Australia plan for vote on gay marriage hits stumbling block

[Chicog]

Quote

"We should never put questions of human rights to an opinion poll," Greens leader Richard Di Natale said Friday.

But that is exactly what you are doing in a parliamentary vote you dipstick. Only not a truly representative one.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Chicog

[PTC]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Gay men are more sensitive, in general, aren't they? Any evidence disproving that?

 

I have no problem with gay 'marriage'. Good luck to them. But when it comes to bringing up children, a father/mother system is surely best, for commonsensical reasons, such as the exposure to a variety of influences and modes of social interaction.

 

Society is already becoming over-sensitive. It is hardly possible to have a proper discussion any more - people fly into a neurotic rage at having their world-view challenged, as the nature of your post shows.

If society gets any more sensitive it will become effete, and there will be all sorts of harmful consequences - psychological problems will become more common, more young people will be killing themselves etc. The snowflake generation is already displaying these symptoms. 

 

Such a ham-fisted attempt to bait.

 

You are the one that alleges gay men are sensitive. Prove it.

 

You are the one who claims same sex parenting is inferior to opposite sex parenting. Prove it.

 

Take your ludicrous claims to be having a proper discussion and shove it in the same place you keep your bigotry. There are plenty of gay men who would wipe the floor with you and your silly notions of effeteness. Such rubbish demonstrates your real purpose in posting on these types of threads.

[PTC]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're polite enough I suppose, but you're arguing against equal civil rights for gay Australians. So I can't ever respect that any more than I could ever respect bigots using polite reason to argue against equal civil rights based on race, etc.

 

As far as accepting results. Well, I can assure you that the people fighting for marriage equality in Australia will never accept any result as final until the victory is won. Why is that so hard to understand? This is a CIVIL RIGHTS struggle. You win when you win, no matter how long it takes. 

 

Please don't be fooled. It is entirely an act. It is classic reactionary, homophobic bigotry dressed up in some bogus claim of people's democratic rights and claims to Australian values.

 

True Australian values respect diversity. People who emigrate to Australia are required to acknowledge these values https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Life/Aust/Values-statement/living-in-australia-values-statement-long You will see no mention of this in this particular Poster's posting history.

 

This bogus claim of removing democratic rights by not putting the issue to the 'people' is mere political maneuvering in the same way everyone on both sides of the issue are doing. Former Prime Minister Howard, one of the reactionary old turds the Australians were burdened with arranged a changed in law to satisfy the other reactionary old turds. Arguing against the plebiscite on 'democratic' grounds or cost grounds is just a political maneuver.

 

Most Australians are fair and tolerant but there is a core of reactionary, conservative hard liners that are white, racist and bigoted. There have always been such. They existed at Federation in 1901 when they passed legislation to prevent Chinese from entering the country. They existed after WWII when there was a huge influx of Southern European people emigrating to the country. They existed in the 70's when the Vietnamese boat people came. They existed in the 80's when the Khmer came. They existed and were wrangled by Howard and his cronies when the Muslims started coming in boats.

 

You have been engaging with one of these people. The politeness is feigned. The first post on this subject demonstrates this quite clearly. This thinking represents the Old Australia. New Australia rejects this completely. That, however, doesn't mean that the plebiscite will reflect this. What happened with Brexit could easily happen with this issue.

[Jingthing]

I was not fooled. 

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're polite enough I suppose, but you're arguing against equal civil rights for gay Australians. So I can't ever respect that any more than I could ever respect bigots using polite reason to argue against equal civil rights based on race, etc.

 

As far as accepting results. Well, I can assure you that the people fighting for marriage equality in Australia will never accept any result as final until the victory is won. Why is that so hard to understand? This is a CIVIL RIGHTS struggle. You win when you win, no matter how long it takes. 

 

Gone from marriage equality to civil rights?  Before you said you were only interested in equality on marriage, now you are expanding into what with bringing in civil rights?  And there is no need to yell it at me, (Capitals) just calm down, you could give yourself an aneurism.  Civil rights is a broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, not Australia, and that is the country we are discussing.

 

In Australia we have Human Rights, which is safeguarded by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is an independent judiciary,  and the High Court, who implements the common law.  There are many aspects that it deals with but as it appears you're not Australian, I won't bore you further. However, just for your information you should know that Australia is the only democratic country in the world without a national bill of rights of some kind. 

 

Now bringing this into the discussion, together with your reference to bigots and race is a whole new ball game and a deflection  Please don't deflect by bringing these terms into the discussion or are you, like others who do, do so in order to shut down debate.  You win when you win, no matter how long it takes?  Does that not equally apply to those opposing your and the gay lobby's view.

 

I don't think I am arguing per say against any rights for gays, just putting forward what has been promised by our government.  I have already said, that if the population is given the vote, as stated, then whatever the result, not only I but the population will accept the will of the people.  So if it goes against you, t's sour grapes and you will refuse to accept the will of the people. What are you frightened of about allowing the people to vote.  I thought the polls showed the "Yes" vote winning.

 

But if you're not an Aussie, then you really have no say, do you?  And if the gay lobby cannot accept the ruling of the referee then it is clearly another attempt by some to destroy democracy in our country.  Won't happen, I can assure you.  Please tell everyone why you and the gay lobby are not prepared to accept the will of the people if it the vote goes against them? 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Wrong.

The gay rights movement is international and has been for many decades now.

Gay activists are very interested in the legal CIVIL RIGHTS situation for gay people in all countries.

That's powerful.

In some nations that's about protesting the death penalty for gays, and in others it's about support for marriage equality, and lots of room in between. 

I'm not an Aussie. Correct. You're not an American but you seem quite interested in defending the American right wing fascist with the horribly anti-gay vice presidential nominee Pence quite regularly, so give us a break.

Civil rights ... human rights ... splitting semantic hairs, dude.

Australia is a very advanced nation.

It's not Uganda.

That's why I have every confidence that Australia will enter the marriage equality club, sooner or later, and any setbacks that may be suffered will be OVERCOME later.

I'm really that confident.

One major reason for that is I don't believe in the fullness of time that Australians are going to accept being behind the U.K. and the U.S.A. on this issue, and they shouldn't. Yes it's a sovereign nation obviously but comparisons are made. 

Similarly, I think when countries like Cambodia and Vietnam move towards marriage equality, Thailand will feel more pressure to join the club as well. 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[PTC]

33 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Gone from marriage equality to civil rights?  Before you said you were only interested in equality on marriage, now you are expanding into what with bringing in civil rights?  And there is no need to yell it at me, (Capitals) just calm down, you could give yourself an aneurism.  Civil rights is a broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, not Australia, and that is the country we are discussing.

 

In Australia we have Human Rights, which is safeguarded by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is an independent judiciary,  and the High Court, who implements the common law.  There are many aspects that it deals with but as it appears you're not Australian, I won't bore you further. However, just for your information you should know that Australia is the only democratic country in the world without a national bill of rights of some kind. 

 

Now bringing this into the discussion, together with your reference to bigots and race is a whole new ball game and a deflection  Please don't deflect by bringing these terms into the discussion or are you, like others who do, do so in order to shut down debate.  You win when you win, no matter how long it takes?  Does that not equally apply to those opposing your and the gay lobby's view.

 

I don't think I am arguing per say against any rights for gays, just putting forward what has been promised by our government.  I have already said, that if the population is given the vote, as stated, then whatever the result, not only I but the population will accept the will of the people.  So if it goes against you, t's sour grapes and you will refuse to accept the will of the people. What are you frightened of about allowing the people to vote.  I thought the polls showed the "Yes" vote winning.

 

But if you're not an Aussie, then you really have no say, do you?  And if the gay lobby cannot accept the ruling of the referee then it is clearly another attempt by some to destroy democracy in our country.  Won't happen, I can assure you.  Please tell everyone why you and the gay lobby are not prepared to accept the will of the people if it the vote goes against them? 

 

 

 

There are two core issues that you attempt to promote with your feigned reasonableness. One concerns the Australian civil liberties framework while the other concerns what you call Gay Rights.

 

On the first, you are factually incorrect. Australia is not the only liberal democracy without a declaration of what you refer to as civil rights. The United Kingdom does not have a Bill of Rights, at least one more recent than 1689. On the website of the agency that you reference, the Australian Human Rights Commission says that 

 

"Australia has no Bill of Rights to protect human rights in a single document. Rather rights may be found in the Constitution, common law and legislation - Acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments." https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law. The Commission is not an independent judiciary but is empowered by several Acts relating to anti-discrimination, one of the key ones being the Racial Discrimination Act passed by the Whitlam Government in 1975. The AHRC references state legislation as also contributing to the Human Rights framework in Australia. I will specifically identify the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of South Australia from 1984 which was one of the first pieces of legislation to make it an offense to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. This starts the introduction of protections for LGBT people that are now accepted as common in Australian society.

The marginalization of LGBT people was done by Howard to satisfy his Right Wing cronies as a political maneuver. It had nothing to do with the process of legislating legal rights and protections. Any argument against LGBT protections on Constitutional or Legal grounds is entirely meritless and is clearly a smokescreen for your attempted obscuration of your personal bias.

The second issue poses a hypothetical of what would the 'Gay Lobby' do if they lost the plebiscite. Your smokescreen is transparent. LGBT rights are Human Rights. LGBT rights are Civil Rights. Marriage Equality is a Human Right. You claim no connection between the two - clearly a self serving argument. You claim the authority to be consulted on another person's rights as part of the democratic process. Who are you to assume that authority?

"The idea that a majority of voters get to define the rights of a minority of people is repugnant to the concept that all men are created equal. It is repugnant to the concept that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. I do not care what majority or minority I happen to be in today; I reject the idea that my rights are up for vote." https://ljsj.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/rights-are-not-for-popular-vote/

Your proposal is repugnant to far greater minds than you. You are not defending democracy. You are advocating for the right to deny others the right to dignity and equality under the law. Should the 'Gay Lobby' accept defeat at the plebiscite? Should LGBT people be denied dignity and equality under the law because there exists a numerically larger number of bigots at one point of time in history? Of course not. The political maneuvering of the Right to cover their backsides and attempt to manipulate a clear issue of social justice is repugnant. As is your defense of it. Nobody is fooled by the simpering style of these posts.

[Si Thea01]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Wrong.

The gay rights movement is international and has been for many decades now.

Gay activists are very interested in the legal CIVIL RIGHTS situation for gay people in all countries.

That's powerful.

In some nations that's about protesting the death penalty for gays, and in others it's about support for marriage equality, and lots of room in between. 

I'm not an Aussie. Correct. You're not an American but you seem quite interested in defending the American right wing fascist with the horribly anti-gay vice presidential nominee Pence quite regularly, so give us a break.

Civil rights ... human rights ... splitting semantic hairs, dude.

Australia is a very advanced nation.

It's not Uganda.

That's why I have every confidence that Australia will enter the marriage equality club, sooner or later, and any setbacks that may be suffered will be OVERCOME later.

I'm really that confident.

One major reason for that is I don't believe in the fullness of time that Australians are going to accept being behind the U.K. and the U.S.A. on this issue, and they shouldn't. Yes it's a sovereign nation obviously but comparisons are made. 

Similarly, I think when countries like Cambodia and Vietnam move towards marriage equality, Thailand will feel more pressure to join the club as well. 

 

 

 

Still avoiding the question.  Why not have a plebiscite? If it goes the gay way, Australians will abide by the result.  If it goes the other, the gay lobby will not.  Fair and equitable, true diversity, doesn't appear that way. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Still avoiding the question.  Why not have a plebiscite? If it goes the gay way, Australians will abide by the result.  If it goes the other, the gay lobby will not.  Fair and equitable, true diversity, doesn't appear that way. 

I'll leave those kinds of tactical decisions to the Australians.

I've already acknowledged I'm not interested in discussing the micro level about this, so STOP baiting me. 

I'm for whatever the best tactic is for marriage equality to win in the shortest possible time in Australia, with the least risk of long term damage in case of a setback.

Each country has to deal with these social change issues within the structures of their nation's system.

I'm just saying the big picture here is that whatever the structure of the Australian political system, it seems obvious to me (as it did in the U.S. starting about 10 years ago) that it's only a matter of time until Australia has marriage equality. Whether that's this year or 50 years from now, I don't know.

But I would bet pretty certain within 10 years.

In any case, those opposing this are on the wrong side of history. 

Obviously, I wouldn't say that for all or most nations. But Australia seems a no brainer. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[jak2002003]

12 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I see your last effort got kicked off before I was able to respond.  Not interested in the stupidity that you are looking for an answer to but if I may ask, why are you so touchy about the subject?  Marriage, I was brought up that this was between a man and a woman, not what is written into any act.  That is my belief, has nothing to do with gay hate, religion or anything else, just what my parents instilled in me.

It did not get 'kicked off'.  It was removed because I put the replies in the quotation boxes.. my mistake... and it makes it hard for people to understand.

Quote

 

Gay people, back in those days appeared to have been content to be in a union, they never whined or carried on like many do today.  If they weren't happy then don't you think that this matter would have been brought up in the papers, on the news  and dealt with many years ago.  But it wasn't so, why the need now,? 

How do you know that they were 'content'? I already explained to you why... becuae gay people were made to feel ashamed of themselves, and were persecuted, and even jailed for being gay.. so how could they be in the position to start asking if they were allowed to get married?

Quote

 

Why do you find the need to refer to it as gay marriage?  Why not just marriage, if that's what you want?  Your last question is just plain hyperbole, look at the number of defacto couples in the world, who are in love but do not find the need for the little piece of paper that has marriage written on it.  They are content with their union and the legalities that are afforded to them, much of which is also afforded those in the unions that you are not obviously happy with.

How can I call it 'just marriage' when you say gay people should not be allowed to marry?  You are referring to marriage for only straight people.  

Quote

 

Really, I find it hard to understand why people like you protest so much, all you are doing is dividing.  It would be much easier and more acceptable if you debated the subject and not attacked the person but given you appear to be an activist for the cause, that might be hard to do. 

I don't protest so much as you!  I only replied to 2 of your posts!  You have been arguing you point for many posters and won't leave it alone.  You are the one dividing people.. I am for equality for everyone regardless of sexuality.. you are saying gays should not be allowed to marry.  You are an activist for opposing gay marriage.  I say anyone can marry.  You are dividing people by excluding gays from the right to get married. 

Quote

 

Ever thought,  that if you were civil in you responses instead of denigrating everyone who has a different opinion, then maybe want you want will come.  But until you learn that civility costs nothing,  you stop the name calling and the constant berating and ridiculing of people, who have a different opinion, then what you are looking for may linger in the wilderness for some time. if you're not happy with you lot, then maybe you should go to another country where this has been allowed and there you can live in total contentment. 

How have I been uncivil?

 

Who have I degraded?

 

What name have I called you or anyone?

 

I am gay and I am married. and I am very content with that. 

 

Are you saying gays in your country should be kicked out if they want to marry the person they love and have the same rights are straight people?

 

You never answered any of my questions.  I just want to know you real resson why you thing gay people should not be allowed to marry the person they love?

 

What if you met someone you loved.. who loved you too... but you were told you could not marry.. and gave you no reason as to why?

 

What if your son or daughter wanted to marry someone of the same sex.. you would tell them no? 

 

What if you met another guy and fell in love.. and they wanted to marry you?  Put yourself in others shoes....

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by jak2002003

[JJGreen]

Marriage is Between Two people of the opposite gender,Not same gender ,They never should be Allowed to have children,,,because they will grow up in the wrong environment.Children must grow up with a Father & Mother.

Some days this forum feels like the 1950s

[jak2002003]

4 minutes ago, JJGreen said:

Some days this forum feels like the 1950s

Yes.... and perhaps that poster would also say blacks and whites or other mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry!

 

And what is the wrong environment?  Does he think all straight people raising kinds are perfect? 

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Yes.... and perhaps that poster would also say blacks and whites or other mixed race couples should not be allowed to marry!

 

 

 

My guess is that, if they were of opposite sexes, he would not have a problem with that.

[Neurath]

8 hours ago, PTC said:

 

Such a ham-fisted attempt to bait.

 

You are the one that alleges gay men are sensitive. Prove it.

 

You are the one who claims same sex parenting is inferior to opposite sex parenting. Prove it.

 

Take your ludicrous claims to be having a proper discussion and shove it in the same place you keep your bigotry. There are plenty of gay men who would wipe the floor with you and your silly notions of effeteness. Such rubbish demonstrates your real purpose in posting on these types of threads.

The post to which you were replying is an absolute pearler! Gay men are sensitive. Letting sensitive people marry will make society more 'effete'. An effete society is a problem. Now this is wrong, just plain wrong and I'll tell you why it's wrong. The problem isn't with sensitive gay men marrying other sensitive gay men and bringing up sensitive children and making society effete. No it is not. Problem is with masturbators getting married each to each then raising a tribe of w_ _ kers It's particularly problematic when these w_ _ kers flock together and make nonsensical remarks about gays getting married. I want a plebiscite on w_ _ ker Marriage. Should never be allowed.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Neurath
mistype

[ddavidovsky]

12 hours ago, PTC said:

 

Such a ham-fisted attempt to bait.

 

You are the one that alleges gay men are sensitive. Prove it.

 

You are the one who claims same sex parenting is inferior to opposite sex parenting. Prove it.

 

Take your ludicrous claims to be having a proper discussion and shove it in the same place you keep your bigotry. There are plenty of gay men who would wipe the floor with you and your silly notions of effeteness. Such rubbish demonstrates your real purpose in posting on these types of threads.

 

I am willing to be persuaded, but you'll have to present a better argument than that. In fact, you haven't presented any argument at all.

 

My assertions are basically commonsensical - meaning the evidence is everywhere. Are gays more sensitive? Look at the disproportionate number and quality of gay poets. The list is endless. Or compare the output of a random selection of gay film directors with that of a random seletion of non-gays. Their output is characteristically full of nuanced psychology and feeling. I don't think you can sensibly deny it. There are always a few exceptions, but the general principle holds.

 

To repeat: I have no problem with gay unions. I'm about the most pro-gay non-gay I know. If anything, I am prejudiced in their favour.  I have vast respect and admiration for their achievements. I will go further and say that gays have been crucial to the social and intellectual development of the human species, which explains the apparant paradox that evolution selects for gayness. I don't think even Richard Dawkins has realised that yet.

 

However, I try to be objective in all things. and I still believe that a father-mother situation is the ideal scenario for child-rearing, which is simply mainstream scientific opinion (I'm no professional, but for what it's worth, I did study the sociological aspects of child-rearing at degree level). I also believe that society is becoming too sensitised, based on simple observation, plus all the reports I keep seeing that young people are suffering an increasing amount of psychological problems - stress, low self-esteem, suicidal feelings, etc.

It's a subtle issue and I think at least we should be wary of changing the dynamics of society so significantly, so quickly. As I always say: change should limited to the rate at which its effects can be adequately managed.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Gay rights equal to everyone else's rights were enshrined in a series of amendments to 50+ Acts of Parliament in 2008 so my Aussie mates tell me. The one and only thing remaining, they say, is the piece of paper from the government registering a marriage. I guess if people think that's worth fighting for ....

 

I don't

[PTC]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I am willing to be persuaded, but you'll have to present a better argument than that. In fact, you haven't presented any argument at all.

 

My assertions are basically commonsensical - meaning the evidence is everywhere. Are gays more sensitive? Look at the disproportionate number and quality of gay poets. The list is endless. Or compare the output of a random selection of gay film directors with that of a random seletion of non-gays. Their output is characteristically full of nuanced psychology and feeling. I don't think you can sensibly deny it. There are always a few exceptions, but the general principle holds.

 

To repeat: I have no problem with gay unions. I'm about the most pro-gay non-gay I know. If anything, I am prejudiced in their favour.  I have vast respect and admiration for their achievements. I will go further and say that gays have been crucial to the social and intellectual development of the human species, which explains the apparant paradox that evolution selects for gayness. I don't think even Richard Dawkins has realised that yet.

 

However, I try to be objective in all things. and I still believe that a father-mother situation is the ideal scenario for child-rearing, which is simply mainstream scientific opinion (I'm no professional, but for what it's worth, I did study the sociological aspects of child-rearing at degree level). I also believe that society is becoming too sensitised, based on simple observation, plus all the reports I keep seeing that young people are suffering an increasing amount of psychological problems - stress, low self-esteem, suicidal feelings, etc.

It's a subtle issue and I think at least we should be wary of changing the dynamics of society so significantly, so quickly. As I always say: change should limited to the rate at which its effects can be adequately managed.

 

Please continue repeating yourself as much as you wish. I am not debating you. I have no need to present any arguments. I merely point out that since you are making these absurd propositions regarding the stereotyping of gay men, it is your responsibility to provide some justification, reason or proof of your allegations. That's the way its done. Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbent Probatio. http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affirmati-non-neganti-incumbit-probatio/

 

The only acknowledgement to your burden of proof is some vague, wishy-washy, undefined claim to 'commonsense'. Well this sense is certainly common. Common in its ignorance. Common in its lack of rationale. Common in its bigotry. Appeals to common sense may be appropriate in practical matters but as a self proclaimed student of sociology, it should be plainly evident that in the matter of civil rights and equality, it is a self serving, subjective and irrelevant attempt at justifying an unjustifiable position.

 

If you have studied sociology at 'degree level' which I assume is one course in some undergraduate program, then you should be able to provide some inkling of academic argument or empirical data to justify your silly claims about which 'situation' is better for child rearing. You do not. So either you are falsifying your academic abilities or such data does not exist.

 

This is not a change management issue. Your inability to process change should not be the determinant of who receives equal rights.

 

Turnbull's weakness has been demonstrated in the House. The Government may not survive the full term of its mandate. Real Politik is the determinant for the present state of the issue of marriage equality as it has been for at least a decade. Your positions on this issue are entirely marginal, so much so that you are not able to provide anything to support them beyond subjective, prejudiced and discredited opinion.

 

[Neurath]

22 hours ago, PTC said:

 

Please don't be fooled. It is entirely an act. It is classic reactionary, homophobic bigotry dressed up in some bogus claim of people's democratic rights and claims to Australian values.

 

True Australian values respect diversity. People who emigrate to Australia are required to acknowledge these values https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Life/Aust/Values-statement/living-in-australia-values-statement-long You will see no mention of this in this particular Poster's posting history.

 

This bogus claim of removing democratic rights by not putting the issue to the 'people' is mere political maneuvering in the same way everyone on both sides of the issue are doing. Former Prime Minister Howard, one of the reactionary old turds the Australians were burdened with arranged a changed in law to satisfy the other reactionary old turds. Arguing against the plebiscite on 'democratic' grounds or cost grounds is just a political maneuver.

 

Most Australians are fair and tolerant but there is a core of reactionary, conservative hard liners that are white, racist and bigoted. There have always been such. They existed at Federation in 1901 when they passed legislation to prevent Chinese from entering the country. They existed after WWII when there was a huge influx of Southern European people emigrating to the country. They existed in the 70's when the Vietnamese boat people came. They existed in the 80's when the Khmer came. They existed and were wrangled by Howard and his cronies when the Muslims started coming in boats.

 

You have been engaging with one of these people. The politeness is feigned. The first post on this subject demonstrates this quite clearly. This thinking represents the Old Australia. New Australia rejects this completely. That, however, doesn't mean that the plebiscite will reflect this. What happened with Brexit could easily happen with this issue.

This is so well written I've read it three times. Extraordinarily well put.