Gay marriage in Australia

[The Colourful Jester]

Maybe the result's'd be worth bumping...

Not really. The results are not seriously in doubt

I’m beginning to wonder about that. Australia is generally a conservative nation. And the Yes camp seems to be scoring a lot of own goals at this point. I can’t see it coming to pass now.

 

[bilby]

Not really. The results are not seriously in doubt

I’m beginning to wonder about that. Australia is generally a conservative nation. And the Yes camp seems to be scoring a lot of own goals at this point. I can’t see it coming to pass now.

Well it's is designed to fail; and it is becoming obvious that, either deliberately or through sheer incompetence, the way it has been conducted is so poor that any result will have good reasons to reject it - lots of people are not getting papers, or are getting other people's, and there are no safeguards at all against widespread fraud and falsification.

At this stage, the 'winner' will be the side with the most cheating.

It's a futile exercise - a non-binding opinion poll, poorly executed, to get an answer which pollsters and demographers already know, on a question that has zero impact on the 'no' voters anyway, conducted at enormous expense for the sole purpose of obfuscating the fact that the Prime Minister is incapable of doing his job.

Like the Brexit poll, it is internal conservative party politics being dragged into the public arena in a way that can only be damaging for the country.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It boggles my mind; this fight over a word.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue. Let marriage be a spiritual word, defined by the individuals for themselves or by their religious institutions, but with no special rights or obligations under government law.

Let Civil Unions exist in law for all who want them, and then those who want both the religious and civil trappings can have both. Priests are not government agents. They should not be pronouncing pair bonds recognized by civil law. Their pronouncing should be only within their religion.

Then those Catholics need not recognize the gay couple as married, but the gay couple can consider themselves married and have all their civil rights.

I don't see why this isn't the obvious solution.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But if we found out and it was something that we could then avoid or fix I think it should be fixed. What purpose does homosexuality serve?

Have you researched this question? There are actually numerous benefits. One is that homosexual members of the tribe don't reproduce with their partners so they become available to raise orphans or help raise the children of others. Menopause is also often explained this way.

I cannot believe that the majority of heterosexual males would not find it unpleasant to have to watch male homosexual activity in public. If laws are formulated for the maximum benefit of the majority then public displays of male homosexuality should be legally curtailed.

That is blatant bigotry and mob mentality. You could use that same logic for interracial marriage, or even slavery or the Holocaust.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hang on... if men (masculine, testosterone-laden, macho) are more likely to commit violence why would gay men (not manly, estrogen-tainted, effeminate) be more dangerous? Wouldn't they be closer to the woman-behavior and therefore less of a risk?

Not only that, but another argument we often hear is that gays are promiscuous... So people want to deny these promiscuous gays from swearing and dedicating themselves to a single individual.... Yeah that makes sense eh?

 

[bilby]

“Vote No” Says Leader Of Church Solely Created To Change Definition Of Marriage

From the department of you wouldn't read about it, a nicely satirical take on the decision by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to waste spend $1m defending the indefensible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“Vote No” Says Leader Of Church Solely Created To Change Definition Of Marriage

From the department of you wouldn't read about it, a nicely satirical take on the decision by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to waste spend $1m defending the indefensible.

Are you trying to drum up business for the irony meter manufacturers??

 

[bilby]

The results have been announced:

7,817,247 people - or 61.6 per cent - voted 'Yes'.

4,873,987 people - or 38.4 per cent - voted 'No'.

There was a response rate of 79.5 per cent or more than 12.7 million people - not a bad turnout at all for a non-compulsory, non-binding opinion survey.

'Yes' wins, even if you count all of the non-voters/non-responders as being on the 'No' side.

Now that we have determined a fact that was already well known to demographers - that Australians overwhelmingly support marriage equality - will the government act? (Don't hold your breath).

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Hermit]

John Howard's legislative change of the Marriage Act in 2004, which consisted of adding explicit wording to the effect that marriage is limited to a pairing of one man and woman, has been reversed. Utterly destroyed, actually.

The third reading of the new amendment finalised the process of allowing same sex marriage anywhere in the nation. It took about seven seconds from start to finish. This was followed by decidedly unparliamentary behaviour. Not in any negative way, mind, unless you regard a four minute long standing ovation, a lot of hugging and embracing, some tears of joy being shed and finishing with all but six individuals breaking out in song as something bad.

The reversal is uncompromising and complete. All amendments by conservatives trying to water the chief amendment down had already been rejected by convincing majorities in both houses. In the end only four members of the House of Representatives voted against the change during that final step. Ten outspoken opponents of SSM abstained by absenting themselves from proceedings and another four were absent for other reasons.

[YOUTUBE]DAPCeaaP_xU[/YOUTUBE]

Liberal MP Warren Entsch lifts Labor MP Linda Burney into the air after the same-sex marriage vote. Photo: AAP