National Day of Action for marriage equality

Passy 3 August 2008 190

I went to the National Day of Action for marriage equality.  It was small – about 60 people – but lively.

My guess is that gay marriage is not that much of an issue for most gays, lesbians and trans gender people, or at least not enough to get them and in consequence supporters to a demo. 

Perhaps this is because they feel powerless against the forces of homophobia. 


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
190 Responses to National Day of Action for marriage equality
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 8 9 10
johnboy johnboy 12:24 am 08 Aug 08

Christianity for mine throws out anything that the martyr-making paul wrote and embracing the gnostic/pelagian heresies,

The end product is the tolerant strain of anglicanism crossed with the harder core uniting church.

simbo simbo 10:23 pm 07 Aug 08

Andrew Lloyd Webber is not human. He is the devil incarnate!

And jesus is only half human. On his mother’s side…

tap tap 10:09 pm 07 Aug 08

… well, he’s only human. 😛

simbo simbo 10:02 pm 07 Aug 08

See, I have this unfortunate thing where half my knowledge of the bible is from an obsessive childhood listening to “Jesus Christ Superstar” (which apparently still served me better in following the plot of “Passion of the Christ” than a girl who was raised Catholic…) – so, yeah, while he does the peace and love stuff, he also has a tendency to rant and rave and chuck people out of churches occasionally. Frankly, Andrew Lloyd Webber Jesus is a little bit schizo for mine…

tap tap 6:47 pm 07 Aug 08

Well homosexuality was yes, and most probably dates back as far as genitals do.

Interstingly, homosexual marriages took place in the Roman Empire, then the christians came along. In their infinite love for their neighbour, they illegalised gay marriage and then homosexuality itself, on the punishment of being burned alive in front of the public… You’ve got to wonder what jesus would have said about that don’t you?

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 6:37 pm 07 Aug 08

simbo said :

Well… hm. It is sorta true that marriages, as far as we understand them, have been in a church of some kind (whether it be church, synagogue, mosque or Temple of Demeter or Zeus or Apollo or whatever) for a fair chunk of history. However … church and state have been separate for a couple of centuries now. Which means – our laws are not defined by what a particular church may or may not believe.

I’m also not entirely clear what you mean by the second paragraph, Maelinar, which means my logic isn’t following most of your point. Could you elabourate a little so I get a better idea what you’re talking about?

Homosexuality was also prevalent in Ancient Greece up to the 7th Century B.C., I’ve heard, and accepted as part of the cultural norm.

tap tap 6:24 pm 07 Aug 08

Well, mr wiki informs me that marriage is older than reliable history, so who can say? It is fair to say that marriage is old enough that the religions that did ‘invent’ marriage (if they did of course) have very little to do with the religions nowdays, certainly not enough to mount a plausible argument that they should somehow have the say over who can get married or not.

simbo simbo 6:13 pm 07 Aug 08

Well… hm. It is sorta true that marriages, as far as we understand them, have been in a church of some kind (whether it be church, synagogue, mosque or Temple of Demeter or Zeus or Apollo or whatever) for a fair chunk of history. However … church and state have been separate for a couple of centuries now. Which means – our laws are not defined by what a particular church may or may not believe.

I’m also not entirely clear what you mean by the second paragraph, Maelinar, which means my logic isn’t following most of your point. Could you elabourate a little so I get a better idea what you’re talking about?

johnboy johnboy 6:00 pm 07 Aug 08

It takes a pretty sophisticated system of Government to start worrying about the legal status of personal relationships.

tap tap 5:55 pm 07 Aug 08

Hasn’t it already been pointed out numerous times that the government did not steal the whole idea of marriage from the church? It was around before the church? At least the christian churches. If you need to go back 4000 or more years to find a precedent, perhaps thats a bit ridiculous?

Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E13 Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E13 8:23 am 07 Aug 08

Extremely good post Simbo.

I am not against same-sex civil unions, the problem though is that the Government of the time ripped the whole idea of marriage from the Church and the natural ramifications which I’ll not go into, but simply acknowledge that there is a lot of issues that hinge off a ‘marriage’, instead of coming up with their own policies on the subject.

While convenient for them, we are simply going through the consequences of hollow decision making.

simbo simbo 8:00 am 07 Aug 08

I think we’re missing two big points here:

1) originally, the thread was all about bagging out the socialists. I miss that – that was all kindsa fun, and something we could all get behind. Can’t we get back to bonding over our shared hatred of someone else?

2) If you think the defining characteristic of marriage is “between a man and a woman” … well, that’s something I disagree with profoundly. When I last entered into a relationship that seemed reasonably serious and stable and like something that was going to go on for a while, I started contemplating certain phrases. “Forsaking all others”. “In sickness and in health, for richer for poorer till death do us part”. That’s what marriage is supposed to be about. Being with that someone else, and being with them for the rest of your life, whatever comes along. I really don’t see anything wrong with two adults, of whatever gender, declaring a solemn commitment to one another before friends and family. I like the traditional part of that – that people have found one another, and attached, and held that commitment in their hearts as a serious thing for the rest of their lives. And … I kinda think it’s sad that some people have a problem with that. Not because they’re necessarily bigots. But because their understanding of what other people have in their lives is so very very limited.

What makes a relationship special is very simple. It’s the fact that it’s yours. Big Daves marriage, Maelinar’s marriage, are important and special to them becuase they’re to the most important person to them. That’s it. The fact that two men or two women might happen to have those kinda feelings as well, and want to share it … I think that’s a perfectly lovely thing.

Then again, I’m a big poof about this stuff sometimes.

tap tap 10:16 pm 06 Aug 08

Who is stifling BigDaves freedom of speech? He has had many opportunities to spout his bigot speech, which he has taken full advantage of. Absolutely no one is stopping him. Just disagreeing with and pointing out a clear cut case of bigotry. Shame on us. Perhaps people have forgotten some of BigDaves quotes, here is one – I’m not scared of gays, I just don’t bloody like them – Unless every homosexual in the world personally did something to bigdave, then the only other explanation is that he is a bigot. A bigot who doesn’t have the balls to admit it. Also he is the real hypocrit here: He is trying to take advantage of (so-called) left wing ideas about freedom of expression, but only when it applies to himself being able to unreasonably attack a group of people, not when people reasonably attack his ideas.

He also has a sook whenever anybody challenges his ideas, taking advantage of the same freedom of speech that he apparently holds so dear. BigDave: We have to listen to you, you have to listen to us, so hows about you stop pretending anyone is trying to censor you, you’re just not the hard done by victim you so clearly want to be.

Someone help me out, explain to me why gay marriage (not religious marriage, just a civil marriage) would be a bad thing? Without using the following reasons:

1. The church the church!! – Not talking about religious weddings at all. The marriage Act doesn’t define marriage as a religious institution, it is possible to have non religious marriages in australia.

2. Because it isn’t right now! – Laws are designed to be changed, as society progresses. The sentiment that something shouldn’t be legal because it wasn’t previously is clearly bunk, if that were the case then divorce would be illegal, because at some point it was law, and if a law shouldn’t be changed… Not to mention voting etc.

3. Because I dont want it! – Thats not a reason. That is the conclusion, how about some reasons for it.

4. Because goat polygamy will be next! – You don’t know that. Besides, that is not the issue at hand at all, if and when goat polygamy comes up to be legalised, thats when we will discuss goat polygamy, until then how about we stick to what this is really about, homosexual marriage. Remember that? Think of those two in love men who just want to be able to say they are married, that are bloody disliked by BigDave for no other reason than that they exist? That is what we are debating. They are who you want to deny rights to, rights that you take for granted.

But yeah, shame on the left for pointing out to Dave that he is a bigot, thats the real moral crime here.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 8:20 pm 06 Aug 08

Read my argument, and those of quite a number of others. Refusing the right to have legally recognized a ceremony that holds cultural and spiritual meaning for many people on the basis that those people are homosexual is discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual preference. Discrimination against someone because of their sexual preference is probably one of the most clear-cut examples of bigotry you can find.

Others wanted to debate on the usage of the term, so I did. I stand by my opinion.

imhotep imhotep 7:42 pm 06 Aug 08

Deadmandrinking said :

“Read the argument and you’ll see I wasn’t the one who brought bigot into this argument.
And think…multiple wives and homosexuality are two different things.”

Read my argument DMD. I wasn’t comparing their relative morality. I was saying that all society has ‘norms’.
Challenging them is OK, but it doesn’t automatically give you the high moral ground where you can sling abuse at all those who aren’t as ‘liberal’ as you. Goodbye.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 7:39 pm 06 Aug 08

I think yellow-yolk is an offensive color and anyone who paints the inside of their house with it should be put to death. Do not call me an idiot! It is my opinion and I am entitled to it and it will suddenly implode if you call me names :_(

Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E13 Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E13 7:35 pm 06 Aug 08

JB – don’t knock Federation Yellow, thats unAustralian.

johnboy johnboy 7:03 pm 06 Aug 08

Most Australians might oppose painting the inside of your house egg-yolk yellow.

That wouldn’t make it any of their business.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 6:59 pm 06 Aug 08

Read the argument and you’ll see I wasn’t the one who brought bigot into this argument.

And think…multiple wives and homosexuality are two different things.

imhotep imhotep 6:45 pm 06 Aug 08

Get over yourself DMD. If you challenge society’s norms, there will always be those who oppose the change. It doesn’t make them a bigot.

Recently an Australian Muslim leader said that polygamy should be allowed in Australia.

I think its fair to say that most Australians oppose the idea of a man having multiple wives, even though it is quite acceptable in many countries.

Are then ‘most Australians’ bigots? No. It is just a view commonly held in this society that a man should have only one wife. If you want to change society’s view, make your case. (I have no problem with gay marriage btw)

Self righteous name-calling at all those who don’t share your particular view doesn’t help your case.

« Previous 1 8 9 10

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site