Marriage Equality

[poppa x]

I'm really annoyed by the debate.
As a Conservative on many issues, I get p*ssed off when people like Abbot, Abetz and Andrews speak on my behalf.
Marriage equality - as others have said - is a basic human right.
And I'm sure there are many conservatives like me who are in favour.
And there are many on the left who oppose it on religous grounds.

Why do we have to make every issue a left v right debate?
It's never that simple.

 

[Giardiasis]

Marrying a doormat or oneself is a bit ridiculous but polygamous marriages should also be allowed

What's ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm really annoyed by the debate.
As a Conservative on many issues, I get p*ssed off when people like Abbot, Abetz and Andrews speak on my behalf.
Marriage equality - as others have said - is a basic human right.
And I'm sure there are many conservatives like me who are in favour.
And there are many on the left who oppose it on religous grounds.

Why do we have to make every issue a left v right debate?
It's never that simple.

Yup. Hence the confusion of the last few elections. People are voting on issues not along party lines. Hung parliaments ensue. The old political tribalism is waning and the 2 major parties are becoming irrelevant. People have stopped buying papers and the news is a magazine show. People expect to hear diverse voices that they can identify with. The old parties speak with a monotonous monochromatic blandness that fails to resonate in a smartphone world where I can customise my pizza order or my next car at the touch of a button but my political choice is like a one-size-fits-all hoodie in a colour I don't like with but have to buy because it has the slogan I chose on it.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I'm finding myself really torn on the issue. Very much ambivalent feelings. I am by no means religious, so my perspective is secular. Therefore any religiously based arguments I find quite irrelevant.

On the one hand the SSM 'Yes' advocates continually state the "Love is love" slogan. But we have 'no' advocates stating that a 'marriage' is more than that. It is intertwined with the ability (for the most part) of male and female couples complimentary attributes being able to create new life and hence a family. Therefore meaning that male-female couples hold a higher meaning than same sex couplings.

Perhaps this held true in past eras. However my feeling is that heterosexuals have forfeited any higher meaning in recent generations by not really taking their marriage vows that seriously. In an age of narcissistic self gratification, people having 3rd, 4th marriages. Men leaving their wives, divorcing and shacking up with the next piece of arse, when they still have very young children (so the marriage is still in it's infancy) - because they lack the maturity, self discipline and selflessness to man up and take responsibility for raising the family the marriage has created. These sorts of things make me wonder why people bother getting married at all. And to me, makes it hard to argue male-female marriage is anything above the "love is love" slogan.

But on the other side of the coin, some of the professional activists, living off the public purse, who piggy back on this issue really turn me off the 'Yes' cause as much as the religious 'no' campaigners turn me off theirs.

Sure, there are many who just want their relationship valued by society the same as male-female couples, I get that and have sympathy for that. But there is a whole army of employed LGBTIQ activists who's livelihood depends on there being perceived injustices in the world. So once SSM/Marriage Equality is achieved, then what? Are they then redundant and need to find other lines of employment? Don't bet on it. They will move onto the next issue. What will those issues be? Employment quotas for those identifying as L,G,B,Q,T or I - as in, seeking exemptions from anti discrimination acts so designated jobs can only be offered to those identifying as LGBTIQ might be one. These will be the type of initiatives tackled next. And these activists seem to relish the opportunity to precondition society into accepting unquestionably that anything they demand in future must also be a fight for fundamental human rights.

I certainly haven't ever thought I'd vote 'no'. But the more I hear from the spokespeople, the less likely I am to vote 'yes'. May well abstain from voting at all.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Really interesting thoughts PT. Your honesty is refreshing. I struggle with the 'spokespeople' who manage to get on telly or the radio. I agree they seem like career activists. I also agree they will find the 'next thing'. But I think it would be a mistake to punish the average non-hetero (can't stand the ever lengthening LGBTQI....arrrgghhhh.. it's like everybody gets a ribbon...) because of these vocal pests. I doubt most Christians think that odious prat who runs the Christian lobby group speaks for them. He gets lots of press but that shouldn't mean he is allowed to drown out the voices of the average Christian. Likewise some of the deadbeat Islamic apologists who get on the telly.

I know plenty of same sex or gender-queer couples and some who would like to get married and be recognised legally in general the same as hetero couples. That's it.

Howard in his sneaky way was able to alter the marriage act and was let get away with it. Time to out him for his dishonesty and his brother-in-arms Abbott.

 

[poppa x]

I ignore the extremists on both sides.
I will be voting Yes - because I believe all citizens should have equal rights.

 

[tigerman]

I'll be voting yes in the hope that the yes vote will get up and tip Abbot the religious hypocrite over the edge.

 

[gutfull]

Its a NO from me !!!!

 

[jb03]

I ignore the extremists on both sides.
I will be voting Yes - because I believe all citizens should have equal rights.

Me too poppa. Seems to boil down to a pretty simple status.

 

[AngryAnt]

On the one hand the SSM 'Yes' advocates continually state the "Love is love" slogan. But we have 'no' advocates stating that a 'marriage' is more than that. It is intertwined with the ability (for the most part) of male and female couples complimentary attributes being able to create new life and hence a family. Therefore meaning that male-female couples hold a higher meaning than same sex couplings.

Thanks for your thoughts PT. But the problem with that argument is that marriage has never been about procreation. Humans have had kids without marriage for ever. And marriage vows in any culture that I can think of never mention children. The marriage act doesn't mention children. Marriage has always been a legal and social institution with little to do with procreation in the biological sense.

Consider also this. In more religious times it was a big deal if you had kids out of wedlock, with incredibly negative consequences for both the mother and the child who had to carry the stigma of being a "bastard" for life and this also had profound legal and social effects. Fortunately we live in times where most people don't care or judge about the "morality" of these circumstances but it still has a legal impact on inheritance and the like, particularly where there is no will.

Gay couples have kids now, and will in the future, regardless of their married status. Marriage, as a legal and social institution entitles the spouse to certain legal rights. That's it. If a member of a gay couple dies without a will, the legal hoops their partner has to go through is extreme and there are no guarantees they will get access to their partner's bank accounts and property. If their partner's biological family contests, it's very hard for for a non-married partner to win.

Another example - if your partner is involved in an accident and is on life support, it is the "next of kin", not the unmarried partner, who get to make calls on whether life support should be withdrawn, whether organs can be donated and all those things if there is no legal document giving those powers to the partner.

Marriage equality is about human rights. And it is also incredibly important in terms of legal and financial rights. Saying "gay people" can't have those rights because of old-fashioned morality or because some people think marriage is somehow about procreation and so hetero couples should have greater rights than non-hetero couples is not acceptable.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Really interesting thoughts PT. Your honesty is refreshing. I struggle with the 'spokespeople' who manage to get on telly or the radio. I agree they seem like career activists. I also agree they will find the 'next thing'. But I think it would be a mistake to punish the average non-hetero (can't stand the ever lengthening LGBTQI....arrrgghhhh.. it's like everybody gets a ribbon...) because of these vocal pests. I doubt most Christians think that odious prat who runs the Christian lobby group speaks for them. He gets lots of press but that shouldn't mean he is allowed to drown out the voices of the average Christian. Likewise some of the deadbeat Islamic apologists who get on the telly.

I know plenty of same sex or gender-queer couples and some who would like to get married and be recognised legally in general the same as hetero couples. That's it.

Howard in his sneaky way was able to alter the marriage act and was let get away with it. Time to out him for his dishonesty and his brother-in-arms Abbott.

Don't get me wrong Knighter and others, I keep moving between some days thinking I'll vote yes, to other days thinking I'll abstain from voting. (Never to voting No). Genuine torn feelings. I actually have a close gay family member who agrees with my apprehension to the piggybacking political elements, but is encouraging me to vote yes.

This whole process has been botched over the past decade by all sides of Parliament. You point out Howard's sneakiness. And yes those types of things have drawn it out longer and allowed the professional activist types the opportunity now to springboard off this for further issues they manufacture thereafter.

And then I find people like Shorten hard to take seriously. Only a couple of years ago he believed in the traditional definition, suddenly has an epiphany and is now in favour and lectures us all that if we don't unquestionably agree with flag waving fervour we are bigots (even people like me whom are torn are placed in the same label box as the genuinely hateful homophobes, which I reject).

 

[jb03]

Don't get me wrong Knighter and others, I keep moving between some days thinking I'll vote yes, to other days thinking I'll abstain from voting. (Never to voting No). Genuine torn feelings. I actually have a close gay family member who agrees with my apprehension to the piggybacking political elements, but is encouraging me to vote yes.

This whole process has been botched over the past decade by all sides of Parliament. You point out Howard's sneakiness. And yes those types of things have drawn it out longer and allowed the professional activist types the opportunity now to springboard off this for further issues they manufacture thereafter.

And then I find people like Shorten hard to take seriously. Only a couple of years ago he believed in the traditional definition, suddenly has an epiphany and is now in favour and lectures us all that if we don't unquestionably agree with flag waving fervour we are bigots (even people like me whom are torn are placed in the same label box as the genuinely hateful homophobes, which I reject).

Agree that Labor have been diabolical on this issue. They had their chance and did nothing and is *smile* me no end the crap they go on with now. However, politicians botch nearly anything they get involved in so simply look at it as a human rights non-partisan issue.

 

[AngryAnt]

Don't get me wrong Knighter and others, I keep moving between some days thinking I'll vote yes, to other days thinking I'll abstain from voting. (Never to voting No). Genuine torn feelings. I actually have a close gay family member who agrees with my apprehension to the piggybacking political elements, but is encouraging me to vote yes.

This whole process has been botched over the past decade by all sides of Parliament. You point out Howard's sneakiness. And yes those types of things have drawn it out longer and allowed the professional activist types the opportunity now to springboard off this for further issues they manufacture thereafter.

And then I find people like Shorten hard to take seriously. Only a couple of years ago he believed in the traditional definition, suddenly has an epiphany and is now in favour and lectures us all that if we don't unquestionably agree with flag waving fervour we are bigots (even people like me whom are torn are placed in the same label box as the genuinely hateful homophobes, which I reject).

Fair enough PT. Politicians are politicians... Shorten, Wong and Gillard should be ashamed they didn't stand up for the right thing earlier.

 

[tigertime2]

I think most here know how I am voting. No for me.

Agree about the activists - they are full on and from all parts of the world telling us what we should think.

 

[Ian4]

If you believe in marriage equality but then say you don't think people should be allowed to marry a doormat, then you aren't really for marriage equality. You are just for traditional and gay marriage, while discriminating against other groups that might wish to marry. You haven't expressed your opinion about polygamy or incest marriages, what is it?

Marriage equality is about 2 people irrespective of sex being able to marry. so inanimate objects don't count. incest is a ridiculous notion. Polygamy, I don't have a massive opinion either way. But I have heard stories about people having 3-way relationship and things along those lines... is there any harm in that? probably not. who are we to judge anyway?

Agree that Labor have been diabolical on this issue. They had their chance and did nothing and is sh!ts me no end the crap they go on with now. However, politicians botch nearly anything they get involved in so simply look at it as a human rights non-partisan issue.

yep. Julia Gillard has been in lesbian relationships in the past but was apparently against it? I think they probably thought the public weren't ready at the time... which is a sh!t way to go about it.

 

[Giardiasis]

Marriage equality is about 2 people irrespective of sex being able to marry. so inanimate objects don't count. incest is a ridiculous notion. Polygamy, I don't have a massive opinion either way. But I have heard stories about people having 3-way relationship and things along those lines... is there any harm in that? probably not. who are we to judge anyway?

Bigot. "Incest is a ridiculous notion" is the same argument that people that oppose gay marriage might make.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Bigot. "Incest is a ridiculous notion" is the same argument that people that oppose gay marriage might make.

I truly hope this an attempt at banter or gentle trolling Gia? You really do like to put things into black or white categories. Marriage equality does not have to include doormats or incest. Why would it? Nuance is a thing and it is possible to have a thoughtful discussion without nonsense appeals to the margins isn't it?

 

[Giardiasis]

I truly hope this an attempt at banter or gentle trolling Gia? You really do like to put things into black or white categories. Marriage equality does not have to include doormats or incest. Why would it? Nuance is a thing and it is possible to have a thoughtful discussion without nonsense appeals to the margins isn't it?

Neither, I'm trying to make the point that this has nothing to do with equality, as it still only applies to narrowly defined groups of people while discriminating against others. People like to use that line of argument though because they try to frame the issue as a human rights violation, yet seem to ignore the logical implications of their argument or brush it off as ridiculous etc. That's why I think this whole issue is stupid. You have the government saying who can be married and who can't be married, and then people that are excluded get upset by that. Why does the government have the power to decide what is marriage and what is not marriage in the first place? That seems the more important question to answer before figuring out who is to be discriminated against.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Neither, I'm trying to make the point that this has nothing to do with equality, as it still only applies to narrowly defined groups of people while discriminating against others. People like to use that line of argument though because they try to frame the issue as a human rights violation, yet seem to ignore the logical implications of their argument or brush it off as ridiculous etc. That's why I think this whole issue is stupid. You have the government saying who can be married and who can't be married, and then people that are excluded get upset by that. Why does the government have the power to decide what is marriage and what is not marriage in the first place? That seems the more important question to answer before figuring out who is to be discriminated against.

As usual you are overstating things. It doesn't have 'nothing' to do with equality'. It simply applies in a way that is incomplete in your eyes. There are other ways to see things than only through your eyes Gia.

In general I probably agree with you. In addition I think discrimination is too broadly defined and doesn't necessarily apply in a lot of the places it is used. I think you should be able to show some material or physical impediment in order to claim you have been 'discriminated' against (refused access to a public service or employment for instance). Not being able to buy a cake isn't discrimination. It may be annoying or even hurtful but that can't be allowed to be called discrimination IMO. You could bake your own cake.

It is however a structural element of society that the collective know who is 'married' to whom in case there is some grievance that threatens to disrupt that collective. Your extreme libertarian anti collective view might not value those collective elements, but that is an issue for you. The rest of us either blindly or knowingly find comfort and value in the collective nature of society. Hence when the laws either by anachronism or design exclude certain members then at some stage there will probably be a reckoning. That needn't break the whole system. It can be done by increment. You don't go from only wealthy land owners can vote, to all members of socety can vote, for instance. Baby steps. Incremental adjustments that hopefully lead to a more cohesive and mutually beneficial society.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Bigot. "Incest is a ridiculous notion" is the same argument that people that oppose gay marriage might make.

That is as may be. Society sets its norms as the zeitgeist demands. It is a changeable feast. It is not inconceivable that there could develop a society in which in-family marriage (incest) is the norm. The current biological understanding suggests that other than brother-sister there isn't the risk to the health of offspring once assumed. The aristocracy made a habit of it didn't they? Times change. As religiosity declines so the definition, or even the consideration, of marriage may dilute so that it could come to pass that marriage to a doormat isn't sneezed at. It just isn't that time in the society we share currently.