Gay marriage

[Jay.C]

Lol you need to put your feelings aside then maybe you can get your point acrossI agree that you cannot pick and choose. It infuriates me actually.
And I never once said anything about my views lol. I never said I'm against gay marriage(not saying that I am or i I am not).  Lol my point was you can't be gay and Christian having said that I really couldn't give f*** what gay people do as long as they don't interfere with my beliefs. But if i was to vote if vote against gay marriage.

Yeah lol sorry wasn't aiming it at you originally, just anyone that try's to impose their harmful views on others. However now you have said you'd vote against gay marriage my previous statement now applies to you.  I would also like to address that when I was revering to "picking and choosing" I was referring to choosing which sins you disobey.

[faso]

Yeah lol sorry wasn't aiming it at you originally, just anyone that try's to impose their harmful views on others. However now you have said you'd vote against gay marriage my previous statement now applies to you.  I would also like to address that when I was revering to "picking and choosing" I was referring to choosing which sins you disobey.

See above

[chasej]

Good question.i once saw two guys hooking up at Melbourne Central by far the most disturbing things I've ever seen in my whole life I immediately went back down the elevator. Legalising gay marriage would make that seem more normal  and that would occur more often. I'd vote against solely because of that reason. They should leave that shit in the bedroom.

So you want to stop people living their lives fully because it makes you feel icky?

You mustn't be very good at browsing the internet too.

[sjayne]

And he says he's not homophobic

[chasej]

And he says he's not homophobic

I tried PM'ing you a reply btw, but PM's don't work on the forums right now for some reason :/

[Professor Polonsky]

It really depends on the structure the vote takes.  Will it be a conscience vote or a matter of party policy?

Under a conscience vote, each member can vote according to his own personal beliefs. Under party policy (this is how most politics is done) every member in the party must vote a certain way.

I believe a conscience vote is vastly inferior, it must be a matter of party policy. So far, The Greens are the only major party to do this.

Under a conscience vote, you don't know who you're going to get. You could vote for Labor (or Liberals) because you think they're pro marriage equality but your local MP could be the biggest, anti-gay biggot out there. They are represented to display the will of their electorate and voters. Under a conscience vote, they only represent themselves as a single person.

Marriage is or ought to be a civil right. Like all civil rights, it should not be up to conscience or whim. There was a time where black and white people couldn't marry in many places, imagine if this was voted along the bigoted consciences of the time. Many of these things were only solved with court action or binding votes.

Right now, the only party with a binding policy of this nature is the Greens. Vote Greens and you can be sure each member will vote for marriage equality. The ALP (Labor Party) national conference is coming up. It will be decided whether to make it a matter of conscience or a binding party vote, so, watch this space.

Before I get to the philosophical/legal, we need to iron out the political.

First, it is utterly wrong to equivocate the ALP and the Liberals here. For starters, same-sex marriage is ALP policy. Banning same-sex marriage is Liberal policy. It is not true to say that it is not a matter of 'party policy' -- simply that the whip will not be enforced. This is actually how all votes are done in most countries.

Now what of the practical, you say? 50/55 Labor MPs will vote in favour of same-sex marriage. A further 3 are still undecided. Only 2 are against.

Compare this with the Libs: Only 12/90 have declared their personal support. 58 are against. There are 20 votes at play.

While as a matter of my conscience I support a binding vote, I realise that pragmatically it would have the counter effect. If Labor binds its 5 remaining holdout MPs, the Liberals will have an excuse not to have their own conscience vote. And their 12 votes in favour will not count.

[Professor Polonsky]

I guess one preliminary thing that I wanted to address is the common use of the well-known acronyms (e.g., common in this thread, LGBTIQA+). Generally, these have to do with diversity in sex, gender, and sexual orientation. While doubtlessly same-sex marriage shows that we have a far greater understanding of those issues, many people within those groups -- particularly outside of the first three letters -- have perhaps far greater issues facing them than marriage equality. Just food for thought.

Almost all law, by the most elementary definition, discriminates. It imposes rights (or obligations) on some, but not on others. For a marriage related example: Only certain, accredited celebrants can marry two people. Others don't have the right (and the obligations that attach to it) to do so. However, it is clear that there is a very good reason for having a register of civil celebrants, and not have just anyone perform marriages. It's a position of civic responsibility.

Of course, discrimination is far worse when you are treating someone differently on the basis of an intrinsic characteristic. It's why we recognise that generally, any discrimination based on them is wrong.

Just looking at discrimination on the right to marry, on that basis of sexual orientation, there simply isn't a logical reason to do so. While you may personally find homosexuality wrong, our society doesn't lend those judgments any credence unless direct harm to another person can be proven. Otherwise, we'll feel merited in removing people's rights based on immutable characteristics, such as their sexual orientation (but also race, religion etc) because we find it morally wrong. People used to find it morally wrong that women vote, for example. And people found it wrong that Jews can own property.

The tl;dr, I suppose, is that you have to come up with an argument better than "ewwww!" or "tradition and history!" or "my religion!" for opposing same-sex marriage. Opponents have been unable to do so, which is why the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional.

[nino quincampoix]

?? Please tell me you're trolling  ??

Regardless of troll potential, everyone gets their own opinion.

[heids]

Want to apologise if I hurt anyone.  My today's resolution: never post a thing about religion on AN, ever.  When I come back and read my posts afterwards, I waste half the morning facepalming.  (Nonetheless, expressing how I felt and reading responses has been really helpful to me guys).