That gay marriage thing........
- Thread starter Dozer
- Start date
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
Closing sentence is what should be the first and last statement for any discussion of the subject should be.
This plebiscite is truly and inherently, fucked.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
The libs should well and truely pay for this colossal waste of money. It's one thing to block it (not that I agree) but another to stall and waste taxpayer dollars to the tune of $100m to avoid an issue. I hope they pay dearly for it next election coming including the two biggies NSW and VIC state elections. Although Vic should be a sure win with the recent lobster and mobster scandals.
Brooksy007
Likes Dirt
To me - if I understand our MANY existing anti-discrimination laws which clearly state that one cannot deny another something based on their sexual orientation (amongst other factors such as age, health, etc) - the fact that religious organisations are denying gays the right to marry is, in and of itself, illegal.
In other words, we already have the laws in place that make denying marriage equality illegal - so any religion that is doing do IS BREAKING THE LAW!
In other words, we already have the laws in place that make denying marriage equality illegal - so any religion that is doing do IS BREAKING THE LAW!
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Even if they didn't need to spend it, I'm 100% certain that they would find another damn fool way to waste $100m.
Spending someone else's money is always easy apparently.
Either party is run by self serving idiots that lose the plot even more, the longer that they stay in power. Not like the other guys are great alternative either and they historically have known where the government piggy bank lives and are keen to spend it as fast as governmentally possible. The government is another imaginary world and we just fund it until the kitty is empty and the cry poor uttering the words like 'levy', 'once off payment' and avoid calling it tax.
Makes me want to apply for citizenship at Hutt River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
There is no federal anti discrimination law. Any that exist are state level, and vary wildly across the country. The 2004 amendment Bill was introduced as a ways of preventing foreign sanctioned, same sex unions being recognised in Australia, BUT also to preempt any state legislation to legalise it. As evidenced in the ACTs legalisation of same sex marriage being able to be nullified by the high court. Lil johnny wanted to make sure the only people who got a say in what would be recognised as a legal marriage were federal members (pun intended) towing the party line.
moorey
call me Mia
There's things that Religious organizations can arguably discriminate against within their own institutions..that should have no bearing on societal laws.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
There is the racial discrimination act, but it isn't relevant to this.
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
It is explicitly noted in the Australian Marriage Act of 1961, even before the 2004 amendment bill, that ministers of a religion are not bound by any obligation to solemnise any marriage.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00938
Caluse 47.
moorey
call me Mia
Done fixed...
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
So now we are into this debate,can someone point me in the direction of the hate filled speech this is going to bring forward ?
A few things have come across social media this last day or 2, and I'd have to say, that regretfully the hate comments have been mainly from the anti plebiscite side. If I were a Christian with a traditional view of marriage, I'd be pretty bloody insulted by the public slanging that says I can't be respectful in discussion.
A few things have come across social media this last day or 2, and I'd have to say, that regretfully the hate comments have been mainly from the anti plebiscite side. If I were a Christian with a traditional view of marriage, I'd be pretty bloody insulted by the public slanging that says I can't be respectful in discussion.
moorey
call me Mia
No one I know is saying all Christians oppose it....they are saying that anyone opposing it is a flog, religious or otherwise.
Lots of pro equality people are planning to boycott. I understand why, but it's compounding the problem.
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
Referendum on the republic question all over again.
The language is changing as well. It's all human rights, equality etc, yet 2010 when the ALP supported status quo, there was no one up in arms.
If something is a basic human right , then it has been for decades, not just a sudden recent thing. Ireland did it with a referendum, but that's not really an option here because it's not a constitutional question, only a few years ago, a plebiscite seemed a good compromise to drag tony Abbott into this century, but now it's not good enough..
something that has changed so much in such a short time is not an absolute
You're giving it all of 24 hours? Really dude, you don't think it would be more reasonable and and rational to wait until towards the end of the gig to judge people's behaviour?
Politicians have changed their mind and are surfing the public wave. Oh my god, I'm so shocked and surprised........:faint2:
http://www.acl.org.au/tags/stolen_generation
have a read, its pretty disgusting and only going to get worse
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
You mean like Bronwyn Bishop saying that marriage equality would lead to bestiality? Or ABC News Breakfast host Michael Rowland receiving a postcard asking if he approves of the "filthy practice" of "sodomy" and comparing gay people to "brownshirts"? Or perhaps Tony Abbott, dismissing the push for all Australians to be treated equally under the law as "political correctness" that needs to be stopped in its tracks? Or the usual blithering nonsense from the ACL about 'teaching kids to be gay' and so on and so forth?
If I were a Christian, I'd be pretty bloody insulted at the likes of Lyle Shelton and his ilk presuming to speak for me with their hate speech and outright lies.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
I was. I was all the way up in those arms. And so were plenty of other people, actually. They had their chance and they knuckled under to the bigots, and I think it's pretty shit that they're using it to big themselves up now like that never even happened.
Getting married has been considered a basic right for quite a long time now. It's just a right that's been denied to a certain segment of the population.
Spike-X
Grumpy Old Sarah
Funny how Christians didn't seem to mind creating a stolen generation when they were the ones stealing babies from unmarried teenage girls and giving them away to other people. But now that gay people want to adopt kids it's suddenly the most evil thing you can do to somebody.
I get your point but I don't think that's a helpful approach. My grandfather was a Christian and there is no way in hell he ever supported that kind of behaviour, child abuse or social marginalisation that parts of the church have practised in the past.
We have to be careful not to be what we criticise. The church is not a homogeneous group where everyone agrees with each other and they all act the same. So when we say stuff like "Funny how Christians didn't seem to mind...." it's just the same as saying "The Muslims blow up busses and are stuck in the dark ages.....", "Women complain all the time and can't make up their minds.....".
The actions we complain about are almost always not representative of the whole social group, people belong to many social groups (Christians are men, women, old young, roadies, MTBers, gardeners, brewers, soldiers, artists, hippies, etc.) and when you look at things honestly and closely the behaviours we deplore are more often human failures that you find throughout many social groupings across the ages and not due to the arbitrary bounds we place on characters and identity.
Don't fall into the trap of drawing lines across society and placing yourself clearly on one side as you only make life more difficult.
/sociological naval gazing
Last edited: