Gay marriage

[Yacoubb]

I don't appreciate when people immediately say people who are against the legislation of same-sex marriage are homophobic. That is one stupid assumption & honestly I find that offensive. There needs to be a point where people are actually saying things and acknowledging that everyone has an opinion ~ that is for people who are both FOR and AGAINST same sex marriage.

If someone thinks it's disgusting and putrid, someone who is passionate can't slam them and say it's fine and not disgusting. The notion of freedom is COMPLETELY compromised when someone says "I don't want gay marriage", and everyone jumps on the attack. That means that people are either for gay marriage or bigots, homophobic, religious fanatics.... that's not on, seriously!

[nino quincampoix]

Parliament is clearly given the power to legislate over matters relating to marriage in the Constitution (Section 51). This is why the ACT's same sex marriage law was overturned last year - it conflicted with federal legislation (Marriage Act.)¹ If Parliament wants to legislate SSM into law, all it takes is passing some legislation, as with anything else. It doesn't require a constitutional change. Although the pro-same sex marriage side would likely win (65-70% of Australians support same sex marriage) it the campaign would throw up some pretty disgusting bigotry - as what happened in Ireland, California. Calling for a plebiscite (or worse, a constitutional amendment) is just a politician's ploy to dodge confronting the issue. This issue is inherently political.

While I respect what you say and the grounds you present in support of what you have said, I doubt that an MP can accurately represent his or her electorate with a single vote (not in/in favour), hence my suggestion of a general vote. Fair point about the constitution v. legislation though.

Edit: what I should have said was that when you last voted for your local member, none too few of the candidates expressed their views on same sex marriage at the time of voting (from what I recall, this was the case in my electorate at least), so how could they possibly make a decision with everyone in mind? Not possible. I say this because what we are discussing is an important and charged societal issue, which needs to be resolved as best as possible. I don't want to be hearing the same discussion in 5 years' time because we didn't get it right the first time.

Nobody thinks that by changing their Facebook picture they'll radically transform society - but it's a harmless way of expressing solidarity with LGBTIQ+ individuals that they know. Tony Abbott won't change his opinion on SSM as a result of this, but plenty of younger LGBITQ+ individuals - particularly those still in the closet feel socially isolated, confused and alone. Seeing your Facebook newsfeed become a rainbow tells them that no, you're not alone, and yes, society does support you.

Again, I largely agree with what you are saying, especially the bolded part. I'm just not a convert, especially after the commercialisation of the "je suis Charlie" thing. Plus never underestimate the naïveté of some people out there (you never know who's changing their profile picture thinking that it'll actually do something substantial)!

[pi]

If someone thinks it's disgusting and putrid, someone who is passionate can't slam them and say it's fine and not disgusting. The notion of freedom is COMPLETELY compromised when someone says "I don't want gay marriage", and everyone jumps on the attack. That means that people are either for gay marriage or bigots, homophobic, religious fanatics.... that's not on, seriously!

There was once a time not too long ago when if someone said "I want gay marriage", everyone would jump on the attack. Similarly for the rights of Aboriginals, or to stop slavery, or in support for interracial marriage, etc. etc.

Society eventually moves towards what is right for these social issues, it's a shame that some people can't accept that by being stuck in their archaic views of how everyone should be.

[Thu Thu Train]

Same sex marriage is legal in the US and terrorist attacks happen in France and Tunisia. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

[Yacoubb]

There was once a time not too long ago when if someone said "I want gay marriage", everyone would jump on the attack. Similarly for the rights of Aboriginals, or to stop slavery, or in support for interracial marriage, etc. etc.

Society eventually moves towards what is right for these social issues, it's a shame that some people can't accept that by being stuck in their archaic views of how everyone should be.

And that's what I mean -everyone immediately thinks that being anti-same sex marriage has to do with archaic views. My views are somewhat based on what my faith teaches, but more so because of my own reasons and beliefs that don't revolve only on what my faith tells.

[sjayne]

I don't appreciate when people immediately say people who are against the legislation of same-sex marriage are homophobic. That is one stupid assumption & honestly I find that offensive. There needs to be a point where people are actually saying things and acknowledging that everyone has an opinion ~ that is for people who are both FOR and AGAINST same sex marriage.

I don't care if you find that offensive. I find it offensive that people think I don't deserve the right to marry.

[Yacoubb]

I don't care if you find that offensive. I find it offensive that you don't think I deserve the right to marry.

That's totally fine! Difference in opinion is what makes this world go around.

[pi]

And that's what I mean -everyone immediately thinks that being anti-same sex marriage has to do with archaic views. My views are somewhat based on what my faith teaches, but more so because of my own reasons and beliefs that don't revolve only on what my faith tells.

I'd argue that religion is archaic But I guess that's a debate for another day.

[nino quincampoix]

I'd argue that religion is archaic But I guess that's a debate for another day.

While it may (or may not) be archaic, the practise of religion as an individual may very well have its merits. But those merits end when a life becomes blindly dictated by a piece of text, be it religious or irreligious for that matter.

[Jay.C]

I'd argue that religion is archaic But I guess that's a debate for another day.

Now that is a big can of worms. 

[Thu Thu Train]

I don't understand how it affects anyones lives except gay people if they can get married....

How does it affect any of you PERSONALLY?

One person was basically "Oh no it grosses me out"... Wtf? Are you 12?

[sjayne]

You quoted me!!! My life feels complete now 

I don't understand how it affects anyones lives except gay people if they can get married....

How does it affect any of you PERSONALLY?

Thank you!

[mahler004]

There was once a time not too long ago when if someone said "I want gay marriage", everyone would jump on the attack. Similarly for the rights of Aboriginals, or to stop slavery, or in support for interracial marriage, etc. etc.

Society eventually moves towards what is right for these social issues, it's a shame that some people can't accept that by being stuck in their archaic views of how everyone should be.

A more broad point - nobody is going to come and arrest you for being opposed to same sex marriage - or even outright homophobia. What you don't have is the right to have other people accept your views. This is not an abstract issue for LGBTIQ+ individuals. Some of them get, understandably, agitated when you advocate for denying them equal rights.

To put it more bluntly - you can say what you want, but you have to wear it.

While I respect what you say and the grounds you present in support of what you have said, I doubt that an MP can accurately represent his or her electorate with a single vote (not in/in favour), hence my suggestion of a general vote. Fair point about the constitution v. legislation though.

Edit: what I should have said was that when you last voted for your local member, none too few of the candidates expressed their views on same sex marriage at the time of voting (from what I recall, this was the case in my electorate at least), so how could they possibly make a decision with everyone in mind? Not possible. I say this because what we are discussing is an important and charged societal issue, which needs to be resolved as best as possible. I don't want to be hearing the same discussion in 5 years' time because we didn't get it right the first time.

Again, I largely agree with what you are saying, especially the bolded part. I'm just not a convert, especially after the commercialisation of the "je suis Charlie" thing. Plus never underestimate the naïveté of some people out there (you never know who's changing their profile picture thinking that it'll actually do something substantial)!

I think this will be an 'agree to disagree' thing.

The individual voting for a representative in a representative democracy is inherently making a compromise. Few people will vote purely based on a single issue - it'll be weighing up several issues and then choosing a candidate (or, much of the time, a party) that they agree with the most. It's the job of the politicians to act on behalf of their constituents, although they can never represent all of them. Sometimes - you need to make an unpopular decision (although supporting SSM is hardly unpopular).

I kind of got a bit wordy there, but I guess my point is - in our system, it's the job of parliamentarians to make contentious - even unpopular - decisions. They have the power to do it, and they should do it.

(On a tangent - I'm pretty skeptical of it, as most of the people calling for a plebiscite or a referendum are opposed to SSM - not saying that you are, personally).

As for Charlie - yeah, I pretty much agree. I guess I see it as pretty harmless (rainbow display pictures) - if not a little beneficial, so I can't really work myself up over it.

Same sex marriage is legal in the US and terrorist attacks happen in France and Tunisia. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[pi]

While it may (or may not) be archaic, the practise of religion as an individual may very well have its merits. But those merits end when a life becomes blindly dictated by a piece of text, be it religious or irreligious for that matter.

I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst religion may have it's merits (bringing people together for a common "good", etc etc.), it needs to adapt, or the interpretation of its texts and teachings needs to adapt and modernise. It's simply nonsensical to me for someone living in the modern day to follow teachings/writings from hundreds of years ago. You wouldn't use everything (or most things) from a medical textbook from the 1800s to learn how to treat people, why would you use everything (or most things) from a book written hundreds of years ago to learn how to live?

It's my understanding somewhat rudimentary understanding that God was created as a concept (and I'm talking way before Jesus and his homies) to explain the unknown. What is known and what is unknown is constantly changing, as we continually know more and create questions that we don't know the answers too. Hence, God as a concept should be continually changing. Hence, interpretations of God's teachings from long ago should too.

I have no idea how to relate this back to gay marriage, so I won't even try, but just my view on whatever I just gave my view on.

[Mieow]

- "I cannot do that because of my religion" ✓
- "You cannot do that because of my religion" ×