Aussies to vote soon on whether to make gay marriage legal

[metis]

He corrected the Pharisees for enforcing their traditions instead of the law, he changed none of the laws. Jesus hated the laws made by men (in addition to the Mosaic law) and scolded the Pharisees for enforcing them.

Do you follow the Law, namely all 613 of the Commandments as found in Torah: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm gonna drag out the old cliché "marriage is for a man and a woman". Let's not change the definition.
My nephews and nieces (heterosexual)live with their partners and avoid
marriage like the plague. Ironic that gays want something that straights don't value anymore.

and what about the rights of the child? I think if I was a child I'd prefer to be raised by my biological parents unless they were completely dysfunctional.

Boy, do I disagree and then some!

 

[DavidFirth]

Do you follow the Law, namely all 613 of the Commandments as found in Torah: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

No, I don't. That's irrelevant.

 

[metis]

No, I don't. That's irrelevant.

Are you a follower of Jesus and what he said about the Law or is it that what he said about the Law is "irrelevant"?

Technically, if you're not Jewish you're not bound by the Law, so Jesus' take on the Law doesn't apply to you anyway. Different story if you're Jewish though.

 

[DavidFirth]

Are you a follower of Jesus and what he said about the Law or is it that what he said about the Law is "irrelevant"?

Technically, if you're not Jewish you're not bound by the Law, so Jesus' take on the Law doesn't apply to you anyway. Different story if you're Jewish though.

I never said anything different.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Being a Christian I feel very conflicted over this one. I will come back later and add some comments.

Are you in favour of making divorce legal?
That's the part I don't really get. We're giving homosexuals the right to make the same choice allowed by the rest of us. We're not saying we agree, support gay marriage, or think God won't be pissed at them when they die.

For me, personally, I do fully support them, and don't believe there is a God. But were I a Christian, I'm still not sure why I'd want to legislate other people's behaviours as if that brought people closer to God or something. It's strange.

(Just sharing my point of view, not seeking to attack you personally)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it's cowardly. The Government should just get on with it and stop wasting all our time and money.

I got very upset when I heard we were having a plebiscite. I don't like people's rights being put to a popularity contest, quite apart from the waste of time and money.

 

[gottalovemoses]

(Just sharing my point of view, not seeking to attack you personally)

I feel totally attacked.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm gonna drag out the old cliché "marriage is for a man and a woman". Let's not change the definition.

The definition has been changed before. Age restrictions, inter-racial marriages, marriage of divorcees, polygamy...
I'm not sure why people are determined to think marriage is a singularly defined and universal thing.

My nephews and nieces (heterosexual)live with their partners and avoid
marriage like the plague. Ironic that gays want something that straights don't value anymore.

Some straights do. Some gays won't. People are people.

and what about the rights of the child? I think if I was a child I'd prefer to be raised by my biological parents unless they were completely dysfunctional.

If the child is gay, this allows them the privilege of being treated the same as others.
But in more general terms, how do you see this as negatively impacting on a child?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So is this going to be the "postal vote"? And assuming that Australians vote for equal marriage rights, can Parliament and/or the administration somehow skate around it and not pass the legislation?

Yeah, a postal vote. It's become (finally!) a big issue, so it won't be too easy to skate around, and the results are binding. The bigger concern is that you need to be an enrolled voter, so young folks (who might not have suffered through an election yet) would need to enroll specifically to have a voice in this case.
That would have a small, but perhaps measurable impact on voting, given the general skewing of the vote along age lines.

You might enjoy/find this informative...

'I still call Australia home-ophobic': Tim Minchin releases postal vote protest song

 

[SomeRandom]

I got very upset when I heard we were having a plebiscite. I don't like people's rights being put to a popularity contest, quite apart from the waste of time and money.

I completely agree. The idea that the populous are voting on other (consenting adults) rights just feels like a slap in the face to equality movements. Could you imagine MLK jr putting up with a plebiscite to vote on civil rights? He'd be all, aww hell no son!!!!
Ugh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So according to my understanding, adoption by same-sex couples is recognized in all states and territories in Australia except one, and assisted reproductive methods are legal in some states and territories. Is that going to change with a national marriage-equality law? Will a national marriage-equality law give same-sex couple standing to assert their and their children's rights in those states and territories where adoption and assisted reproduction methods are not legal for same-sex couples?

This is an interesting question, and one I haven't heard discussed much as part of the lead-up to voting.
Quick background, states and territories are quite different legally, so it generally requires a separate legal challenge within a territory to drive a change. They commonly have different laws to states, and don't have the same constitutional protection which state laws have.

So, this is a bit of a guess, but...

It won't directly change with a national marriage-equality law, but it would make a challenge to existing law almost certain to win. In a practical sense, it would have almost no impact, since people living in WA (surrogacy) or NT (adoption) can move state easily enough if they want to have different access options. It could be a bogey used by conservatives though. I could see some people concerned about 'gay people having kids' or whatever, even though that obviously already happens, and this would have basically no measureable impact on that.

 

[gottalovemoses]

Are you in favour of making divorce legal?

Sorry I haven't processed this one in my head yet.
Part of me says I have to stay true to catholic Church teachings on Homosexuality. We must be compassionate to homosexuals but reject the "sin" of the homosexual act. Love the sinner hate the sin.
Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. A very holy one. its based on man and woman marrying and creating a family. Now immediately someone will attack me for saying this when they find out I have been in a childless marriage for 26 years. Hypocrisy. But we intended to have kids but it never worked out unfort.
I respect the hardline stance on this. Relativism is a real danger I feel. When we dilute the truth to "oh ok, whatever your opinion is the truth for you", this is where we are descending into lazy liberalism. I used to be a more radical liberal but I've woken up recently. You can see it happening in Anglicanism. They are losing their substance, its "loosey goosey". They don't stand for anything. I think there will always be a place for the absolute view. it keeps us balanced. But I will admit exceptions. Conscience is needed but we have to careful we aren't making too many exceptions. Very careful.
I'm voting No to gay marriage. because I think this "cool liberalism" who uses the word "homophobia" for anyone that disagrees with them is militant and intolerant. Someone called it the "tyranny of liberalism".

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm gonna drag out the old cliché "marriage is for a man and a woman". Let's not change the definition.

Definitions change all the time. That's how language and civilization works. And traditional marriage is an arranged prospect done for monetary or societal standing. So it's already changed numerous times anyway. Why care now?

My nephews and nieces (heterosexual)live with their partners and avoid
marriage like the plague. Ironic that gays want something that straights don't value anymore.

Well at least that would mean that the gay couples getting married value marriage. Why are you upset at this exactly? Those couples would be the ones to respect the institution far more than many straight couples. I thought that's what Christians want people to do anyway?

and what about the rights of the child? I think if I was a child I'd prefer to be raised by my biological parents unless they were completely dysfunctional.

What if that child's parents are gay though?
And how does gay marriage negatively affect a child's rights?
That's completely out of left field there mate.

Sorry I haven't processed this one in my head yet.
Part of me says I have to stay true to catholic Church teachings on Homosexuality. We must be compassionate to homosexuals but reject the "sin" of the homosexual act. Love the sinner hate the sin.
Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism. A very holy one. its based on man and woman marrying and creating a family. Now immediately someone will attack me for saying this when they find out I have been in a childless marriage for 26 years. Hypocrisy. But we intended to have kids but it never worked out unfort.
I respect the hardline stance on this. Relativism is a real danger I feel. When we dilute the truth to "oh ok, whatever your opinion is the truth for you", this is where we are descending into lazy liberalism. I used to be a more radical liberal but I've woken up recently. You can see it happening in Anglicanism. They are losing their substance, its "loosey goosey". They don't stand for anything. I think there will always be a place for the absolute view. it keeps us balanced. But I will admit exceptions. Conscience is needed but we have to careful we aren't making too many exceptions. Very careful.
I'm voting No to gay marriage. because I think this "cool liberalism" who uses the word "homophobia" for anyone that disagrees with them is militant and intolerant. Someone called it the "tyranny of liberalism".

Didn't Jesus say do unto others as you would have done yourself? I can only assume that you would wish me to make legislation barring your marriage to your significant other.
Like it's a legal marriage, not a church marriage. Not Hindu or Sikh or Christian, a secular marriage.

Honestly, all I see is Christians and Catholics whining that they have to share their toy with the "ebil gayz." Dress it up all you like, that's pretty scummy. Define marriage however you wish within your Church, that is your right. Hell there are even Churches who refuse to recognize inter racial marriages. But they're at least polite enough not to try to make that legislation for everyone else.
So your Catholic definition doesn't get to superscede the rights of people not in your church.
That's the infuriating thing about these arguments against legal secular gay marriage. It's almost always religious (and oddly only prominently from nosy various Christian sects. Like I haven't even seen Jewish demonstrations over this.) But we are not a religious society, we are secular. Secular.
So make your case secular and maybe you might have a point.

 

[gottalovemoses]

Definitions change all the time

so "strong" means "weak" now?
"definition" means "hungry"?
The truth can be diluted to whatever you want it to be. How convenient!

 

[gottalovemoses]

What if that child's parents are gay though?

hang on. so if my father is male and my mother is male?
I'm just trying to imagine the logistics of that....science is truly incredible these days

 

[gottalovemoses]

I want my biological mother and my biological father to be my parents. Fortunately I got that. Praise the Lord! Lucky they were nice people as well.

 

[SomeRandom]

hang on. so if my father is male and my mother is male?
I'm just trying to imagine the logistics of that....science is truly incredible these days

Lolz, IVF is pretty ancient tech mate.
Also many gay people come out or realize they are gay after they have a kid. You know, awkward het encounter makes them realize they are gay. That encounter might have a kid attached to it. Or they could just be adoptive parents or use surrogacy.
And kids have one upped you here, because alot of the ones I know with gay parents don't get confused.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with your religious sacrament. They're two separate things. No one is saying that Catholics should change their sacrament to recognize gay marriages (except for pro-LGBT Catholics but that's your own infighting issue). Why should all of society follow what your religion believes on this issue, when not everyone is Catholic?

 

[gottalovemoses]

Civil marriage has nothing to do with your religious sacrament

I know.