Thousands rally for gay marriage before Australian postal vote closes

[rooster59]

Thousands rally for gay marriage before Australian postal vote closes

By Benjamin Cooper

 

Police watch marchers holding signs and banners as they participate in a marriage equality march in central Sydney, Australia, October 21, 2017. REUTERS/David Gray

 

SYDNEY - (Reuters) - Thousands of people rallied around Australia on Saturday urging the legalization of same-sex marriage, one week before final ballots can be submitted in a contentious postal survey on the issue that has divided the country.

 

The largest crowd was in Sydney, where organizers said between 5,000 and 10,000 people gathered in front of Central Station before marching along one of the city's biggest roads to Victoria Park.

 

"It's a good reflection of the enthusiasm of people," Australian Marriage Equality's Tiernan Brady said. "They are very determined, very positive and not complacent."

 

Other rallies in favour of same-sex marriage were held in the northern city of Brisbane and the central hub of Alice Springs.

 

Rallies organised by the Coalition for Marriage, the lead campaigner against same-sex marriage, also were held across the country.

 

The coalition, which includes the Australian Christian Lobby and other religious groups, encouraged those who haven't returned their surveys to do so.

 

"We're so pleased so many people have engaged with this process and we encourage those who haven't to tick 'no' and put it in the post," spokeswoman Monica Doumit said.

 

Though the postal ballot is non-binding, a “yes” vote is expected to lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage which could further fracture the government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

 

Ballots were mailed out from Sept. 12, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics recommending all votes be returned via the postal service by Oct. 27.

The latest update from the ABS, issued on Oct. 17, showed almost 11 million postal votes had been returned, about 68 per cent of the total distributed.

 

The result is expected on Nov. 15.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-21

 

 

[pegman]

It seems to me that in most places it has been legalized it's been by court action. Don't like the chances of it being voted in. 

[4MyEgo]

36 minutes ago, pegman said:

It seems to me that in most places it has been legalized it's been by court action. Don't like the chances of it being voted in. 

You cannot stop change, your either for or against, and once its in, you just have to "suck" it up 555

[Trentham]

It is not a vote. It is a poll and it is not binding on the government to pass it once the polling is decided. The government has wasted 124 million dollars to know if the people want it and it has been shown in countless other polls that they do.

[DoctorG]

Not sure that these marches actually change anyone's mind. Good fun for the participants though I imagine.

[Ron19]

A troll post and reply have been removed.

 

[brewsterbudgen]

Another non-binding referendum, just like the EU one in the UK. The Aussie government should just get on and do the right thing and either get voted out or re-elected at the next general election.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[johnnyonesock]

all designed to undermine the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman as part of the war on the family...or do u really think the controllers give a damn about whether two men can legally call themselves a married couple?

[sirineou]

57 minutes ago, johnnyonesock said:

all designed to undermine the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman as part of the war on the family...or do u really think the controllers give a damn about whether two men can legally call themselves a married couple?

sanc·ti·ty

ˈsaNG(k)tədē/

noun

 

1. the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly

    

   Marriage is a social construct it is neither holy, sacred or saintly ,it is a social construct. 

   Gay people are a natural phenomenon have always being a percentage of the population and like it or not are part of society and as such deserve the same privileges and protections as everyone else in civil society.

   Sanctity is a religious belief  and though you have the right  to your belief you do not have the right to impose them to others.
    

[tryasimight]

12 hours ago, Trentham said:

It is not a vote. It is a poll and it is not binding on the government to pass it once the polling is decided. The government has wasted 124 million dollars to know if the people want it and it has been shown in countless other polls that they do.

No it has not

[pegman]

13 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

You cannot stop change, your either for or against, and once its in, you just have to "suck" it up 555

You maybe cannot stop it but you can delay it. That happened in the USA where so called progressive politians like the Clintons came out against it. Nearly, if not all, state votes on the "Defence of Marriage" went against changes. In the States as well as Canada it took the courts to change the law. I hope the Astrailian politians get the cover they need to legalize it but it would surprise me. It is a conservative nation. 

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, pegman said:

You maybe cannot stop it but you can delay it. That happened in the USA where so called progressive politians like the Clintons came out against it. Nearly, if not all, state votes on the "Defence of Marriage" went against changes. In the States as well as Canada it took the courts to change the law. I hope the Astrailian politians get the cover they need to legalize it but it would surprise me. It is a conservative nation. 

Totally agree with you that Australia is a conservative nation, and will add, it is also a racists nation and a nanny state.

 

Gays have been around since day one, although having to hide in the closet so to speak in fear of persecution for being in love with a same sex partner, i.e. having the same feelings as we married people do.

 

The blacks were persecuted for hundreds years because everyone thought they were an inferior species, a bit like the Aborigines.

 

Its interesting that we live in "free" but are governed by laws that are draconian and of course protect the churches, otherwise they might go out of business and keep a lid on those that believe in what they are preaching, because they can't think for themselves.

 

I am going to laugh my asssss off come 15 November when the YES vote is announced, all the gays have to do then is get the politicians to pass it through parliament, because the $122,000,000 of wasted tax payers money does not make the vote binding....lol, who would have though that you have politicians in parliament to make decisions for and on behalf of its voters to vote on issues, i.e. I have never seen them do a plebiscite on sending young men to fight in someone else's war, get my drift.

 

[Si Thea01]

22 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Another non-binding referendum, just like the EU one in the UK. The Aussie government should just get on and do the right thing and either get voted out or re-elected at the next general election.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You're into slinging off at the current government for not getting on with it.  Did you also do the same over the 8 years that the Labor government had the same opportunity to legalise it but didn't? Why are they now spruiking it, when only 6 years ago they were against it.  Purely political, just for political gain the bloody hypocrites.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Si Thea01

[brewsterbudgen]

You're into slinging off at the current government for not getting on with it.  Did you also do the same over the 8 years that the Labor government had the same opportunity to legalise it but didn't? Why are they now spruiking it, when only 6 years ago they were against it.  Purely political, just for political gain the bloody hypocrites.

I haven't got a clue about Aussie politics, so absolutely yes, I blame both parties. Like in my own country, things like this shouldn't be political.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Si Thea01]

41 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I haven't got a clue about Aussie politics, so absolutely yes, I blame both parties. Like in my own country, things like this shouldn't be political.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I didn't want to have a go at you about not being an Ozzie but at least you are fair in your appraisal that both lots leave a lot to be desired with their political poppycock. 

[Thakkar]

On 10/21/2017 at 1:40 PM, pegman said:

It seems to me that in most places it has been legalized it's been by court action. Don't like the chances of it being voted in. 

 

The notion that the majority can decide what rights  a minority should enjoy is fundamentally flawed.

 

Once the following are established:

Consensual adult marriage is a right

Consensual adult sex is a right

Sexual orientation is natural and not illegal

 

Then

What two consenting adults of whatever sexual orientation decide to do that other adults are legally allowed to do as a matter of course, should not be subject to majority approval.

 

In light of current enlightenment, they should automatically have the rights everyone else has and relevant laws (such as regarding joint taxation, spousal benefits, etc) should simply be updated as a matter of course.

[pegman]

On October 22, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Thakkar said:

 

The notion that the majority can decide what rights  a minority should enjoy is fundamentally flawed.

 

Once the following are established:

Consensual adult marriage is a right

Consensual adult sex is a right

Sexual orientation is natural and not illegal

 

Then

What two consenting adults of whatever sexual orientation decide to do that other adults are legally allowed to do as a matter of course, should not be subject to majority approval.

 

In light of current enlightenment, they should automatically have the rights everyone else has and relevant laws (such as regarding joint taxation, spousal benefits, etc) should simply be updated as a matter of course.

Of course you are right but easier said then done. There are few successful politians who went against the moral judgement of a majority of their constituents. To be a successful politician is to not vote for your own electoral suicide. 

[Thechook]

If it does go through how will a hetro couple distinguish their bond from that of a gay couple?  Once the word gay meant happy and was used by all, now it refers the homosexuality.  Will the term marriage become a name for the bond between two men.  People no longer say they are gay unless they are homosexual so will people say they are married if they are heterosexual.

[notmyself]

1 hour ago, Thechook said:

If it does go through how will a hetro couple distinguish their bond from that of a gay couple?

 

You do know what equality means right?

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[notmyself]

Australia will finally catch up with their cousins over the water in New Zealand.

 

 

[Thechook]

3 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

You do know what equality means right?

Yes I do and they deserve to be miserable like heterosexuals but how will we distinguish between gay marriage and normal marriage.  Wi hetro marriages have to find a new name to identify their commitment?  Example, the word gay once belonged to all regardless of sexual preference and meant happy and it now belongs to a group to represent their sexual preference.  The rainbow once belonged to all but is now a symbol of the gay community, this word and symbol identifies who they are.   Heterosexuals will need a word or symbol to identify who they are in a committed relationship.  Are you married, yes oh your heterosexual cut and dried now you will have to dig deeper and ask what type of marriage.  When you meet a new work colleague you may ask are you married and he will say yes and you will say good, bring the missus over on the weekend.  We will have a few beers and the girls can get together.  Oops now you have unintentionally offended him because he has a husband and not a wife.  A name to distinguish between marriages will avoid accidentally offending or humiliating someone.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Thechook

[Trentham]

10 minutes ago, Thechook said:

Yes I do and they deserve to be miserable like heterosexuals but how will we distinguish between gay marriage and normal marriage.  Wi hetro marriages have to find a new name to identify their commitment?  Example, the word gay once belonged to all regardless of sexual preference and meant happy and it now belongs to a group to represent their sexual preference.  The rainbow once belonged to all but is now a symbol of the gay community, this word and symbol identifies who they are.   Heterosexuals will need a word or symbol to identify who they are in a committed relationship.  Are you married, yes oh your heterosexual cut and dried now you will have to dig deeper and ask what type of marriage.  When you meet a new work colleague you may ask are you married and he will say yes and you will say good, bring the missus over on the weekend.  We will have a few beers and the girls can get together.  Oops now you have unintentionally offended him because he has a husband and not a wife.  A name to distinguish between marriages will avoid accidentally offending or humiliating someone.

OH DEAR! The poor heterosexuals might lose a little identity........just like gay people had to hide theirs forever in case they were bashed, abused and ostracised by those heterosexuals.

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, Thechook said:

If it does go through how will a hetro couple distinguish their bond from that of a gay couple?  Once the word gay meant happy and was used by all, now it refers the homosexuality.  Will the term marriage become a name for the bond between two men.  People no longer say they are gay unless they are homosexual so will people say they are married if they are heterosexual.

Do men still call it “voting” after women were given the vote? 

 

You seem upset that gays appropriated ONE word in the English language. You should rather be upset that for years and years gays’ natural inclination was criminalized, for which they were jailed, blackmailed, abused, excommunicated, fired from jobs and were forced to live their lives a lie.

 

Marriage equality is the right thing, and granting it takes nothing away from anyone.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Thechook said:

Yes I do and they deserve to be miserable like heterosexuals but how will we distinguish between gay marriage and normal marriage.  Wi hetro marriages have to find a new name to identify their commitment?  Example, the word gay once belonged to all regardless of sexual preference and meant happy and it now belongs to a group to represent their sexual preference.  The rainbow once belonged to all but is now a symbol of the gay community, this word and symbol identifies who they are.   Heterosexuals will need a word or symbol to identify who they are in a committed relationship.  Are you married, yes oh your heterosexual cut and dried now you will have to dig deeper and ask what type of marriage.  When you meet a new work colleague you may ask are you married and he will say yes and you will say good, bring the missus over on the weekend.  We will have a few beers and the girls can get together.  Oops now you have unintentionally offended him because he has a husband and not a wife.  A name to distinguish between marriages will avoid accidentally offending or humiliating someone.

 

What you said is not fanciful, it is coming, just wait and see what we will get if they get their way and what else they will want.  The world is going crazy, thank goodness I'm in my twilight years.  Why should we change, let them use the word Union, (not good enough) so now they need equality.  Why is it that they want to hijack the word marriage like the other words you have listed? We all know why. Funny, my mum's name was Gay, born 1916 in Ireland.  if she were with us today, would she have to change her name?  God rest her soul, I'd say she would turn in her grave. 

 

Now each to their own but I don't need them to bully me,  tell  me what I can say unless some become offended, nor how to react.  They can live their life, left me live mine, don't offend me and I wont offend them.  Just watch the demise of free speech (happening now in Australia to appease them) and the destruction of the family unit as we know it.

 

All for the sake of equality, which by the way has come to this from firstly, gay marriage, same sex marriage and now the in word "Equality."  Can't make up their mind?  Are they saying that they don't have that now? What part of the definition of that word does not apply to them now? The only thing they want is to destroy what has been cherished for centuries.  Why?  Well if it gets up, we will soon see.  

[notmyself]

4 hours ago, Thechook said:

Yes I do and they deserve to be miserable like heterosexuals but how will we distinguish between gay marriage and normal marriage.  Wi hetro marriages have to find a new name to identify their commitment?  Example, the word gay once belonged to all regardless of sexual preference and meant happy and it now belongs to a group to represent their sexual preference.  The rainbow once belonged to all but is now a symbol of the gay community, this word and symbol identifies who they are.   Heterosexuals will need a word or symbol to identify who they are in a committed relationship.  Are you married, yes oh your heterosexual cut and dried now you will have to dig deeper and ask what type of marriage.  When you meet a new work colleague you may ask are you married and he will say yes and you will say good, bring the missus over on the weekend.  We will have a few beers and the girls can get together.  Oops now you have unintentionally offended him because he has a husband and not a wife.  A name to distinguish between marriages will avoid accidentally offending or humiliating someone.

 

Far out! Do you hold the same view with regard to interracial marriage? If you don't and I hope you don't.... it will be just like that. 

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, Thechook said:

Yes I do and they deserve to be miserable like heterosexuals but how will we distinguish between gay marriage and normal marriage.  Wi hetro marriages have to find a new name to identify their commitment?  Example, the word gay once belonged to all regardless of sexual preference and meant happy and it now belongs to a group to represent their sexual preference.  The rainbow once belonged to all but is now a symbol of the gay community, this word and symbol identifies who they are.   Heterosexuals will need a word or symbol to identify who they are in a committed relationship.  Are you married, yes oh your heterosexual cut and dried now you will have to dig deeper and ask what type of marriage.  When you meet a new work colleague you may ask are you married and he will say yes and you will say good, bring the missus over on the weekend.  We will have a few beers and the girls can get together.  Oops now you have unintentionally offended him because he has a husband and not a wife.  A name to distinguish between marriages will avoid accidentally offending or humiliating someone.

Your post got me curious about the etymology of the word gay - Wikipedia has an interesting article here. 

 

It turns out that the word has had less wholesome connotations for centuries, and was often used to describe female prostitutes and their male clients. It never really became a mainstream term for homosexuals until the mid 20th century, when it was adopted to avoid the use of the more insulting term, homosexual. So, rather than homosexuals stealing a wholesome word from poor, innocent souls as you suggest, they used an already tainted word to avoid societal distaste on the actual term homosexual. But you are correct - it was not sexuality restricted in the past as it is now, but was forced into this use because of societal pressure.

 

And rainbows - previously belonged to everyone and now you bemoan that they are exclusive to the gays? But marriage - you like that that was restricted but now complain that it is open to all? You really are a mass of contradictions, aren't you? 

 

 

[notmyself]

Qantas boss Alan Joyce feted for backing gay marriage

 

Alan Joyce, boss of the Australian airline Qantas, has been named the world's most influential LGBT business executive in an annual listing.

He was chosen for his vocal campaigning in favour of same-sex marriage, an issue Australians are voting on now.

"No one should feel like they need to live a double life," said Mr Joyce.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41755840

 

Arguments against same sex marriage are indefensible which is why people have had to stoop to the slippery slope logical fallacy by stating 'what next?' people will be able to marry a toaster. Really? Marriage is a social bond between two consenting adults... how can a toaster consent? Should I ever be asked to define the word idiocy then I could well give this as an example.

 

If you don't like to eat meat then don't eat it or if you object to using contraceptives then don't use them but don't tell other people they can't eat meat or use contraceptives. Use the same logic for marriage equality.

[Thakkar]

35 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41755840

 

Arguments against same sex marriage are indefensible which is why people have had to stoop to the slippery slope logical fallacy by stating 'what next?' people will be able to marry a toaster. Really? Marriage is a social bond between two consenting adults... how can a toaster consent? Should I ever be asked to define the word idiocy then I could well give this as an example.

 

If you don't like to eat meat then don't eat it or if you object to using contraceptives then don't use them but don't tell other people they can't eat meat or use contraceptives. Use the same logic for marriage equality.

 

The way to understand this is by looking at the ideology of radical Hindus.

 

In Hinduism, the cow is sacred. Hindus will not slaughter one, and certainly not eat one. The radicals object to others slaughtering “their” sacred creature and will protest and even slaughter people who engage in such activity. Apparently other humans are not as sacred as cows.

 

Muslims denying non Muslims the right to draw images of Mohammed is another example.

 

Hence the push by religionists to define marriage as “sacred” 

 

They appropriate the sacredness and then deny any deviation from what they have defined as a man/woman union as a sullying of something sacred to them.

 

Similar arguments have been used throughout history to deny others freedoms, voting rights, land ownership, power and position. As civilization and enlightenment progressed, these arguments, one by one, fell by the wayside.

 

As with all  of the above, this too will fall by the wayside.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Thakkar

[notmyself]

8 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

They appropriate the sacredness and then deny any deviation from what they have defined as a man/woman union as a sullying of something sacred to them.

 

Oh I know where it comes from mate. All the arguments against are entirely religion based as they are for so many other issues such as genital mutilation, honour killing, abortion, evolution, allowing women to vote, interracial marriage, slavery and even climate change denial.