Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Gay unions to be legal in the ACT

By jennybel75 11 November 2009 117

New.com.au is running this story on the passing of the Civil Unions bill in the ACT.

Should be passed later today. Let’s hope so and let’s hope that the Federal Government doesn’t use it’s powers to overturn it this time.

The bill passed just after lunchtime. So, let’s wait and see what the Feds do!

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
117 Responses to
Gay unions to be legal in the ACT
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
6
cleo 11:38 pm 20 Nov 09

I think they should have the same rights, I know of someone who’s partner died, the person was with him for at least twenty years, when he died his partner had no rights and the family took over and left him with nothing.

Jim Jones 4:20 pm 16 Nov 09

I gotta say: “If teh gheys get married, then all the incestuous couples will be next” is about the most novel argument against gay marriage that anyone has ever come up with, ever.

*must*resist*temptation*to*post* Nope, can’t.

ahappychappy said “but what about the incestuous couples that ARE in the same situation as a homosexual couple?”

You can not be serious. Likening loving homosexual relationships to incest is infantile and pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Also, just wondering, do you support inter-faith and or interacial marriages? You can’t be biggoted against one section of the community and not another – following your, for want of a better word, reasoning.

Jim Jones 4:13 pm 16 Nov 09

ahappychappy said :

You seem to be forgetting that at one point, homosexual relationships were considered taboo, as well as inter-racial relationships and inter-religion relationships like you mentioned.

I’m not forgetting that at all.

Inter-racial relationships are no longer taboo, and inter-racial couples may marry.

Inter-religious relationships are no longer taboo, and inter-religious couples may marry.

Same-sex relationships are no longer taboo, so same-sex couples should be able to marry.

I’ll say it one more time: According to your argument, anyone who accepts interracial and/or inter-religious marriage is forced to accept incestuous marriage.

And yet they clearly don’t.

Seriously, mate: When your argument has a complete disjunction from reality, it’s time to give it up.

Jim Jones 4:09 pm 16 Nov 09

ahappychappy said :

Beastiality/paedophilia aren’t consentual relationships between two human beings (which is the context in which I referenced incestuous relationships) so the argument doesn’t stand.

What’s that got to do with your argument. It’s not premised on consensual relationships, your reductive argument is premised on nothing more ‘minority groups that want to be treated the same way as the majority’. Where’s the problem with non-consent?

ahappychappy said :

If a minority group is going to say “we deserve to be treated the same as the majority” they can’t then say the other minority groups in the same situation don’t deserve to be treated the same as the majority.

Yes they can. They’re doing it now.

Advocates of equal rights for racial and religious minorities can say “we deserve to be treated the same as the majority” while disagreeing with the idea of incestuous marriage.

Advocates of equal pay for women can (and do) say “we deserve to be treated the same as the majority” while disagreeing with the idea of incestuous marriage.

Advocates of same sex marriage can (and do) say “we deserve to be treated the same as the majority” while disagreeing the idea of incestuous marriage.

What’s confusing about this?

ahappychappy said :

Why can’t you understand that if a minority group is going to sit there and scream ‘discrimination’ and ‘equal rights’ until a law is changed then ALL minority groups have the right to do the same?

Again, if this is your argument, then people who believe in equal rights for people from different races and religions (minority groups) are duty bound to accept the concept of incestuous marriage.

It’s clearly a very very stupid argument.

ahappychappy 3:52 pm 16 Nov 09

Jim.

You seem to be forgetting that at one point, homosexual relationships were considered taboo, as well as inter-racial relationships and inter-religion relationships like you mentioned. But that’s beside the point.

If a minority group is going to say “we deserve to be treated the same as the majority” they can’t then say the other minority groups in the same situation don’t deserve to be treated the same as the majority. Beastiality/paedophilia aren’t consentual relationships between two human beings (which is the context in which I referenced incestuous relationships) so the argument doesn’t stand. I’m not denying that there are probably some horrible examples of incest (I don’t agree with it at all) with minors etc. etc. etc. but what about the incestuous couples that ARE in the same situation as a homosexual couple? There are many horrible examples of hetero/homosexual relationships?

I don’t understand your comment on an innocent person and a criminal using the same defence. It’s a completely different situation. Why can’t you understand that if a minority group is going to sit there and scream ‘discrimination’ and ‘equal rights’ until a law is changed then ALL minority groups have the right to do the same?

And yes, if people are going to scream ‘we want equality’ then they cannot discriminate on who is welcome to the equality.

deezagood said :

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.

+1. I was going to argue but what’s the point? Anyone who seriously equates the two will not listen to reason. oops there I go.

sloppery 2:11 pm 16 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

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.

I reckon you’ve probably hit the nail on the head here. Many people (myself included) feel very strongly about the tradition of marriage, whereas others are not so attached to the concept.

Jim Jones 2:08 pm 16 Nov 09

ahappychappy said :

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.

For the 3-post nutbag win:

Again, according to this logic: If (back in the day) I had been a supporter of interracial marriage (which was ‘traditionally’ unacceptable, and in most countries was explicitly illegal), and I used the argument: “These minorities deserve equal rights regarding marriage”, and yet I rejected the idea that people in incestuous relationships should be able to get married, I would be a ‘hypocrite’.

So according to your argument, anyone that supports interracial marriage, but doesn’t support incestuous marriage is a hypocrite.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Jim Jones 1:43 pm 16 Nov 09

ahappychappy said :

I’m just saying an equal rights argument works for ALL parties, not just some. 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.

By this logic, if an innocent person and a criminal went to trial and both used the same argument: “I didn’t do it, I was somewhere else”, the jury would be forced to return the same verdict for both of them.

Really, it’s relativistic to the point of meaninglessness.

Jim Jones 1:37 pm 16 Nov 09

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.

ahappychappy 12:30 pm 16 Nov 09

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?

Jim Jones 11:56 am 16 Nov 09

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.

sloppery 9:43 am 16 Nov 09

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.

OverreACT 9:02 am 16 Nov 09

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 🙂

MrPC 6:56 am 16 Nov 09

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

vg 10:24 pm 15 Nov 09

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

6

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