Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Best place to build your
property career in Canberra

How did Andrew Leigh vote on gay marriage?

By Masquara 20 September 2012 77

I can’t find Andrew Leigh in the ABC’s list.

He wouldn’t have absented himself from the chamber, surely?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
77 Responses to
How did Andrew Leigh vote on gay marriage?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:31 pm 24 Sep 12

YeahBuddy said :

simsim said :

So, I’m assuming Darkfalz is Phillip Pocock…

Oh I hope so ….

haha

DrKoresh 12:24 pm 24 Sep 12

Kiron2222 said :

I agree mostly with SnapperJack, the only reason it did not pass is because of fear of powerful conservative lobby groups like the ACL, exactly the same reason Drug Reform will never pass, despite a small child could come up with far more positive and effective Drug policy than we have now.

When Julia Gillard announced it was going to be a conscience vote on OurSay!, I knew right away what her ploy was.
If Labor had voted as a bloc, Gay Marriage would be legal right now, Gillard couldn’t let this happen so she made it a conscience vote knowing the Tories wouldn’t do the same, so it would only take a small number of Labor ministers to cross the floor and defeat the motion.

Now what they will do is try pass quickly through a civil unions bill which will pass through with flying colours, pay off the media to say “Civil unions and marriage, what is the difference?” (if that is the case why not just give them marriage) and hope it is swept under the carpet.

I really hope this motion does become and issue at the next election and the polls swing hard against both Liberal and Labor, I think people are finally starting to wake up to the fact that both major parties have swung to the far right. (which should have been evident when Greens are considered “Far Left” yet on the political compass their policies sit them almost as dead centre Libertarians)

If the Liberal leader were still Malcolm Turnbull, or at the very least, anybody but Tony Abbott…

YeahBuddy 10:11 am 24 Sep 12

simsim said :

So, I’m assuming Darkfalz is Phillip Pocock…

Oh I hope so ….

Kiron2222 10:04 am 24 Sep 12

I agree mostly with SnapperJack, the only reason it did not pass is because of fear of powerful conservative lobby groups like the ACL, exactly the same reason Drug Reform will never pass, despite a small child could come up with far more positive and effective Drug policy than we have now.

When Julia Gillard announced it was going to be a conscience vote on OurSay!, I knew right away what her ploy was.
If Labor had voted as a bloc, Gay Marriage would be legal right now, Gillard couldn’t let this happen so she made it a conscience vote knowing the Tories wouldn’t do the same, so it would only take a small number of Labor ministers to cross the floor and defeat the motion.

Now what they will do is try pass quickly through a civil unions bill which will pass through with flying colours, pay off the media to say “Civil unions and marriage, what is the difference?” (if that is the case why not just give them marriage) and hope it is swept under the carpet.

I really hope this motion does become and issue at the next election and the polls swing hard against both Liberal and Labor, I think people are finally starting to wake up to the fact that both major parties have swung to the far right. (which should have been evident when Greens are considered “Far Left” yet on the political compass their policies sit them almost as dead centre Libertarians)

Truthiness 9:16 am 24 Sep 12

“It’s not a phobia. You are not scared . You are an
asshole.” -Morgan Freeman

Jethro 6:29 am 24 Sep 12

The argument you are making Darfarlz – that children have more chance in a home with a mum and dad – is irrelevant to this debate.

Gay people already can have children. They can adopt, they canhave children through surrogacy, they can have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

What they cannot currently do is marry. Whether they get married or not has no impact on them having children. However, it may have an impact on how their children feel about their family. Surely it is better for the children of a gay couple to feel secure in their parents’ relationship, and to know that their parents’ relationship is as valued and valid as other children’s parents’ relationship.

minniemay 11:34 pm 23 Sep 12

Ok, so Darkfalz is a homophobic idiot, whose arguments seem to consist of “its unnatural because its unnatural.” Rinse and repeat.

That said, I really hope that none his kids end up being gay, because it will be a miserable childhood and adulthood for them. Frankly – the kids deserve a better parent.

simsim 7:19 pm 23 Sep 12

So, I’m assuming Darkfalz is Phillip Pocock…

DrKoresh 7:38 pm 22 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices.

There you go again.

If my position is “indefensible” why are you wasting time attacking it? It would be easier for you if anyone who isn’t for gay marriage would just keep their mouths shut, hey? Isn’t that really why you are so quick to drag out the “homophobic” and “bigoted” slurs?

There I go again, calling a spade a spade, you mean? Your position is defined by your prejudice against same sex couples and your desire for them not to ‘devalue’ your idea of marriage which is by definition homophobia and bigotry, so you can stuff your pseudo-justifications where the sun doesn’t shine. All your claims about your values being the cornerstone of modern society are just that, claims, with no substance to back them up. You’re ignoring the cultures all across the world where marriage is a man with multiple wives, communal tribal cultures and countless other variations beside. You don’t have any evidence that your precious social construct is the basis of modern society at all, and I doubt you can find any credible sources.

How dare you dress your own intolerance up as if it were the natural order of things, and how dare you make assumptions about the quality of care provided by my parents? I only hope that one of your kids is gay so you can take the time to explain to them how they’re unnatural and unfit to start a family of their own, and undeserving of having their commitment to their partner celebrated.

milkman 7:08 pm 22 Sep 12

And once again the argument goes around and around. Those who want it champion, those against it don’t.

c_c 6:35 pm 22 Sep 12

Duffbowl said :

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

If they are visually recognised, it can be 100% certain that their vote was cast by them.

An iPhone and FaceTime with a screen in the chamber.

But then this is the Parliament, where they kept the Speaker computer free until 2007, then gave him a tiny 7″ screen, and finally in the last couple of years gave them a pair of proper screens.

Darkfalz said :

c_c said :

Certainly saying that someone using hard drugs won’t affect others speaks to someone who is incapable of exercising reason…And yet he reasons that a relationship between two people, just by the fact of who those people are, does affect him.

The logic fails at the most basic level.

You didn’t read between the lines very well there, did you? I was clearly saying that legalising hard drugs WOULD affect me and society, despite ostensibly having nothing to do with them myself.

c_c said :

Darkfalz on the other hand, like so many who do oppose it, comes across as very insecure about themselves, and intolerant of something that challenges either their conception of societal norms

Nice theory, but no. I am comfortable and confident in my beliefs, so much so that I’ll air them in public even amongst liberal (or at least pro gay marriage) friends and colleagues.

It was you who didn’t read between the lines.

I wasn’t questioning how confident you were in your beliefs, but how confident you are in yourself, as someone who is assumedly in a traditional relationship and identifies as hetero.

Seems to be that those who are secure about been straight and secure about their relationships don’t tend to be the ones opposing same-sex marriage. It’s those who aren’t that are.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:22 pm 22 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare

You’re really flailing if you have to dredge out the “malicious paternal parents vs benevolent adoptive/gay/single parent” argument. Kids have the best chance to do well with their committed, biological parents. They can do well in plenty of other circumstances, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that being raised by their mum and dad is the ideal and where possible, it is in the best interests to promote the model which is the most successful. It takes a mother and father to create a child, it is grossly arrogant to second guess nature and think that we can improve or replace that.

No matter how “good” two gay fathers are as parents, neither of them is a mother. The “quality of childcare” includes, amongst many other things, having positive male and female role models.

DrKoresh said :

And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

The fact you refer to something as “archaic” merely because it is “old fashioned”, ignoring how successful it was, is telling. Do you acknowledge perhaps the fact you yourself were not fortunate enough to have two committed parents may have coloured your opinions and even prejudices?

There are plenty of old fashioned notions that are cornerstones of society and I’m sure you yourself would agree with. Change for the sake of change is not always progress.

I am not trying to “mandate” anything, by the way. I am trying to protect an existing mandate, which was overwhelming upheld in both houses this week. It’s some interesting spin to try to make out that I am actively trying to deny people something rather than protect and uphold something that is already the case.

DrKoresh said :

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices.

There you go again.

If my position is “indefensible” why are you wasting time attacking it? It would be easier for you if anyone who isn’t for gay marriage would just keep their mouths shut, hey? Isn’t that really why you are so quick to drag out the “homophobic” and “bigoted” slurs?

For the record, and again I reiterate, I don’t hate anyone. I don’t consider desires people have wrong or evil. If they want to change them, particularly if they have the potential to cause harm to themselves or others, they should seek help. If not, and they find pleasure or satisfaction in acting upon them and it’s all consensual and not hurting anyone, I’m fine with that. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to object when I have to see it on prime time TV or ads, particularly if it only for the sake of political correctness or appeasement, or agree with abandoning laws and social norms which are beneficial for greater society in order to satisfy a vocal minority and make them feel more comfortable about what they do in bed.

Can you source any of this besides he part about it takes a man and women(at base level, now days) to conceive a child?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:19 pm 22 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

Holy crap, you really have no idea about the world, do you?
What about the married heterosexual couples who leave their children at home in squalor to play the pokies or are drug addicts not capable of caring for their kids?

Darkfalz 5:23 pm 22 Sep 12

DrKoresh said :

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare

You’re really flailing if you have to dredge out the “malicious paternal parents vs benevolent adoptive/gay/single parent” argument. Kids have the best chance to do well with their committed, biological parents. They can do well in plenty of other circumstances, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that being raised by their mum and dad is the ideal and where possible, it is in the best interests to promote the model which is the most successful. It takes a mother and father to create a child, it is grossly arrogant to second guess nature and think that we can improve or replace that.

No matter how “good” two gay fathers are as parents, neither of them is a mother. The “quality of childcare” includes, amongst many other things, having positive male and female role models.

DrKoresh said :

And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

The fact you refer to something as “archaic” merely because it is “old fashioned”, ignoring how successful it was, is telling. Do you acknowledge perhaps the fact you yourself were not fortunate enough to have two committed parents may have coloured your opinions and even prejudices?

There are plenty of old fashioned notions that are cornerstones of society and I’m sure you yourself would agree with. Change for the sake of change is not always progress.

I am not trying to “mandate” anything, by the way. I am trying to protect an existing mandate, which was overwhelming upheld in both houses this week. It’s some interesting spin to try to make out that I am actively trying to deny people something rather than protect and uphold something that is already the case.

DrKoresh said :

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices.

There you go again.

If my position is “indefensible” why are you wasting time attacking it? It would be easier for you if anyone who isn’t for gay marriage would just keep their mouths shut, hey? Isn’t that really why you are so quick to drag out the “homophobic” and “bigoted” slurs?

For the record, and again I reiterate, I don’t hate anyone. I don’t consider desires people have wrong or evil. If they want to change them, particularly if they have the potential to cause harm to themselves or others, they should seek help. If not, and they find pleasure or satisfaction in acting upon them and it’s all consensual and not hurting anyone, I’m fine with that. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to object when I have to see it on prime time TV or ads, particularly if it only for the sake of political correctness or appeasement, or agree with abandoning laws and social norms which are beneficial for greater society in order to satisfy a vocal minority and make them feel more comfortable about what they do in bed.

simsim 5:14 pm 22 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

(edit) Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat. (edit)

And what I think the rest of us are saying is, at some point, and it won’t be very far in the future, you’ll find that wasting words on fighting against gay marriage is as uphill and pointless a battle.

Popular opinion is against you and the world has changed. If you yelled “harlot” and “bastard” to women and children in the street or publically campaigned for some of your other causes, you would get exactly the same shaming response you’re complaining against now.

DrKoresh 4:56 pm 22 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare, it’s dependent on the individuals raising the child and their ability to be loving caring parents. That capacity is not reduced because the child is being raised by two mothers or two fathers, there are plenty of PoS parents arse-ing up their children’s lives despite being married. And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices. Never mind how arrogant it is to claim that your idea of a family unit is the correct one.

Darkfalz 4:27 pm 22 Sep 12

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

Darkfalz 3:57 pm 22 Sep 12

c_c said :

Certainly saying that someone using hard drugs won’t affect others speaks to someone who is incapable of exercising reason…And yet he reasons that a relationship between two people, just by the fact of who those people are, does affect him.

The logic fails at the most basic level.

You didn’t read between the lines very well there, did you? I was clearly saying that legalising hard drugs WOULD affect me and society, despite ostensibly having nothing to do with them myself.

c_c said :

Darkfalz on the other hand, like so many who do oppose it, comes across as very insecure about themselves, and intolerant of something that challenges either their conception of societal norms

Nice theory, but no. I am comfortable and confident in my beliefs, so much so that I’ll air them in public even amongst liberal (or at least pro gay marriage) friends and colleagues.

LSWCHP said :

I didn’t say you were evil, just the views you’ve expressed on this topic. You might be the sweetest person in the whole wide world, but your ideas about gay people requiring therapy to fix them up, and not being granted the same rights as heterosexuals aren’t silly, they’re bad.

I never said “gay people” should get therapy to “fix them up”, I said that suicidal gay people should get therapy so they don’t kill themselves. I also believe that if people wish to offer or seek therapy that attempts to realign their sexuality they should be able to do so without being stigmatised.

Tell me, if a non-religious based organisation was offering this kind of therapy, with no coercion or promises, to people who wished to have the chance to live a normal, healthy life like the majority of society, would you be against it? Would you scream for boycott and attack them as bigots even though it doesn’t hurt you?

“Anything goes” marriage isn’t a right.

LSWCHP said :

There is no justification for gay people to be treated differently to straight people. Doing so is unjustified discrimination, and that’s inherently wrong.

Again, and ignoring the facts that gay couples have the same legal right as heterosexual defactos which is essential the same as married couples, it is not “discrimination”. It’s a refusal to acknowledge something which is not normal is normal.

I’m not a public figure, and not subject to a kneejerk media reaction misquoting and misattributing me, so whilst I believe this argument is not necessary I’m going to make it.

I acknowledge that aberrant sexuality exists. Whether the causes are genetic or based on childhood or adolescent experience, attraction to just about everything exists. This includes attraction to same sex, to children, to babies, to animals, to family members, to inanimate objects.

I don’t think you’re going to argue that heterosexuality is aberrant. I’ll spare you the birds and the bees talk, other than to say its demonstrably normal.

The rest are not natural and are varying degrees of harmful. These may range from inklings to overwhelming desires, but they are still not natural. And here’s where you fall into the trap. Because and only because “mutual adult consent” is possible with homosexuality, you try to separate that from the others and label it normal or natural, just subject to variation. But consent is a product of rational thought and societal acceptance, your attraction itself doesn’t know or care what is consensual and what isn’t. Now, surely you wouldn’t campaign for acceptance for attraction to children, like the NAMBLA and NAMGLA groups do?

I don’t hate any of these people. I feel sympathy that they have feelings that they cannot control and in many cases, do not want. But the answer is not tell them it’s okay and then to change society to accommodate them. I’m calling for less stigma on all of these things. Goodness knows how many paedophiles for example do not seek help because even admitting their feelings would illicit hatred and reaction from people. To seek to have one made “mainstream” and all the others kept “in the closet” is discrimination and hypocrisy.

If you are not hurting anyone with your homosexuality, that’s great. But you’re not going to convince me or a large swathe of the population your relationship has the social equivalence of that of a male/female marriage or nuclear family. Shaming people into (publicly) thinking otherwise, as seems to be par for the course now, is not changing people’s mind – only making them afraid to express how they feel. I’m quite happy to take the hits to be a voice for those people and others who think that the marriage definition is fine as it is.

c_c 3:44 pm 22 Sep 12

For those trying to invoke the language of what is natural and what constitutes a normal family unity, two words:

Ducks

Divorce

Look them up

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