Fucking stupid people shouldn't be in Parliament

[Russ]

Really? where does this majority come from? i was under the impression that the majority of Australians supported gay marriage, at least overtly anyway.

Representative democracy means that you elect MPs to represent you and trust them to do in the way they see fit. So just because the majority want something, doesn't mean it will happen

Those results pose an interesting question: Would it be right for Labor not to allow a conscience vote, and force them to vote for the bill, coming a lot closer to winning than they did, or allow a conscience vote for all their members, thus losing by a wide margin?

Forcing members to vote and losing is a bad political prospect, they would only do it when they were sure they had the numbers

[Soul_Khan]

Ah politicians.. always a good source of entertainment.

[Special At Specialist]

If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job. It's funny how just one poor choice of words (even if entirely accidental) can lose someone a job and cause millions to hate on them.

I can see what he was trying to say. We start by legalising gay marriage, then people will demand for 3 way marriages and 4 way marriages to be legal, then incestual relationships, and eventually bestiality.

Having said that, I don't think that it is a sufficient argument against gay marriage. By taking something like this to the extreme level, it is really not drawing true justice to the system. It is basically saying "if we don't draw the line here, then the line will not exist!", when in actuality, we can easily choose to draw the line somewhere after the legalisation of gay marriage.

I am disappointed with Greg Hunt (the MP of my local area). I really thought that he would support something like this. My respect for him has just been lowered significantly.

Infact, I am disappointed with Australia as a whole. We are supposed to be a secular society, so why are we letting religious fuckwits like this ruin our global reputation? There is no good, rational, secular argument against gay marriage. It's all the brainwashed, theistic retards that want this to be illegal just so that they can keep their conservative "tradition".

Gay marriage is inevitable. It WILL be legalised one day. So rather than delay the inevitable and make our generation look like intolerant bastards, why don't we just legalise it now and get this whole issue over and done with?

[Soul_Khan]

If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job. It's funny how just one poor choice of words (even if entirely accidental) can lose someone a job and cause millions to hate on them.

I can see what he was trying to say. We start by legalising gay marriage, then people will demand for 3 way marriages and 4 way marriages to be legal, then incestual relationships, and eventually bestiality.

Having said that, I don't think that it is a sufficient argument against gay marriage. By taking something like this to the extreme level, it is really not drawing true justice to the system. It is basically saying "if we don't draw the line here, then the line will not exist!", when in actuality, we can easily choose to draw the line somewhere after the legalisation of gay marriage.

I am disappointed with Greg Hunt (the MP of my local area). I really thought that he would support something like this. My respect for him has just been lowered significantly.

Infact, I am disappointed with Australia as a whole. We are supposed to be a secular society, so why are we letting religious fuckwits like this ruin our global reputation? There is no good, rational, secular argument against gay marriage. It's all the brainwashed, theistic retards that want this to be illegal just so that they can keep their conservative "tradition".

Gay marriage is inevitable. It WILL be legalised one day. So rather than delay the inevitable and make our generation look like intolerant bastards, why don't we just legalise it now and get this whole issue over and done with?

Politician: Marriage is between a man and a woman: therefore your argument is invalid.

[JellyDonut]

If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.

umm

[Special At Specialist]

If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.

umm

Although both of them are considered quite taboo, at least incest involves two humans consenting to each other, so it is more relatable to gay marriage than a human and an animal.

[Soul_Khan]

If the word "bestiality" was replaced with "incest", perhaps he would have kept his job.

umm

Although both of them are considered quite taboo, at least incest involves two humans consenting to each other, so it is more relatable to gay marriage than a human and an animal.

The fact that we are even discussing this shows how stupid anti-gay arguments are in general.. ffs.

[aabattery]

I believe that there is a difference between 'disagreeing' and 'discriminating'.

To disagree means simply to have or express a different opinion.
To discriminate means to actively take prejudicial action against someone on the basis of a disagreement.

On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle, just like I disagree with a lot of things that my friends do - and that does include disagreements with their 'identity'. They are still my friends though because we have common grounds through other things.
That being said, I do not discriminate between my friends who are gay and my friends who are straight. I treat them exactly the same - and I would hope this is through kindness and mutual trust.

However, on a broader level - ie. legislating against gay marriage/debates in Parliament - I can see how the line between 'disagreement' and 'discrimination' blurs - hence EZ's earlier argument - as MPs' personal opinions are implemented into laws that affect everyone in the community. MPs are put into the very public situation where their personal opinions against the 'politically correct' view are forced to become discriminatory - because their role is to make laws for the community.

That being said, MPs theoretically should always represent the majority view of their constituency, the majority vote should always be upheld and minority groups should always have the right to express their opinions.

Hope that makes sense.

Again, a reasonable tone and gentleness is likely to come across better than hitting them on the head with a hammer; it's the same thing as teaching.

As has been said previously by EZ, caution and care is needed when expressing views or even trying to present reasons for a particular view as EZ calmly did. In such a topic, I believe it is very easy to become emotionally charged - hence the unfair, prejudicial comments of the MP re 'bestiality'.

Expressing opinions and the reasons for those opinions is definitely important. But it is equally important to respect the views of others.

Obviously, this is really idealistic. Depending upon the person, it mostly works on a personal level. However, such mutual respect probably will never be achieved on a broad level, because unfortunately there is always one party that crosses the line between respectfully disagreeing and blatant prejudice, and hence the inevitable retaliation that follows.

[nisha]

Oh man, I don't know who to vote for next year.

[ninwa]

On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle

Why?

[paulsterio]

What do you mean by "gay lifestyle" - I have a gay friend who has exactly the same lifestyle as everyone else does?

[Mao]

The part I don't understand is, why is this such a big issue in media?

Bernadi used a slippery slope argument, and a valid one at that. Sure, the comparison is a bit ridiculous, that's the point of a slippery slope argument. We all know that the slippery slope argument is fallacious, so dismiss it as such using proper logic. Why the sensational hype?

I will happily compare homosexuality to beastiality or incest or whatever taboo you want to think of. Just because I can make a comparison does not mean I think the two are alike.

The fact that Bernadi quit over this issue is a reflection of the triviality of the Australian Parliament. I would imagine policy makers would debate ideas logically and objectively, duke it out, and make a decision. Instead, they poke a stick at each other until the other side pisses off the most number of journalists.

[lynt.br]

Interestingly my stance on this issue has gone the other way than usual - from supporting amending the definition of marriage to believing civil unions are the most appropriate compromise.

I think comparisons with incest/polygamy and animal marriage are relevant in that they highlight how difficult it is to identify a rationale for why gay marriage specifically should be legalised and not any of these other scenarios. This is problematic given it is the side proposing the change that needs to justify it.

Animal marriage and gay marriage are obviously different in that one involves consensual adults and the other doesn't, but if you are saying that is the rationale for why gay marriage should be legalised and animal marriage not, you are implicitly restricting marriage to between consenting humans. I have trouble seeing how this is any different from restricting marriage to between humans of opposite gender, in both cases you are placing restrictions of some kind on the scope of the word 'marriage'.

The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...

Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.

I'm open to having any of these ideas challenged though
(provided you don't just yell at me and call me a crazy religious bigot)

[Mao]

The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...

Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.

Thank you for posting this. I also share this view.

[ninwa]

I think comparisons with incest/polygamy and animal marriage are relevant in that they highlight how difficult it is to identify a rationale for why gay marriage specifically should be legalised and not any of these other scenarios. This is problematic given it is the side proposing the change that needs to justify it.

Are you arguing that because the focus is currently on gay marriage and not on, for example, incestuous marriages, that the fight for gay marriage equality is invalid? What I'm getting from your statement is that because the focus is on one type of union to the exclusion of everything else, that fact in itself is enough to dismiss the entire movement.

I do not understand your rationale behind this argument. The fight for racial equality in America and the fight for equal rights for women were not concurrent movements. This would be equivalent to telling the suffragettes "I cannot identify a rationale for why gender equality specifically should be legalised and not equality for blacks as well and therefore I cannot justify granting such rights".

Human rights is not about -BANG everything happens at once-. It is a step by step process.

Animal marriage and gay marriage are obviously different in that one involves consensual adults and the other doesn't, but if you are saying that is the rationale for why gay marriage should be legalised and animal marriage not, you are implicitly restricting marriage to between consenting humans. I have trouble seeing how this is any different from restricting marriage to between humans of opposite gender, in both cases you are placing restrictions of some kind on the scope of the word 'marriage'.

I don't understand this at all - can you elaborate? First you dismiss the comparison with bestiality and then you draw on it as a basis for your argument that "marriage" is being restricted arbitrarily.

The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?

The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...

You of all people should know that changes in the law often occur in accordance with and in response to "prevailing social attitudes". Why is this such a bad reason?

Until then my gut instinct is that civil unions (or something similar) are the best compromise, provided both civil unions and marriage award identical legal rights. Ultimately, provided there is legal equality, I think semantic equality is not necessary.

While same-sex couples can apply for recognition as a de facto relationship (which will grant the same rights as those granted to a marriage), the process itself is still different. For one, same-sex couples (and any de facto couple) have a set of criteria which they must match in order to prove that they are, in fact, in a de facto relationship (which IIRC includes proving that you have lived together for 2 years, don't quote me on this though I haven't studied family law I just have friends in de facto relationships)

Compare this to a couple of roommates who decide to sign a certificate at the registry so that they can get extra Centrelink benefits. Boom, done. No "proof" necessary.

I do not see this as legal equality.