Australia to outlaw gay marriage

[Stuart Mackey]

a tiny fraction of the world population. Look, i'm not arguing one side or the other. What i am saying is that you cannot portray nations like the US and Austrailia as backwards fundie civil rights abusers. The fact is gay marriage rights are making headway and being debated here and in Austrailia. unlike in the other 90% of the world.

Whilst we aren't that bad the point is that we should be a lot better. I can't speak for America, but Australia should be leading the world on this issue. Coming from one of the first places on Earth to grant women the right to vote I expect better from this country, and I find our swing towards conservative values of recent times very disturbing.

Australai?!? If any one should be leading the worl it should be NZ..we were the first true democracy when women here were the first in the world to gain the vote. And what do we have? a civil union bill..not even law yet..Gay marraige is not on the horison yet

[Crown]

Whilst we aren't that bad the point is that we should be a lot better. I can't speak for America, but Australia should be leading the world on this issue. Coming from one of the first places on Earth to grant women the right to vote I expect better from this country, and I find our swing towards conservative values of recent times very disturbing.

Australai?!? If any one should be leading the worl it should be NZ..we were the first true democracy when women here were the first in the world to gain the vote. And what do we have? a civil union bill..not even law yet..Gay marraige is not on the horison yet

Yeah, but you do have a transexual as a MP ... say hi to Georgie for me!

[Stuart Mackey]

Whilst we aren't that bad the point is that we should be a lot better. I can't speak for America, but Australia should be leading the world on this issue. Coming from one of the first places on Earth to grant women the right to vote I expect better from this country, and I find our swing towards conservative values of recent times very disturbing.

Australai?!? If any one should be leading the worl it should be NZ..we were the first true democracy when women here were the first in the world to gain the vote. And what do we have? a civil union bill..not even law yet..Gay marraige is not on the horison yet

Yeah, but you do have a transexual as a MP ... say hi to Georgie for me!

True true, she is not standing at the next election though. Mind you we have a few gay MP's.

[Zaia]

Great, yet another reason to hate Howard almost as much as I hate Bush.

[Wicked Pilot]

Great, yet another reason to hate Howard almost as much as I hate Bush.

I'm guessing that means you keep your lawn mowed?

[RedImperator]

As for what's actually going to happen in reality, I suspect "civil unions" are just a transition phase to full marriage for gays. As long as a civil union carries the same legal status as a marriage, it's really just a matter of semantics anyway.

If it carries the same legal status, then why shouldn't a gay person be able to tell people he's married? The idea of having two terms for the same concept is such a complete waste of time.

There's nothing to stop a gay couple in a civil union from saying they're married. The only difference is what their liscense says. It's meaningless, empirically speaking, but words do have value. To gays, getting married--not entering a civil union, but getting married--has enormous symbolic meaning, beyond the legal protections that come with marriage. Likewise, to those opposed to gay marriage are opposed because the word marriage carries religious significance beyond simply extending legal protection to homosexual couples--to which many of the opponents of gay marriage actually don't object.

[Darth Wong]

There's nothing to stop a gay couple in a civil union from saying they're married. The only difference is what their liscense says. It's meaningless, empirically speaking, but words do have value. To gays, getting married--not entering a civil union, but getting married--has enormous symbolic meaning, beyond the legal protections that come with marriage.

Naturally. The interesting part comes when a gay couple gets a "civil union" and then proceeds to fill in the "married" checkbox on an insurance form. Suppose the insurance agent is a fundie, and decides to say that they've filled in the form fraudulently so their policy is null and void; they can sue because the equivalent-to-married status means that they should be able to fill in "married" for such purposes. Which would then re-open the question of what point there is to having two different terms for the same thing.

Likewise, to those opposed to gay marriage are opposed because the word marriage carries religious significance beyond simply extending legal protection to homosexual couples--to which many of the opponents of gay marriage actually don't object.

Funny how this supposed religious significance doesn't seem to bother them when Britney Spears gets a quickie temp-marriage from a justice of the peace in Las Vegas.

[RedImperator]

Naturally. The interesting part comes when a gay couple gets a "civil union" and then proceeds to fill in the "married" checkbox on an insurance form. Suppose the insurance agent is a fundie, and decides to say that they've filled in the form fraudulently so their policy is null and void; they can sue because the equivalent-to-married status means that they should be able to fill in "married" for such purposes. Which would then re-open the question of what point there is to having two different terms for the same thing.

Hence my proposal to do away with the word marriage and end the whole debate.

Likewise, to those opposed to gay marriage are opposed because the word marriage carries religious significance beyond simply extending legal protection to homosexual couples--to which many of the opponents of gay marriage actually don't object.

Funny how this supposed religious significance doesn't seem to bother them when Britney Spears gets a quickie temp-marriage from a justice of the peace in Las Vegas.[/quote]

Internal consistency is not the hallmark of religious belief.

[Stofsk]

Update. Well, sort of.

...They say changes to laws allowing them to transfer superannuation payouts to their partner tax-free when they die are insufficient compensation.

Howard looks like he's trying to have his cake, and eat it too. He wants to put forward a discriminatory bill yet wants to appear non-discriminatory. Stellar contradiction.

On Southern Cross radio, John Howard has defended the changes.

"I realize in public life that what you do sometimes offends some people," he said.

"It's not designed to do that, but I equally don't apologise for wanting to put into the law the simple proposition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman hopefully for life."

I honestly don't see the logic here. How can a discriminatory bill designed to make second class citizens barred access to such an institution as marriage be anything BUT offensive? And it's not 'designed' for that, according to Howard. Well, what is it designed for? Why is it being put forward?

And fuck the Labor party. I wasn't going to vote for them anyway, but after this bullshit (ie meekly going along with it) their cowardice is firmly rooted in my mind. In case anyone wondered, I'm a Liberal supporter - but there are generally two 'types' of Liberal, and Howard isn't the one I vote for.

Only the Democrats and Greens are left, and I can't stand the latter. Democrats it is, then.

[Zaia]

Great, yet another reason to hate Howard almost as much as I hate Bush.

I'm guessing that means you keep your lawn mowed?

*rimshot*

Ando used to talk about how he wanted to overthrow the Aussie government and ship Howard off to another country permanently. At the time I was seriously worried he was going to try it, but now I sort of wish he would. *reads Stofsk's latest post* What a stupid fucking git. Jesus.

[Stofsk]

*reads Stofsk's latest post* What a stupid fucking git. Jesus.

Hmm... you're talking about Howard, right?

In any case I wish to edit what I wrote above. When I wrote this:

How can a discriminatory bill designed to make second class citizens barred access to such an institution as marriage be anything BUT offensive?

I meant to type this:

"How can a discriminatory bill designed to make gays into second class citizens by barring access to such an institution as marriage be considered anything BUT offensive?"

I left out a few words, and as such my original post might make it seem I think gays are already second class citizens, which isn't something I personally agree with - even though they're treated as such by our leaders.

[Zaia]

LOL--yes, yes, sorry--I was referring to Howard, not you, Stofsk.

[Crown]

Funny how this supposed religious significance doesn't seem to bother them when Britney Spears gets a quickie temp-marriage from a justice of the peace in Las Vegas.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!

Mike, I don't know if you know this, but you just quoted (ad-lib, not verbatim) Pink. She said something similar in an interview about how she thinks that it is pretty pathetic that two people can find genuine love, and know that they belong together, build a life, a relationship and find their soul mate, but if they both happen to be of the same sex - then it is 'discrediting' the instituion of marriage. But Britney getting married while drunk and divorced only a few hours later, it's all okay!

[BoredShirtless]

I see another fine member of the internet community doesn't realize that there's a fine line between physical maturity and mental and emotional maturity.

It doesn't have to be fine, it can be as thick as a brick. You're a good example. You're physically mature.....yet you're totally blind to the fact that your smart arse put downs mean you share partial responsibility for flamewars. Only a child like mind would think that having the upper hand in a debate is license to mock and belittle his oppoent, then share no responsibility for the ensuing fight.

You know, the things that cause people to drag out three pages of nonsense because it offends their sensibilities that they might be wrong. Run along.

And your goading him had nothing to do with it, right? Loser.

[Sarevok]

I believe it is wrong to ban gay mariages. It violates peoples human rights.

[Xon]

I believe it is wrong to ban gay mariages. It violates peoples human rights.

Australia doesnt have a "bill of right" type thing at any level of government.

And we have already said STFU to the UN human rights council on a few issues before, so I cant see that being an issue.

Its highly probably its going to take decades before this type of law will be reversed, and it is almost garrientied to pass into law. And I dont expect the posibility of this type of law being challenged on it legitimacy(again Australian laws & politics are different to the USA).

But honestly, people take time to change and Australia is normally a fairly conservative country.

[Archaic`]

Fiscal conservative yes, but when the hell did we start turning into social conservatives as well? Even in Queensland, I never saw any of those kind of attitudes except out in the boonies with the people who were attracted to groups like one nation.

From the looks of the Progressive Alliance policies, it sounds like they're a bit too far to the left of center for me. They're far too heavily influenced by the Greens for my tastes, especially with the whole rejection of Nuclear power bit. And with all their talk of providing all these various interest groups "adequate funding", while talking of a "robust tax system" leaves me and my wallet rather unsettled.

[SirNitram]

I see another fine member of the internet community doesn't realize that there's a fine line between physical maturity and mental and emotional maturity.

It doesn't have to be fine, it can be as thick as a brick. You're a good example. You're physically mature.....yet you're totally blind to the fact that your smart arse put downs mean you share partial responsibility for flamewars.

Nope, I am completely aware that little whiners like you will take any insult as a lisense to stop debate and start screeching. Oh no! I started a flamewar! Pardon me while I don't really care if people get overly emotional over an insult in text on a screen.

This may shock your primitive brain, but, to quote Kynes, I debate with a strong undercurrent of insults and belittling to keep myself awake while facing the less intelligent posters, like yourself.

Only a child like mind would think that having the upper hand in a debate is license to mock and belittle his oppoent, then share no responsibility for the ensuing fight.

Only a pompous moron tries to psychoanalyze someone based off text. What 'fight' am I supposed to take responsibility for? Crackpot screeching, whining, and running away? I take responsibility, because I, among others, proved he was completely full of shit, lying through his teeth, and generally being an asshole.

You know, the things that cause people to drag out three pages of nonsense because it offends their sensibilities that they might be wrong. Run along.

And your goading him had nothing to do with it, right? Loser.

Oh yea, I'm such a loser... Mmm hmmm... I'm suuuuuch a loser... But I'm not the one trying(And failing miserably) to psychoanalyze someone over the internet, because I'm a whiny bitch who doesn't like to see lying little fucks get insulted in a place with specific reference to 'Mocking stupid people'. Suuuure.

Piss off, this thread has more important things to do than cater to your desperate attempt to build up a spine.

[Vendetta]

Fiscal conservative yes, but when the hell did we start turning into social conservatives as well? Even in Queensland, I never saw any of those kind of attitudes except out in the boonies with the people who were attracted to groups like one nation.

Australia has had some pretty conservative censorship laws in the past, and possibly still does. I remember From Hell being banned there at one point as obscenity.

[Darth Wong]

I recall that at one point Australia tried to censor the Internet. I don't know how they got a reputation of being socially liberal in the first place.

[Stuart Mackey]

I recall that at one point Australia tried to censor the Internet. I don't know how they got a reputation of being socially liberal in the first place.

Neither do I..In Western Australia, I hear it is still legal to shoot an Aborigine on your property for no reason whatsoever. It got its reputaion from being democratic and from being a welfare state.

[Mr Flibble]

I recall that at one point Australia tried to censor the Internet. I don't know how they got a reputation of being socially liberal in the first place.

Neither do I..In Western Australia, I hear it is still legal to shoot an Aborigine on your property for no reason whatsoever. It got its reputaion from being democratic and from being a welfare state.

It depends on the state. I think some comes from the early days, for its time South Australia was pretty damn progressive, freedom of religion, women having the vote (beaten only by New Zealand), and we invented the secret ballot.

Of course from then things have changed, SA did have a bit of a renaissance in the 70's but it was short lived. The Premier was gay, or at least bisexual. Essentially there are two groups here, the older majority, which are very conservative, and the younger generation, which is very liberal in atitude, unfortunately suffers from extreme apathy, and does nothing about the situation, basically we ignore the government.

I just remebered an are where is is doing better than the states, are drug laws, for marijuana are slightly more reasonable, possession for own use is just a fine, no record and you are allowed up to 3 plants under "own use". Although damn conservatives want to change this (plus there is pressure from the other states). And we were looking to legalize prostitution (it is currently illegal but tolerated).

But as a whole the state is held back by the older generation, as is the country.

It also depends if Labor or Liberal is in control, when one gets in they undo the work of the oter, so we swing between two extremes.

[Xon]

I recall that at one point Australia tried to censor the Internet. I don't know how they got a reputation of being socially liberal in the first place.

Thats because we had a fundie was our Federal communications minister.

Also the reason boardband hasnt gotten very far, as he deliberately held the rollout back.

Neither do I..In Western Australia, I hear it is still legal to shoot an Aborigine on your property for no reason whatsoever. It got its reputaion from being democratic and from being a welfare state.

I wouldnt be suprised if this was still on the books. I know you can get away with killing someone if they invade your property and you respond with "reasonable force".

I also know if you have a "beware of <animal>"sign on a gate to your property, you are no longer legally responcible if someone gets mauled to death once they enter your property, even if they dont enter via that gate...

It also depends if Labor or Liberal is in control, when one gets in they undo the work of the oter, so we swing between two extremes.

I really wouldnt call it the "extremes"(as in extreme left & right). Australia is fairly centeral in its politics. You often have to closely look at the policies to figure out who is left or right of the centre at a given time.

[BoredShirtless]

I see another fine member of the internet community doesn't realize that there's a fine line between physical maturity and mental and emotional maturity.

It doesn't have to be fine, it can be as thick as a brick. You're a good example. You're physically mature.....yet you're totally blind to the fact that your smart arse put downs mean you share partial responsibility for flamewars.

Nope, I am completely aware that little whiners like you will take any insult as a lisense to stop debate and start screeching.

I could have sworn I saw a flame war before he left, which is what I said you were partially responsible for. Oh wait, yeah I did see a flame war, nice dodge with a joke of an attempt to get under my skin.

Oh no! I started a flamewar! Pardon me while I don't really care if people get overly emotional over an insult in text on a screen.

Would you expect any less if you talked to him like that in RL? Would you care then? Or you just don't care full stop?

This may shock your primitive brain, but, to quote Kynes, I debate with a strong undercurrent of insults and belittling to keep myself awake while facing the less intelligent posters, like yourself.

But why? Because you were bullied when you were younger? Because you're so quickly frustrated? Whatever the reason, you've got a shitty attitude.

Only a child like mind would think that having the upper hand in a debate is license to mock and belittle his opponent, then share no responsibility for the ensuing fight.

Only a pompous moron tries to psychoanalyze someone based off text. What 'fight' am I supposed to take responsibility for? Crackpot screeching, whining, and running away? I take responsibility, because I, among others, proved he was completely full of shit, lying through his teeth, and generally being an asshole.

He wasn't being an asshole, he wasn't lying intentially nor is he full of shit. He just misunderstood you. Remember he was debating several people at the same time. Throw in the fact he was debating from work, and it wasn't surprising that he got a little confused...don't be a dropkick, be a little more understanding.

You know, the things that cause people to drag out three pages of nonsense because it offends their sensibilities that they might be wrong. Run along.

And your goading him had nothing to do with it, right? Loser.

Oh yea, I'm such a loser... Mmm hmmm... I'm suuuuuch a loser... But I'm not the one trying(And failing miserably) to psychoanalyze someone over the internet, because I'm a whiny bitch who doesn't like to see lying little fucks get insulted in a place with specific reference to 'Mocking stupid people'. Suuuure.

I'm not telling you you can't mock people, go right ahead. But you're an asshole for it.

Piss off, this thread has more important things to do than cater to your desperate attempt to build up a spine.

Nice psychoanalysis of my motives. Hypocrite.

[Wicked Pilot]

I recall that at one point Australia tried to censor the Internet. I don't know how they got a reputation of being socially liberal in the first place.

As an American, my default assumption is that any free modern nation has got to be more socially liberal than the US.