No bets on Abetz

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Masquara said :

John Hargreaves, how far back does YOUR support for gay marriage go?

I supported it for the first time in public in 1998. Privately before that.

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.

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_Nose said :

Southmouth said :

bryansworld said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Who’s abandoning the moral yardstick? Not me. I simply object to those who use the Trojan Horse of morality to impose their bigoted views on their fellow human beings. You are abandoning the principles of the Enlightenment, and trying to impose those of the Inquisition.

So are you saying your moral yardstick will allow for marriage between more than 2 people? It would be discriminatory if not.

Personally I have no problem with it provided all parties are consenting adults. But that is not the issue here.

The issue is allowing TWO (not more) consenting adults to marry. So I ask again…what is immoral about that?

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.

dungfungus said :

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.

Does this mean that you believe anyone married prior to 2004 is not really married? Because there was no legal definition of ‘Marriage’ in the Marriage Act (Cth) 1961 up until the 2004 amendment.

Southmouth said :

bryansworld said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Who’s abandoning the moral yardstick? Not me. I simply object to those who use the Trojan Horse of morality to impose their bigoted views on their fellow human beings. You are abandoning the principles of the Enlightenment, and trying to impose those of the Inquisition.

So are you saying your moral yardstick will allow for marriage between more than 2 people? It would be discriminatory if not.

Personally I have no problem with it provided all parties are consenting adults. But that is not the issue here.

The issue is allowing TWO (not more) consenting adults to marry. So I ask again…what is immoral about that?

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability.

bryansworld said :

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

By your own words, you take exception to laws that treat people differently because of race – which is precisely what the laws I mentioned do. But then you say you have no problem with those laws and introduce the idea that they are not a form of discrimination (despite the fact that they rely entirely on discriminating/differentiating between ethnicity/race ). I think what you mean is that they don’t fall foul of “anti-discrimination” legislation, but that is not the same thing and was never a condition of your original position.

Sorry pal, but you’re contradicting yourself.

I’m now regretting not googling and getting a watertight (and lengthy) definition of discrimination to keep pedants at bay…

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

So you have problems with the legislation that allows for Abstudy, Native Title, and indigenous health programs, then? You know, since they all discriminate based on race.

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

They are still regarded as discrimination, they are just legal forms of discrimination, which was the point I was making above with your comment about other laws that are “discriminatory”.

They are not discriminatory, according to the legal definition of discrimination.

Sorry but you are wrong, they are simply allowable forms of discrimination. The laws don’t define “discrimination”, they define various forms of discrimination that are illegal.

Southmouth said :

bryansworld said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Who’s abandoning the moral yardstick? Not me. I simply object to those who use the Trojan Horse of morality to impose their bigoted views on their fellow human beings. You are abandoning the principles of the Enlightenment, and trying to impose those of the Inquisition.

So are you saying your moral yardstick will allow for marriage between more than 2 people? It would be discriminatory if not.

My moral yardstick does not not include polygamy, and I don’t regard my attitude as discriminatory.

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

So you have problems with the legislation that allows for Abstudy, Native Title, and indigenous health programs, then? You know, since they all discriminate based on race.

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

They are still regarded as discrimination, they are just legal forms of discrimination, which was the point I was making above with your comment about other laws that are “discriminatory”.

They are not discriminatory, according to the legal definition of discrimination.

bryansworld said :

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability.

bryansworld said :

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

By your own words, you take exception to laws that treat people differently because of race – which is precisely what the laws I mentioned do. But then you say you have no problem with those laws and introduce the idea that they are not a form of discrimination (despite the fact that they rely entirely on discriminating/differentiating between ethnicity/race ). I think what you mean is that they don’t fall foul of “anti-discrimination” legislation, but that is not the same thing and was never a condition of your original position.

Sorry pal, but you’re contradicting yourself.

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

So you have problems with the legislation that allows for Abstudy, Native Title, and indigenous health programs, then? You know, since they all discriminate based on race.

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

They are still regarded as discrimination, they are just legal forms of discrimination, which was the point I was making above with your comment about other laws that are “discriminatory”.

bryansworld said :

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

Whilst I was being facetious before, discrimination law covers quite a few more protected attributes than you’ve listed here.

Southmouth said :

rosscoact said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

I think you might be on shaky ground here.

Adultery, domestic violence, rape, incest are just a few acts happily perpetrated within conventional marriages around the world. Where is the morality in that?

And that is exactly why those things are illegal and/or grounds for divorce in western countries. Exactly because traditional morality is foundation for law.

Traditional morality? Like taking care of your fellow human beings, and treating people equally and fairly? I think you are advocating something different, like attacking anyone that is different because they offend your sensibilities.

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

How exactly is two people being in love immoral?

bryansworld said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Who’s abandoning the moral yardstick? Not me. I simply object to those who use the Trojan Horse of morality to impose their bigoted views on their fellow human beings. You are abandoning the principles of the Enlightenment, and trying to impose those of the Inquisition.

So are you saying your moral yardstick will allow for marriage between more than 2 people? It would be discriminatory if not.

rosscoact said :

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

I think you might be on shaky ground here.

Adultery, domestic violence, rape, incest are just a few acts happily perpetrated within conventional marriages around the world. Where is the morality in that?

And that is exactly why those things are illegal and/or grounds for divorce in western countries. Exactly because traditional morality is foundation for law.

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

I think you might be on shaky ground here.

Adultery, domestic violence, rape, incest are just a few acts happily perpetrated within conventional marriages around the world. Where is the morality in that?

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

So you have problems with the legislation that allows for Abstudy, Native Title, and indigenous health programs, then? You know, since they all discriminate based on race.

Sorry, you are wrong. Programs that are intended to assist disadvantaged groups in society are not regarded at law as discrimination. And rightly so. Do some research on it.

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

So you have problems with the legislation that allows for Abstudy, Native Title, and indigenous health programs, then? You know, since they all discriminate based on race.

Southmouth said :

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Who’s abandoning the moral yardstick? Not me. I simply object to those who use the Trojan Horse of morality to impose their bigoted views on their fellow human beings. You are abandoning the principles of the Enlightenment, and trying to impose those of the Inquisition.

Once you abandon the moral yardstick that the entire western world has been successfully built upon, with what do you measure your fabricated morality?

Southmouth said :

Yes. One step at a time. Lets not let mere morals get it the way. Soon i’ll be able to have 3 wives, one of them a llama.

Dude, let’s not disguise narrow-minded bigotry as morality. And many Christians agree with me.

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

My idea of discrimination is a law that treats an individual or group differently on the basis of gender, race, social group, sexuality, or disability. Yours is clearly different. There are very good reasons why persons under 18 are legally prohibited from drinking, voting etc. There are no good reasons for preventing homosexuals from marrying.

Yes. One step at a time. Lets not let mere morals get it the way. Soon i’ll be able to have 3 wives, one of them a llama.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

I’m not sure what your point about the current legal definition is. That is EXACTLY what this arguement is about. Taking the current legal definition of marriage and changing it.

Are you saying that once a law is made it should never be changed? Ever? All laws?

And as a previous poster stated, if there are other discriminatory laws they should be changed too. That is not the issue here though. Not everything can be done at once. You do things one step at a time.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

The ability of people less than the age of 18 to vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts etc?

Ridiculously discriminatory, time for them to go!!

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

Name those laws, and let’s get rid of them too!

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

You and your fellow travellers need to read the legal definition of marriage again and again because you still cannot understand why this cannot be.
If it means that I respect the law how does that make me a bigot? And there are lots of laws that be could be interpreted as “discriminatory” so why choose this issue in isolation?

John Hargreaves, how far back does YOUR support for gay marriage go?

If we’re that concerned about fitting in with our Asian neighbours, we should – become a republic, take the Union Jack off our flag, and reintroduce the death penalty (something for everyone there).

John Hargreaves said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn? The man who publicly said that “Marriage is between a man and a woman; always was, always will be. It is based on what is innate in human nature.” and “Marriage started with Adam and Eve”. A man who uses what should be a truly progressive union as his own personal ultra-conservative soap box without any interest in his members views and who has carried a number of Labor politicians across in opposing gay marriage.

Got it in one! I don’t agree with Joe on so many things and this is indeed one if them!

Please don’t call Joe De Bruyn a “Great Labor Doyen”. He is a man that wields some power in the ALP. Most ALP members do not share his views on this issue, and many others.

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn? The man who publicly said that “Marriage is between a man and a woman; always was, always will be. It is based on what is innate in human nature.” and “Marriage started with Adam and Eve”. A man who uses what should be a truly progressive union as his own personal ultra-conservative soap box without any interest in his members views and who has carried a number of Labor politicians across in opposing gay marriage.

Got it in one! I don’t agree with Joe on so many things and this is indeed one if them!

John Hargreaves said :

Marriage is not solemnized by the state. It is ratified. Religions solemnize the.

If any group ought to butt out, it is the non secular organisations.

Note that civil marriages are still valid marriages in ceremonies (optional) by a marriage celebrant, authorized under the Marriage Act.

Clerics who officiate at marriages do so with the authority of the Marriage Act, not a deity given part of their job as a cleric. They have to be appointed before they can officiate at a marriage. Otherwise it is not recognised by the state for whatever purpose that is required, eg change of name, passport, census, etc.

One’s marriage certificate must be signed by an authorized marriage celebrant or it is invalid.

I had/have one signed by a priest who was also a marriage celebrant and another by a marriage celebrant with no dog col!ars in sight.

With all this emphasis on national security, what legitimate problem exists? SS Coles still have kids, they still live in the same house, they however, may not enjoy the same rights before the law covering inheritance, superannuation transfer on death, and most importantly,a recognition by the rest of us that they are not two separate people but one couple united in love, the same as us married folks like it.

Sorry for my quick as lightning auto speller. I meant to type SS couples but the auto thingamajig got in first!

Marriage is not solemnized by the state. It is ratified. Religions solemnize the.

If any group ought to butt out, it is the non secular organisations.

Note that civil marriages are still valid marriages in ceremonies (optional) by a marriage celebrant, authorized under the Marriage Act.

Clerics who officiate at marriages do so with the authority of the Marriage Act, not a deity given part of their job as a cleric. They have to be appointed before they can officiate at a marriage. Otherwise it is not recognised by the state for whatever purpose that is required, eg change of name, passport, census, etc.

One’s marriage certificate must be signed by an authorized marriage celebrant or it is invalid.

I had/have one signed by a priest who was also a marriage celebrant and another by a marriage celebrant with no dog col!ars in sight.

With all this emphasis on national security, what legitimate problem exists? SS Coles still have kids, they still live in the same house, they however, may not enjoy the same rights before the law covering inheritance, superannuation transfer on death, and most importantly,a recognition by the rest of us that they are not two separate people but one couple united in love, the same as us married folks like it.

dungfungus said :

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.

Well if you believe that they are the same thing then you must have no problem with allowing any adults to choose which of those they would like to have apply to them.

To do otherwise would make it impossible to maintain consistency in your argument without it being bigoted and discriminatory.

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

So why do we want to extend an inherently discriminatory instituition to same sex couples, instead of the far more logical option of the state removing itself from the “marriage” business entirely.

Other than legal contractual issues, why should the state be involved in solemnising people’s relationships?

I agree, the state should not be involved. But if it is, it should not discriminate.

No proposal so far presented is not going to discriminate, they all simply change the definition of who is discriminated against. Now providing extra rights to same sex couples is not in of itself a bad idea but it’s disingenuous to claim its removing discrimination or providing “equality”.

The marriage act needs to go, functional adults can decide who they want to love and the state shouldn’t be involved on anything other than a contractual basis in registering those relationships.

Sounds eminently senisble!

“functional adults can decide who they want to love”
This has always been the case so having an eclectic marriage act is not going to change what love and devotion is all about.

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

So why do we want to extend an inherently discriminatory instituition to same sex couples, instead of the far more logical option of the state removing itself from the “marriage” business entirely.

Other than legal contractual issues, why should the state be involved in solemnising people’s relationships?

I agree, the state should not be involved. But if it is, it should not discriminate.

No proposal so far presented is not going to discriminate, they all simply change the definition of who is discriminated against. Now providing extra rights to same sex couples is not in of itself a bad idea but it’s disingenuous to claim its removing discrimination or providing “equality”.

The marriage act needs to go, functional adults can decide who they want to love and the state shouldn’t be involved on anything other than a contractual basis in registering those relationships.

Sounds eminently senisble!

bryansworld said :

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

So why do we want to extend an inherently discriminatory instituition to same sex couples, instead of the far more logical option of the state removing itself from the “marriage” business entirely.

Other than legal contractual issues, why should the state be involved in solemnising people’s relationships?

I agree, the state should not be involved. But if it is, it should not discriminate.

No proposal so far presented is not going to discriminate, they all simply change the definition of who is discriminated against. Now providing extra rights to same sex couples is not in of itself a bad idea but it’s disingenuous to claim its removing discrimination or providing “equality”.

The marriage act needs to go, functional adults can decide who they want to love and the state shouldn’t be involved on anything other than a contractual basis in registering those relationships.

Equality is not the same as equity.

Equality is everyone having the same thing. One such example is being able to marry a person of the opposite sex. Everyone has this right (assuming they aren’t married).

Equality doesn’t imply that everyone gets the same social value out of having the same thing.
A homosexual doesn’t have the same value from being able to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Same sex marriage is marriage equity.

if a bisexual person is attracted to both men and women, does that mean that neither a single man or single woman would be sufficient to satisfy them. Marriage equity for a bisexual person would include three people.

What does marriage equity look like for singles? Are people who want to remain single able to get the benefits of a couple?

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.
I think it is more about “me too” and “look at me”.

They don’t the have the same value as legal marriage thats sort of the point. If there was an institution with the same social status and legal rights but named something different people would choose that.I know I would have and I just got married.

At this point it’s basically an administrative thing for next of kin and inhertitance issues on the peoples side and additional processing for Births, Deaths and Marriages. Pretty much all goverment departments already account for same sex marriage.
Do it and we can move on…. as well as stimulating the economy with private money.

Basically for a celebration of love (hetrosexual) I spent the weekend in a farming town in the Sunraysia followed by driving on to Adelaide for a wedding. So I’ve taken a weeks holiday and doing touristy things in Adelaide and the surrounds for a week. I wouldn’t have taken the holiday without the love celebrations.
I’m going to the Barossa tomorrow which I wouldn’t be doing without the love celebrations.

If the shape of your bits are the core of your marriage your marriage isn’t going to last very long.

chewy14 said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

So why do we want to extend an inherently discriminatory instituition to same sex couples, instead of the far more logical option of the state removing itself from the “marriage” business entirely.

Other than legal contractual issues, why should the state be involved in solemnising people’s relationships?

I agree, the state should not be involved. But if it is, it should not discriminate.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

Well, they will have to be content with illegal marriage which has the same value as “legal” marriage.
I think it is more about “me too” and “look at me”.

This just proves that most politicians (and people for that matter) while purporting to support Democracy really just want to impose their personal views on everybody else.

With the Libs its gay marriage with Labor its allowing a small number of Unions to control all aspects of pre-selection for safe seats.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

So why do we want to extend an inherently discriminatory instituition to same sex couples, instead of the far more logical option of the state removing itself from the “marriage” business entirely.

Other than legal contractual issues, why should the state be involved in solemnising people’s relationships?

well let the public vote on it .

let the people that were born sick marry so they too can suffer like the rest of the community.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

Being able to legally marry.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

Last time I checked, unmarried hetro-sexual couples (de-facto) had exactly the same rights, responsibilities and “privileges” as married hetro-sexual couples so what exactly are same-sex couples being denied?

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

Evidently the same as those conferred on different sex couples.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

I’m guessing you’ve never been subjected to discrimination.

You are guessing actually – I have copped more discrimination than most but that has nothing to do with what I asked.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

I’m guessing you’ve never been subjected to discrimination.

I think that is a legitimate question.

The debate about marriage is in some ways a distraction from the broader issue of equality of relationships in the eyes of the law and the ability of same sex couples to access the same financial and work-related entitlements that hetero couples have access to. What about the de facto relationships of SS couples versus hetero couples?

It’s worthwhile reading the AHRC report:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements-chapter-4

I agree with Tony Abbott on one thing about this issue. There are much more pressing issues that the government should be focussing on. (although I am concerned that his government is apparently unable to focus on two things at once)

So in that regard, this matter should be brought into parliament quickly, a conscience vote permitted and taken, and then move on.

It is inevitable that marriage equality will occur at some stage. It is undeniable that the majority of Australians want it to happen and aside from all of that, it is the right thing to do.

It could be sorted out in a single afternoon session of Parliament.

Just do it and move on. The sky will not fall.

John – thanks for writing the article. A few things:

“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?”

(i) Sure, but it’s less persuasive to set-up a tendentious straw man and then criticize it as if its statistically representative. If he’s a monster, then there’s often legitimate reasons for leaving, viz. the traditional “three As” – adultery, abuse and/or abandonment.

(ii) Since the abolishing of no-fault divorce, the reasons for separation have become gradually more individualistic and flippant, based upon one not meeting the others’ demands: emotional satisfaction, happiness etc. Essentially, it’s no longer each seeking to serve and sacrifice for the other. A superior form of happiness, joy, is often the by-product of such an approach.

“Making the kids stay with their parents in a loveless marriage sentences them to a similar relationship on reaching adulthood.”

(i) Divorce is extremely traumatic for children – and apropos my previous comments, most relationships ending in divorce are no longer from “monstrous” scenarios.

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

(i) True secularism entertains the input of all worldviews. Do you wish to summarily ban religious input to the public sphere in toto? Surely all Australians deserve to share ideas in this liberal democracy.

“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.”

(i) OK, but arguendo, what if SCOTUS had made a ruling opposing Same-sex marriage? Would you consequently accept the goodness of the result as a decision from the “ultimate arbiter”?

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

I’m guessing you’ve never been subjected to discrimination.

rubaiyat said :

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

And specifically, what rights and freedoms are going to be conveyed to the same-sex lobby by marriage that they don’t already have?

neanderthalsis said :

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn?

I thought it was quite clear that John IS criticising the same attitude and beliefs.

Abetz at the moment has more say (unfortunately) about whether Australia does something about this and gets onto more pressing matters.

The problem is that the Liberal Party is liberal in name only. It wants government “out of people’s lives” only when it suits them.

Private matters should be private matters, with the government only getting involved if those private matters infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms, not other people’s prejudices.

So John, you are criticizing him for having the same attitude and beliefs as the great Labor and Union doyen Joe De Bruyn? The man who publicly said that “Marriage is between a man and a woman; always was, always will be. It is based on what is innate in human nature.” and “Marriage started with Adam and Eve”. A man who uses what should be a truly progressive union as his own personal ultra-conservative soap box without any interest in his members views and who has carried a number of Labor politicians across in opposing gay marriage.

Actually John, he is trying to stop people marrying their pet cat.

Give the man a break. He’s a vast improvement on Great Uncle Otto.