Fucking stupid people shouldn't be in Parliament

[brenden]

I laughed for a moderate time at those two comments.

[ninwa]

[enwiabe]

I simply cannot respect people who do not want homosexuals to have equal marriage rights. It says to me one of 3 things:

1) You're uneducated.
2) You're a bigot.
3) Both.

[Eriny]

Cory Bernardi isn't the only evil person in parliament: http://clementineford.tumblr.com/post/31909708502

[EvangelionZeta]

If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well?  I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.

Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.

It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKJmtMbfOsw&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s

[charmanderp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE I couldn't resist.

[ninwa]

Cory Bernardi isn't the only evil person in parliament: http://clementineford.tumblr.com/post/31909708502

Yep

I remain unconvinced that it is unjust discrimination to foster stable, biological parenting as a social norm.

It disconnects from the issue that male-to-female married relationships are different from other kinds of relationships, sexual or non-sexual, and it disconnects from the issue that marriage deserves its unique legal and cultural status because it is based on real differences between marriage and other relationships.

I reject the suggestion of marriage equality. Marriage equality has been a slogan; it has been a campaign.

Retention of the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is also about protecting the rights of the silent majority ... I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship, which begs the question: why do they want to get 'married'? The chattering classes do not want to concede that, by amending the Marriage Act, they are in fact denying the rights of the silent majority who want to uphold the sanctity and true meaning of marriage and who want to keep some tradition going in a world that seems to be forever throwing out the old and bringing in the new ... Same-sex marriage is a 10th order issue.

I especially love the "I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship, which begs the question: why do they want to get 'married'?"... quality politics

[thushan]

Holy crap, just read the Hansard in the least link you gave me. That woman is a bigot. "we have better things to do than to argue about gay marriage." Yeah, all the more reason to just pass the damn bill and move on. "the silent majority" blah blah. Oh yeah, that woman should put her neck where her mouth is and call for a referendum if she thinks the majority are against gay marriage. that said I would hope that the Australian population would have more sense than this imbecile.

Question though. Am I right in saying that marriage does not need to be validated by a priest out any other religious figure? If this is the case then this woman's argument regarding churches bring forced to renounce their values and conduct homosexual marriages is a moot point.

[paulsterio]

I don't think it's fair to call Senator Bernardi stupid, in my eyes, he made a valid point.

We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept, it's not something which is natural, it is a man-made concept. Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be. Some will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who are not related, a union between two consenting people who are not related, a union between n consenting people...etc. So this links back to aabatery's argument, that disagreement and discrimination are two different things.

Someone who defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not necessarily discriminate against those who are gay. For example, one of my teachers last year (we had this debate in class), believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights, he might just have a different definition of marriage to some others, who then might label him as a bigot, while he's really not.

Anecdote aside, I think this raises three views to the situation:

1) Marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related...etc. anything else should be called something different
2) Marriage is between any number of consenting people (or even animals), regardless of other factors
3) Those who are in between

The truth, in my opinion, is that most people fall into those who are in between and the the issue with that is, there's obviously SOMETHING which has made them move from group (1) closer to group (2). What Senator Bernardi is merely saying is that this could be an issue because that means that OTHER THINGS could possibly move them even MORE closer to group (2) - leading to things such as incest and marriage to animals...etc.

That doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, nor does that make him stupid, he hasn't said anything that is clearly discriminatory, he merely disagrees with those who wish to change the definition of marriage and he has every right to, especially in a country where we should be allowed to express our honest views.

[enwiabe]

We have to remember that marriage is an arbitrary concept

...

Thus, by nature, marriage is what we, ourselves, define it to be.

And by excluding homosexuals from it, you are a bigot. End of story.

believed that a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union

Yes, that's called treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. "You want to get married? Oh no you can't. Your love is different. It's not on the same level of heterosexuals. You'll just have to be happy with a civil union. Only heterosexual couples get marriages."

Equal marriage rights is about treating homosexuals as PEOPLE rather than second-class citizens.

[Russ]

union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and a union between two of the same gender should be called a civil union. He agrees that under law, they should be given the same rights, but they should be called different things. Now, I don't think that's discriminatory, because he has clearly stated, that they should be given the same rights

Separate but Equal eh?

[brenden]

Holy crap, just read the Hansard in the least link you gave me. That woman is a bigot. "we have better things to do than to argue about gay marriage." Yeah, all the more reason to just pass the damn bill and move on. "the silent majority" blah blah. Oh yeah, that woman should put her neck where her mouth is and call for a referendum if she thinks the majority are against gay marriage. that said I would hope that the Australian population would have more sense than this imbecile.

Question though. Am I right in saying that marriage does not need to be validated by a priest out any other religious figure? If this is the case then this woman's argument regarding churches bring forced to renounce their values and conduct homosexual marriages is a moot point.

She should put her neck where her mouth is. It wouldn't be with a referendum though Thush - that's for changing the Constitution.
And yeah you're right in saying that. I love the sanctity of marriage argument. Just a few months ago my bogan Dad got married by a civil celebrant. There was a certain irony when she (the celebrant) said "...to the exclusion of all others, entered into for life" - they'd both broken that vow before LOL.

[paulsterio]

Yes, that's called treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. "You want to get married? Oh no you can't. Your love is different. It's not on the same level of heterosexuals. You'll just have to be happy with a civil union. Only heterosexual couples get marriages."

Equal marriage rights is about treating homosexuals as PEOPLE rather than second-class citizens.

I don't think that's the case, it's not a segregation into first class and second class, like an apartheid, it's not even saying that their "love" is different to hetrosexual "love". It's a matter of definition. So rather than calling it "marriage" and "civil union", how about we just call them "same sex unions" and "opposite sex unions" - we're not saying that saying that "same sex unions" are above "opposite sex unions" - we are just saying that they are two different things. I think it's exactly the same, but just calling "opposite sex unions" marriage for convenience more than anything else.

[Truck]

Two things;

Firstly, I don't understand the argument where "Homosexuals = worse parents then heterosexuals". Homosexuals would be forced to adopt, which means they'd be taking kids from orphanages etc... and homosexual parents are most certainly better then growing up in an orphanage. So I think the point is moot? Unless we're talking about IVF or something with a woman carrying a homosexual couples child, which is something that is imo more private and the state can't have much to do with, which renders this whole argument rather useless in my opinion. The day when we have enough heterosexual couples to care after every child in the world, is the day homosexual parents would (ignoring IVF in this instance) be unable to obtain children, so as far as I'm concerned they present a perfectly good solution to todays problems.

On the next issue @Paul, the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed because we draw the line at *consenting adults*. That is not an optional line people can take, it is immoral to have relations with children/animals because they cannot legally consent. Should polygamy be legal? Probably, in my opinion, yes. For as long as marriage is offered by the state, the state has no right to discriminate on the consenting adults it allows to marry. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques - they are private institutions and it is for those private institutions to decide on who they choose to marry or not - an orthodox synagogue will not marry a jew and a non-jew, and it is nobodys business (except for its constituents) to tell them that they should. However, for so long as the government offers marriage to citizens, it must do so to all citizens because the government CANNOT discriminate - it, by definition, should be impartial and uphold the rights of every citizen, irrespective of race, religion or gender.

[brenden]

Well... a union is the same thing.

Edit: If we insist on labeling irrelevant differences whilst providing the same legal rights, should we also separate the current definition of marriage into a classification system, Paul? We could have "interracial unions" and "same-colour unions". We wouldn't say that "same-colour unions" are above "interracial unions" - we would just say that they are two different things. But maybe we could call "same-colour unions" marriage for more convenience.