Aussies LVIII -

[sh_wulff]

Wulfie - I hope so, had a bit of a horror year but things have to come good eventually right?

I got my fingers crossed for you Brook!

[Stubby]

Cory Bernardi conflates homosexuality with bestiality, in parliament.

Recalling mackaxx's signature here, I expect Mr Bernardi is a happy little fucker.

[Stubby]

Cory Bernardi conflates homosexuality with bestiality, in parliament.

Recalling mackaxx's signature here, I expect Mr Bernardi is a happy little fucker.

Sorry to self-quote, but Bernardi has resigned from his position as parliamentary Secretary to Abbott.

And (from the same story) the House of Reps has voted down the private members bill on SSM largely on party lines.

[delete this account pls]

What a firm message our country's leaders send - it's ok to discriminate against someone as long as you aren't totally nasty about it. Fuck the lot of them.

[Stubby]

What a firm message our country's leaders send - it's ok to discriminate against someone as long as you aren't totally nasty about it. Fuck the lot of them.

Couldn't agree more. Once upon a time our nation was a leader in equality issues.

[The Winged Shadow]

Sigh, I had high hopes this time for the gay marriage bill. How long before this can be brought up again? Is there a time limit on this type of thing?

On other news, here is a convo with a colleague at work:

Colleague: "What did you get upto over the weekened"

Me: "Went down to sydney to see family"

Colleague: "Oh so you were at the Sydney protest?"

:bang:

I have been asked this enough this week to wonder if I give off a crazy muslim vibe or something :P

[brook]

I'm actually shocked my member voted yes (Jason Clare). It's a pretty conservative electorate and he's a Catholic so I'd pegged him as a certain no. I just sent an email thanking him, I'm sure he'll get his share of hate mail so may as well balance it.

[Jeor]

At the risk of getting howled down by this and starting some giant controversy, I'm going to put it out there that I'm not in favour of gay marriage. As most of you know I identify with Liberals more than Labor so it probably doesn't come as a surprise, but I did want to say something because (as you'll follow lower down in this post) I don't think my side always gets a fair run. Nuts like this politician aren't broadly representative of some of us!

Firstly, I don't think 'marriage equality' is the right way to talk about this. We don't allow polygamy; we don't allow people to marry children; even if gay marriage is passed, it wouldn't be 'marriage equality'. If people want to talk about marriage equality, then I think it is legitimate to mention polygamy as a possible slippery slope. A polygamist might garner support and say it isn't fair he can't be married to multiple people. I know people will dismiss this as scaremongering - and I think the Member involved was wrong to mention bestiality - but I do think there is some validity to a slippery slope argument in this case.

Some people will say, "Polygamy is totally different, it involves more than two people, it's a totally different case that wouldn't ever apply", but I might point out that gay marriage is completely different, since it involves people of the same sex. If you're fine with polygamy, then I'll agree that you can say the slippery slope argument is weak. But if you're not ok with polygamy, I don't think you can dismiss the slippery slope. And if you're uneasy about polygamy, try and put yourself in the shoes of the silent people (not the right-wing bigots) who are against gay marriage - that is how they (rightly or wrongly) feel about gay marriage.

Secondly, I do think that same-sex couples should, in all other respects, be treated the same way (legal and property rights etc). Reserving the word 'marriage' is not being discriminatory if it doesn't result in different treatment. There are plenty of things I can't call myself because I don't fit the criteria of the word. That doesn't mean that every type of criteria is discriminating to me.

Thirdly, I think polls are misleading on this issue. People like me are extremely reluctant to put their views out there because if I even mention that I'm against gay marriage, I am immediately labelled a homophobe, religious fanatic, Nazi or whatever, so I simply don't bother saying that I am against gay marriage (I had an extremely bad run-in with a left wing mob on uni years ago). So nowadays I just lie if anyone asks me, because it saves trouble. The bunch of right-wing nuts who openly say they are against gay marriage is also a disincentive for me to identify, because I don't want to be equated with those guys. Therefore, I think there's at least the possibility of someone being wrong if they say "the majority of the country is for gay marriage". The data will always be skewed.

I was actually extremely apprehensive of even posting this here, since I'm pretty sure it might damage my reputation (and certainly the board has a rather largely acknowledged liberal bias). But I'm hoping that at least the Aussies who've known me here for a while will cut me some slack.

I am happy to abide by a referendum, and I actually think a referendum is the best way to do this (although I guess marriage doesn't have much to do with the constitution, so legal people might tell me it's not possible?). If it is true that a majority of people are in favour of gay marriage, I'll bow to the public opinion (unlike fundamentalists who would still keep on going).

Before the war of words breaks out, can I say that I acknowledge the fact that I don't know what it's like to be a gay person who wants gay marriage to be possible; and I know that sexuality is something that pierces much deeper into the identity than many other things (eg job, family etc), which is why this issue tends to be very passionately argued (on both sides). I think I at least partly understand the depth of feeling on the pro-gay marriage front, but I'd at least like it to be acknowledged that not everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigoted nut.

And I don't want this thread to be hijacked...happy to chat a little bit, but I'm going to try to not get drawn into some massive firestorm. Generally I'm just happy to agree to disagree on this one.

[Stubby]

At the risk of getting howled down by this and starting some giant controversy, I'm going to put it out there that I'm not in favour of gay marriage. As most of you know I identify with Liberals more than Labor so it probably doesn't come as a surprise, but I did want to say something because (as you'll follow lower down in this post) I don't think my side always gets a fair run. Nuts like this politician aren't broadly representative of some of us!

Debate is always welcome, mate. I don’t know that someone disagreeing with a position can be fairly described as ‘howled down’ though. Disagreement is fair and we can always hope to change your mind. ;)

Firstly, I don't think 'marriage equality' is the right way to talk about this. We don't allow polygamy; ... (snip).

To raise polygamy as an example is to fall victim to the slippery slope fallacy. The critical point is that there is no campaign to include polygamy in the legal definition of valid marriage. It’s like arguing against a campaign to permit the legal consumption of kangaroo meat because that might lead to eating dogs. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

The slippery slope fallacy was raised in response to the campaign to allow women to vote. It was raised in response to proposals to allow interracial marriages. Although the suggestion of polygamy does not go as far as bestiality, it is a suggestion that the permission of marriage equality will in some way be morally bad. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why permitting two consenting adults to marry would be morally bad.

If it was relevant and polygamy was on the agenda, I think it would be appropriate to argue that it should be permitted. The usual advocates for polygamous marriage are religious and without permitting polygamous marriages one might perceive that we have made laws that are restrictive of certain religions – or in favour of another. In a secular country that would be a mistake.

And if you're uneasy about polygamy, try and put yourself in the shoes of the silent people (not the right-wing bigots) who are against gay marriage - that is how they (rightly or wrongly) feel about gay marriage.

There is a hidden assumption here. The step that is hidden is working out why one is ‘uneasy’ about gay marriage. Why are you uneasy about it?

Secondly, I do think that same-sex couples should, in all other respects, be treated the same way (legal and property rights etc). Reserving the word 'marriage' is not being discriminatory if it doesn't result in different treatment. There are plenty of things I can't call myself because I don't fit the criteria of the word. That doesn't mean that every type of criteria is discriminating to me.

This is another common argument. Let me rephrase the proposition as a means of countering it.

Secondly, I do think that same-sex interracial couples should, in all other respects, be treated the same way (legal and property rights etc).

Put differently, it is the very fact that the Commonwealth does not permit the use of the same terminology that is discriminatory. It is telling one group of the community -otherwise a law abiding and productive group within the community with the same aspirations as the vast majority of the country – that they are not in fact the same. Not only is a marriage between same-sex partners not permitted – it is actually an offence. When that law is based solely on ‘uneasiness’ or a reluctance to allow the use of a word – it is very wrong. We are saying you can vote, pay taxes, work and have a relationship, but you cannot marry your intended. I have a real problem with that.

Thirdly, I think polls are misleading on this issue... (snip)

This is an interesting point. It would be interesting to see some data on how an anonymous poll would be interpreted. I do know that a Galaxy poll (in Feb this year) also found that support for SSM has rocketed among younger voters, with 81 percent of people aged 18-24 now supporting reform on the issue. Additionally, I would also like to see how the Parliament would have voted if it were anonymous and/or Abbott had allowed his party to vote their conscience.

I am happy to abide by a referendum, and I actually think a referendum is the best way to do this (although I guess marriage doesn't have much to do with the constitution, so legal people might tell me it's not possible?). If it is true that a majority of people are in favour of gay marriage, I'll bow to the public opinion (unlike fundamentalists who would still keep on going).

If the issue has 82% support among young people it is only a matter of time. I would prefer us to be leaders, but it is now too late for that, as there about 15 nations around the world that are already ahead of us. I have seen another article today that suggests there will be a conscience vote on the issue in NSW anyway, where the parliament thinks it will pass.

Before the war of words breaks out, can I say that I acknowledge the fact that I don't know what it's like to be a gay person who wants gay marriage to be possible;

Yes you do: No different than a heterosexual person who might want to get married and is told they cannot. It seems wrong to me that I can trot down to a registry office tomorrow, consenting partner of 10 years alongside me, and get married if I wanted to. I don’t want to, and neither does laoise, but I’m not in favour of denying anyone the right to do so on the simple grounds that they are in love with someone of the same gender.

And I don't want this thread to be hijacked...happy to chat a little bit, but I'm going to try to not get drawn into some massive firestorm. Generally I'm just happy to agree to disagree on this one.

Finally, wearing the [MOD] hat, the reason the Aussies thread stays in gen chat is that it is genchat in microcosm, allowing us to discuss Aussie-centric stuff without creating separate threads on each issue concerning us. It is rather impossible to derail this thread, in our eyes. [/MOD]

[Jeor]

To raise polygamy as an example is to fall victim to the slippery slope fallacy. The critical point is that there is no campaign to include polygamy in the legal definition of valid marriage. It’s like arguing against a campaign to permit the legal consumption of kangaroo meat because that might lead to eating dogs. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

The slippery slope is not, in my mind, the greatest argument against gay marriage. I was, however, pointing out that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily the most accurate slogan.

There is a hidden assumption here. The step that is hidden is working out why one is ‘uneasy’ about gay marriage. Why are you uneasy about it?

At this point, I will admit to having certain religious reasons against it. I didn't bring it up in the first instance because people tend to dismiss religious reasons as inappropriate or me as a radical wackjob (and for the record, I don't hate homosexuals because they're 'dirty sinners' - in my opinion we're all sinners, etc etc I won't get into a theological debate here though). I suppose that the state has now assumed responsibility for marriage (as it can happen legally without a church) so religious reasons might not be counted as legitimate.

However, my point is this: I think religion is a legitimate reason for opposing gay marriage (as freedom of religion is certainly allowed in Australia). Now, before you equate me with some other radical religion that allows people to be beheaded or whatever as proof that religion cannot always be legitimate reasons for anything (a bit of a strawman argument), I would like to point out that I would still be a law abiding citizen. If it is passed as a law, I'm happy to go along with it if a referendum or somesuch representative decision is made. I'm skeptical if, at this point in time, a nationwide referendum would pass. People and the media seem to think it is a foregone conclusion - I have certainly heard many loudly proclaim that politicians shouldn't be holding back the majority, which is certainly true for politics, I'm just not sure if it applies here because the 'majority' has never been tested. I agree with your case that in the future it would only be a matter of time, but I don't think it would be right now.

[Stubby]

The slippery slope is not, in my mind, the greatest argument against gay marriage. I was, however, pointing out that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily the most accurate slogan.

It's only a descriptor for a concept. It would be more accurate to say that it is a "campaign to change the definition of marriage (as was done by the Howard Govt only a few years ago) to enable those with same-sex partners to marry their partners" but that would be just cumbersome. It's not just a labelling issue.

At this point, I will admit to having certain religious reasons against it...(snip)

However, my point is this: I think religion is a legitimate reason for opposing gay marriage (as freedom of religion is certainly allowed in Australia).

Religion is absolutely a valid reason to enter the debate, if (and it is a massive IF) the practice of religion can be affected by the proposed change to the law. I do not accept that one's religion (yours, if necessary) can be affected by a change to the marriage laws. What you believe is internal. If your gay neighbours got married how could that possibly affect your beliefs? After all, atheists can get married and that does not affect your beliefs.

In the absence of any deleterious affect to the religion, a religion's opposition is projecting its beliefs onto others, who may not share that belief. When that projection has an actual effect on the other person, then it is a bad basis for law.

[gryphon strike]

Well said Stubby

Jeor, mate, I respect you more for having the guts to say this even if I do not understand your position, the funny thing is I am slightly homophobic and yet I support same sex marriage. In fact the only problem I have with polygamy is that it has historically meant old men marrying young women/girls in arranged marriages.

Consenting adults should be allowed to form the partnerships that they want to form and not be discriminated against for doing so. Nor should they be pressured into giving consent in any way shape or form.

I do have to ask if you were asked to give your opinion in an anonymous poll would you say no to SSM?

Because I think that is probably at the core of your argument/position.

[delete this account pls]

Jeor, I pretty much agree 100% with stubby on the polygamy argument. Until anything more than a tiny, tiny minority of the population starts seriously engaging in polygamy, I don't think it should be a part of this conversation (and on a moral note, no, I have absolutely no issue with polygamy as a concept. I have no issue with anything consenting adults wish to engage in, as long as it doesn't hurt other people)

As for the religious objection, I do have a bit of a problem with that, to be honest. Because a long time ago, in an Australia that was a very different place, a young chap from an Irish Catholic family called Pat Brady fell in love with a beautiful lass from an Irish Protestant family called Maggie Neil. And his priest, who he'd known all his life refused to marry them, and Pat's family kicked him out of the house and never spoke to him again, nor did they acknowledge the five children Pat and Maggie had, one of whom was my father, who grew up being called a 'bastard' by the fine and upstanding local Catholic congregation (at least until my Uncle Ron, who in size kinda resembles me, hit puberty and started answering these accusations with his fists). Pat's family, and Pat's local priest, and the mean spirited shitheads who followed their lead, refused to recognise Pat's marriage as legitimate, you see. He wasn't really married, and therefore his kids were born out of wedlock. If these people had their way - and this way of thinking wasnt particularly radical for the 1930s - my grandfather and grandmother's marriage wouldn't have been legal.

Pat's faith meant a lot to him, but after he married my grandmother he never set foot in a church again. And those kids he raised all turned out to be rabid atheists. Who, in turn raised not-very-rabid atheists and agnostics, such as me, my siblings and my cousins.

The religious definition of marriage has never been a static thing. It has evolved as society has evolved. This is why I always object when people bring up 'traditional' marriage. Marriage changes. You can't marry a twelve year old anymore. A man's wife isn't his property anymore. People don't pay dowries. People get divorced. Various religions have narrowed or expanded their view of marriage throughout history.

[Horza]

I think Stubby has said what I wanted to say, only with much greater concision and clarity, so I'll just nitpick:

On the polling - I think there could be something of a "shy Tory" effect in play, but I doubt it's so strong as to be termed misleading. Within the past decade years support for marriage equality has climbed substantially with very little in the way of fluctuations or other indicators of inconsistent or question-contingent support. Similarly, what we saw today, where marriage equality legislation not only got up in parliament but could possibly have passed if the Coalition didn't insist on a party-line vote would have been unthinkable in say, 2004, and I don't think this can be attributed to anything other than a substantial shift in public attitudes to this issue.

[Gillio]

One of the things I like best about this place is seeing my poorly-shaped, inarticulate thought converted to lucid commentary.

Thanks Stubby and Brady and GS.

I heard a comment from Penny Wong on the radio, saying Gay people are often accused of promiscuity, so its ironic to then refuse them an institution that would recognise stable relationships. I too, think its only a matter of time, but, recognizing that, it seems a shame to delay.

[gryphon strike]

I would also have to question any religion claiming to own the concept of marriage, The concept has been around far longer than the concept of monotheism and thus for any religion to claim it as their own or as being a gift or rite of their particular God/Godess is simply stupid imo and almost a form of xenophobia.

The great tragedy here is I think that the liberals didn't rebel against Abbot since this would have been the perfect opportunity, or do people think his secretary was voicing his own opinions? Seriously they could have ditched their mad monk leader and at the same time damned near ensured they would win the next election. If anyone ever needed proof of the Liberals being out of touch then there it is.

[Jeor]

If anyone ever needed proof of the Liberals being out of touch then there it is.

This is the sort of statement I do have issues with (aside from the party line discipline which I do suppose is a bit dodgy) - the idea that by voting against gay marriage you are 'out of touch with what the people want'. I really don't think the polling is seriously going to be that much of a landslide in favour of gay marriage, and I wish people would stop acting as if it were so. I think generational politics is certainly on the side of gay marriage, but I think it is at least a little presumptuous to say that Liberals (or others voting against gay marriage) are somehow standing in the way of what the people want.

Like I said, a referendum would put this issue to rights, either way, and I don't think anyone could argue against abiding by that (provided it was constitutional enough to warrant a referendum, and if not, a plebiscite could be used instead?). This is a flashpoint of dissent, disharmony and lots of bad blood, and I think the best way to solve it would be to put it to a simple vote to the whole population. Until that happens, I don't think any side (including mine) should claim that it 'speaks for what the people want'.

Re: religion, Brady I acknowledge there are obviously going to be many things that aren't to your liking about religion. I know it's caused plenty of hurt to plenty of people and I'm sorry for your (and others) bad experience of it. But religion has also been helpful in many ways to society; and I think it's unrealistic to expect that your religion should be a strictly personal thing that shouldn't affect other people. If that's so, we'd have to close down every Christian charity like the Salvos. And if people want to pick and choose on how that religion is allowed to practise and voice its views (beyond the purview of the common law, which everyone should abide by), then that's just another form of intolerance that discriminates against the religion, making those people the thing that they are supposed to hate. Like I said, if legislation ends up recognising gay marriage, I'm happy to abide by that, but until that happens, I think not being in favour of gay marriage is still a legitimate and valid view for me to take.

EDITED: Btw thanks GS for the support on my saying this at all. I'm bloody afraid to say anything against gay marriage in public (and only do so here since it's an online forum where there's some relative distance). And I must credit all of you for being quite reasonable about this.

[Gillio]

I'm sorry, I just dont see it. I two people love each other, and have made a commitment to one another, why not give them equal access to the law?

There was a magazine article I read at the Dr's once, a married man, after 20 years married, decided to go ahead and have a full sex change, they are still married, because they are still in love and still committed to one another.

Marriage as an institution has survived this. Why not allow the same rights to other same-sex couples?

bob brown's interview quotes majority statistics

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/brown-laments-lack-of-gay-marriage-leadership/4270646

and Bob Brown reckons statistics show a majority

[Rinzy]

Like I said, a referendum would put this issue to rights, either way, and I don't think anyone could argue against abiding by that (provided it was constitutional enough to warrant a referendum, and if not, a plebiscite could be used instead?). This is a flashpoint of dissent, disharmony and lots of bad blood, and I think the best way to solve it would be to put it to a simple vote to the whole population. Until that happens, I don't think any side (including mine) should claim that it 'speaks for what the people want'.

I personally don't believe that a matter of human rights such as this should be left to a referendum.

[Leviathan I]

This is a good day http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/09/r18-classification-now-passed-in-nsw/

Shame about the gays though.