemned in today’s Australia. The very vast majority of people recognise that child marriage has no place in a modern Western society governed by Enlightenment values that recognise and respect the rights of children to be free from sexual coercion at the hands of adults, as well as their right to be free from being treated as property. Likewise, we recognise that children do not have the ability to consent to particular behaviours. In fact, many of the more abhorrent marriage practices I mentioned find their roots in highly theocratic societies, and reflect certain religious notions regarding the role of women and male ownership of female sexuality, so the religious argument put forward by montana can also be dismissed.

schmeah 6:06 pm 23 Aug 12

Yay! Gay people can soon be miserable in marriage too!! Also, I can’t wait to marry my budgie .. she’s so warm to cuddle up to at night! Gays getting married mean that me and Tinsel will soon be a recognised couple.

Onwards with the gay agenda!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 5:42 pm 23 Aug 12

All those saying that the definition of marriage is between man and woman, can you post sources?

Johnny_Moe 4:51 pm 23 Aug 12

montana said :

They can have all the same rights as married couples such as next of kin, tax benefits, and super etc…

..but no way i would support them as being ‘married’. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman because they compliment each other in their unity.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage. simple as that. that is the definition of marriage- between a man and a woman.

if we allow same sex marriage, that will open the floodgates.

you will have people who want to marry their pet dog, people who want to marry underage kids.
Their argument being that every relationship should be treated as equal regardless of who or what you are.

I know alot of people (usually young adults) who support same sex marriage just for the sake of being politically correct when they really don’t know the meaning of marriage and the purpose of marriage through religion and the real issues that would occur if we allow same sex marriage.

The fact that you see bestiality and paedophilia in the same light as 2 consenting adults wanting to get married, renders your comments and any argument you have about anything in the history of your life invalid.

I’m a young person and I don’t support same sex marriage to be politically correct, I support it because I don’t believe any consenting adult should ever be told how to live their life, as long as no one is harmed. And if you think otherwise, once again, your arguments forever ever ever – are invalid.

Holden Caulfield 4:47 pm 23 Aug 12

montana said :

They can have all the same rights as married couples such as next of kin, tax benefits, and super etc…

..but no way i would support them as being ‘married’. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman because they compliment each other in their unity.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage. simple as that. that is the definition of marriage- between a man and a woman.

if we allow same sex marriage, that will open the floodgates.

you will have people who want to marry their pet dog, people who want to marry underage kids.
Their argument being that every relationship should be treated as equal regardless of who or what you are.

I know alot of people (usually young adults) who support same sex marriage just for the sake of being politically correct when they really don’t know the meaning of marriage and the purpose of marriage through religion and the real issues that would occur if we allow same sex marriage.

What a load of bigoted crap, haha.

“if we allow same sex marriage, that will open the floodgates.”

“you will have people who want to marry their pet dog, people who want to marry underage kids.”

You haven’t thought this through very well have you.

Marriage may be a union between man and woman in the eyes of whatever religious order you choose to follow, but seeing as as Australia is a secular state, such definitions should have zero influence in government policy.

If those horrible and nasty floodgate opening gays want to marry it does nothing to alter your narrow definition of marriage.

Live and let live.

basketofcat 4:37 pm 23 Aug 12

Jim Jones said :

OMG – the same tired discredited arguments again.

“But the dictionary says that marriage is …”

“People will marry animals”

“Religion … political correctness”

Does anyone even believe any of this nonsense anymore?

The less credence and recognition given to religious institutions and their marriages, the better.

I think the real slippery slope question is when will the legislature force the issue of openly gay religious leadership upon the churches?.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site