Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

No bets on Abetz

By John Hargreaves 6 July 2015 75

stock-marriage-wedding-gay-same-sex

The latest little pearlers from Senator Abetz just about say it all for me. Straight out of the moral code of the 1950s! Anyone opposing his view should get out of the kitchen.

Abetz is trying to tell me that I am bound for Hades. He insults my marriage, and his view that children may well need to stay within a family racked with domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse, because the marriage is a union between a man and a woman, for life (my emphasis) is a bad idea. Making the kids stay with their parents in a loveless marriage sentences them to a similar relationship on reaching adulthood.  You can get parole for murder but not for making a wrong decision to get married.

His view of the world went out at the end of the 1950s when divorce was not the societal sin it had been hitherto.

So what of the Catholic couples who divorced and remarried?  They didn’t do the first one for life, Eric…. What about the woman who flees a monster she married for life, and meets Sir Galahad and lives, with her kids, in Camelot? Should she return to the monster, Eric? Or live in sin?  Or forsake a life of happiness with a new love? Perhaps she could remarry?

What about the Anglican Church, a Christian institution founded on the notion of divorce!

This for life stuff is just not on! He can talk to his Imaginary Friend all he likes; he won’t get an answer to the question, “if marriage is for life, why does Australian law allow divorces?”

This guy just doesn’t get the separation of church and state.

I support same sex marriages, not just unions.  I don’t care if the religions don’t want to recognise same sex marriages because they are not sanctioned in the eyes of a God.  The Catholic Church doesn’t recognise my marriage of 32 years of wedded bliss (almost) anyway. Hades, here I come!

But the state’s attitude should be a different story.  It should have no reference to permission from some deity, or some imaginary friend. States govern for their citizens not their parishioners.  Gay people are citizens (and in many cases, parishioners as well) and they deserve equal treatment before the law like the rest of us.

And, as a jocular aside, why should gay people avoid the pain of divorce just because Eric Abetz won’t let them marry?  If it was good enough for me, it is good enough for the gay and lesbian community.

But also, the politics are dumb.

They can have a short debate in the House and lose or a long debate and lose, all the way to the election. It’s not inconceivable that they could have a short debate in the House and win.  This scenario would see the issue pushed back to the next Parliament and the debate would rage again, possibly as a sideshow in the election.  The bright thing is to minimise the pain. Leave it and it will turn cancerous.

The PM can’t ignore the wave of change going round the world in relation to same sex unions. Abetz can quote Austria and say that the Asian countries aren’t going there so why should we, to his heart’s content but the reality is because a significant number of the people around the world and in Australia want that change. The wave will become a tsunami of discontent if not addressed now.

If the United States can do it, so can we.  Senator Abetz’s comment that the US Supreme Court is a group of activists insults that court and denigrates its role as the ultimate arbiter.  He may as well insult our High Court. The US is one of the most radical Christian countries in the world, but it is a world opinion leader and we should watch carefully.

It is not often that pollies reflect their community attitudes but perhaps we are seeing this with all sides of the parliament having varying views. There is a thundering whispering of discontent that Abbott again speaks with forked tongue.  He says that the parliament of the people should decide such matters yet won’t bring it on for debate.

One has to wonder why it is so.  Is it because he is the captain, and the team will do as he says on everything?  Is it because he requires blind obedience?  Abetz’s demand that frontbenchers who oppose the view of Abbott and Abetz on this issue in the party room should resign from the front bench would suggest so. Go young Christopher!

Is it because this captain’s Catholicism is the rule of law in this country?  Well, I was born a Catholic, and it has shaped my view of life and it is different to that of the captain! And whose side am I on? I’m on the side of the gay and lesbian community.

Will that community get justice and equality before the laws of Abbott and Abetz? You wouldn’t take bets on it.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
75 Responses to
No bets on Abetz
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
gooterz 10:14 pm 12 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

gooterz said :

The marriage act recognises that a man and a woman are solely responsible for making viable life (in a natural way).

Where is that recognised in the Marriage Act (Cth) 1961?

Does that mean that it prohibits infertile couples or women who have gone through menopause from marrying as well?

Section 89 / 91 for starters.

The 2nd part of your question assumes that someone could tell 100% if someone could have kids with someone or not. Lots of people have kids after doctors have said they could never have kids. It isn’t an exact science.
Plus its a little different from announcing someone of hetero orientation publicly about not being able to have kids, as it infers that something isn’t quite right with them, vs same sex couples who in no way shape or form can have kids.

Its strange that most people want to break the tradition of marriage. Perhaps we can have time limited marriages that only last 5-10 years. That would definitely help those who want to get married early yet haven’t found a suitable partner.

Perhaps same sex marriages are good. Perhaps they aren’t but there hasn’t been any real study into the positive and negative effects on children.
The only reason the US now has SSM is that they didn’t have civil unions.. However we have them in Australia too.

rosscoact 7:55 am 10 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

Whenever Fred Nile and the ACL get cornered on the real reason for their objection, it seems to flow from an strange obsession with the physical component of male homosexual sex. Creepy.

And what could that possibly be?

Is this the Queen Victoria response?

bryansworld 5:37 am 10 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

Whenever Fred Nile and the ACL get cornered on the real reason for their objection, it seems to flow from an strange obsession with the physical component of male homosexual sex. Creepy.

And what could that possibly be?

You tell me.

dungfungus 8:40 pm 09 Jul 15

bryansworld said :

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

Whenever Fred Nile and the ACL get cornered on the real reason for their objection, it seems to flow from an strange obsession with the physical component of male homosexual sex. Creepy.

And what could that possibly be?

rosscoact 3:18 pm 09 Jul 15

bryansworld said :

No_Nose said :

Mysteryman said :

I think Southmouth’s objections were pretty clearly stated. You seem to be ignoring them in hopes of painting him/her as a bigot. I can’t see it happening, though.

I guess that is because their is no rational reason to prevent this that does not involve discrimination and bigotry.

How do I know this? Because for many, many years I used all of these arguements. I was vehemently opposed to gay marriage, gays adopting, gays being portrayed as normal in the media, gays in the military and many others.

Even as I used these arguements I knew in my heart that they were 1. Bigoted and 2. Simply wrong but I didn’t care. I have since changed my mind on this and can clearly see those arguements for what they are. And most of them are simply based on fear of change.

I wil make one final comment on this issue. It will happen. Of that there is no doubt. The timing is not certain, but it will happen. And five years after it does the world will still be turning, society won’t have fallen and people will wonder what all thus fuss was about.

And at that time you will be very hard pressed to find anyone outside of Westboro religious nutjobs willing to admit that they ever opposed it.

Live how you live, love who you love, you only get so many trips round the sun and then it’s over.

With that, I bow out of this thread.

Bravo. Looking forward to a more tolerant and inclusive world. Thank you and good night.

Well said!

bryansworld 12:41 pm 09 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

Mysteryman said :

I think Southmouth’s objections were pretty clearly stated. You seem to be ignoring them in hopes of painting him/her as a bigot. I can’t see it happening, though.

I guess that is because their is no rational reason to prevent this that does not involve discrimination and bigotry.

How do I know this? Because for many, many years I used all of these arguements. I was vehemently opposed to gay marriage, gays adopting, gays being portrayed as normal in the media, gays in the military and many others.

Even as I used these arguements I knew in my heart that they were 1. Bigoted and 2. Simply wrong but I didn’t care. I have since changed my mind on this and can clearly see those arguements for what they are. And most of them are simply based on fear of change.

I wil make one final comment on this issue. It will happen. Of that there is no doubt. The timing is not certain, but it will happen. And five years after it does the world will still be turning, society won’t have fallen and people will wonder what all thus fuss was about.

And at that time you will be very hard pressed to find anyone outside of Westboro religious nutjobs willing to admit that they ever opposed it.

Live how you live, love who you love, you only get so many trips round the sun and then it’s over.

With that, I bow out of this thread.

Bravo. Looking forward to a more tolerant and inclusive world. Thank you and good night.

No_Nose 10:03 am 09 Jul 15

Mysteryman said :

I think Southmouth’s objections were pretty clearly stated. You seem to be ignoring them in hopes of painting him/her as a bigot. I can’t see it happening, though.

I guess that is because their is no rational reason to prevent this that does not involve discrimination and bigotry.

How do I know this? Because for many, many years I used all of these arguements. I was vehemently opposed to gay marriage, gays adopting, gays being portrayed as normal in the media, gays in the military and many others.

Even as I used these arguements I knew in my heart that they were 1. Bigoted and 2. Simply wrong but I didn’t care. I have since changed my mind on this and can clearly see those arguements for what they are. And most of them are simply based on fear of change.

I wil make one final comment on this issue. It will happen. Of that there is no doubt. The timing is not certain, but it will happen. And five years after it does the world will still be turning, society won’t have fallen and people will wonder what all thus fuss was about. And at that time you will be very hard pressed to find anyone outside of Westboro religious nutjobs willing to admit that they ever opposed it.

Live how you live, love who you love, you only get so many trips round the sun and then it’s over.

With that, I bow out of this thread.

bryansworld 9:41 am 09 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

Whenever Fred Nile and the ACL get cornered on the real reason for their objection, it seems to flow from an strange obsession with the physical component of male homosexual sex. Creepy.

No_Nose 9:05 am 09 Jul 15

gooterz said :

The marriage act recognises that a man and a woman are solely responsible for making viable life (in a natural way).

Where is that recognised in the Marriage Act (Cth) 1961?

Does that mean that it prohibits infertile couples or women who have gone through menopause from marrying as well?

Mysteryman 9:02 am 09 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

I think Southmouth’s objections were pretty clearly stated. You seem to be ignoring them in hopes of painting him/her as a bigot. I can’t see it happening, though.

Mysteryman 9:02 am 09 Jul 15

chewy14 said :

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

But why? Why is it only about a particular group who are disproportionately represented politically? If this is truly about equality then surely the solution should consider every circumstance yet to achieve it.

So your arguement is ‘Unless we can change everything in the world at the exact same time, we should never change anything’?

I think that the argument is that if your stated goal is “equality” or “ending discrimination”, then your outcome should actually address those issues.
If you outcome however is solely giving an extra right to one group of people that does not possess it, then you are not actually addressing your stated aims and your position is not logical.

As I said previously, get rid of the marriage act and have a relationship(s) register and it’s all solved.

Well said. This is absolutely not an issue of equality, because the changing the definition to suit the LGBTI agenda will still discriminate against those who wish to have multiple marriage partners. And yes, you can bet they’ll be lobbying parliament for the exact same right to marry.

No_Nose 11:39 pm 08 Jul 15

Southmouth said :

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Actually it is only deeply religious societies that allow polygamy, not progressive secular societies. There is no indication anywhere in the world that expanding gay rights has led to anything else. But anyway, that is not relevant to this discussion.

I notice you have dodged every direct question about why you actually object to this. You allude to some vague notion of ‘morality’ but refuse to indicate what is actually immoral about two adults loving each other.

You don’t believe it is an issue of equality, but then argue that equality in itself is dangerous because of the ‘slippery slope’ it inevitably leads to.

If possible could you please clearly articulate your objections?

You obviously feel strongly about this…but I am having major trouble seeing what your objection actually is.

gooterz 11:01 pm 08 Jul 15

The marriage act recognises that a man and a woman are solely responsible for making viable life (in a natural way).

You can say that two women can make a baby.. assuming that one has no genetic part in the process and you end up with a male who is legally a member of the child life in that they can go search them out if the child and father agree too.

However if the marriage act is updated on the basis of discrimination like the USA then we should remove all barriers from marriage and thus children are no longer protected, we would have to legally turn a blind eye to biology. At the moment the other female parent would have to adopt the child of a woman she wanted to parent.
With ssm, a non biological parent would have to have the same rights as a biological parent. You can’t discriminate a mother of a child simply because she isn’t the biological mother and only one of the parents can be a biological mother to any given child.

Would someone not a parent of a child have more right to a child of someone else if they were better able to provide for that child. Could a child’s teacher claim ownership of a child if he thought the parent(s) weren’t much good.

If we legally have to ignore biology wouldn’t that break every single mothers claim to child support from a absent father.

chewy14 9:44 pm 08 Jul 15

Southmouth said :

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

But why? Why is it only about a particular group who are disproportionately represented politically? If this is truly about equality then surely the solution should consider every circumstance yet to achieve it.

So your arguement is ‘Unless we can change everything in the world at the exact same time, we should never change anything’?

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

What’s wrong with Polygamy?

Southmouth 6:08 pm 08 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

But why? Why is it only about a particular group who are disproportionately represented politically? If this is truly about equality then surely the solution should consider every circumstance yet to achieve it.

So your arguement is ‘Unless we can change everything in the world at the exact same time, we should never change anything’?

No. The point you have helped me make is that once the marriage act is changed for gays, it will inevitably be changed to include other combinations. People need to consider all the worms in the can before that open it to let one out.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site