Gay Marriage Rights

[Big Kev]

Gay Marriage Rights in Australia - Rallies

Sydney:
Rally at Town Hall from Saturday, 12pm and March to the Sydney Convention Centre at Darling Harbour for a mass illegal wedding ceremony and to protest outside the National Labor Conference, demanding the Rudd government repeal the ban on Same Sex Marriage.

NSW:
Rally at 12pm, Saturday August 1st starts at Spinks Park aka Lismore Transit Centre, Molesworth St and March to the Winsome Hotel, Bridge St North Lismore where an after party will be held from 1:30pm

Canberra:
Meet at Garema Place, 1pm on August 1st, where there will be a rally followed by a march to Bob McMullen's office.

Brisbane:
The Brisbane rally will be held at 1pm on August 1st at Queens Park.

Hobart:
The Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (TGLRG) will rally and be launching a petition for Equal Same-Sex Marriage at their Salamanca stall at 11am on Saturday August 1st.

Melbourne:
This year’s rally is on August 1st from 1pm at Federation Square

Adelaide:
The Adelaide rally is hosted by the South Australian Queer Lobby
Meet at Parliament House, corner of North Terrace and King William St, Adelaide, at 11am.
We will hold a demonstration at Parliament House, and then march to Barr Smith Lawns, University of Adelaide, where we will hold a picnic/bbq and speeches.
There will also be an after-party at Mars Bar.

Perth:
WA Community Forum on Relationship recognition Saturday August 1st 2:00pm to 5:00PM, University of Western Australia UWA

I'm curious to know people's opinions on this. I personally am a strong believer in same sex marriage, and I think we're very close to the point where the government will finally pull their heads out of their arses and pass the bill. I'm not sure of my availability on that weekend, but if I am free, I will definitely march in support of the cause.

I'm curious to know how the hyper populace views same sex marriage though. Do you support it? Are you against it? Could you not give a shit either way? Will you be joining the rallies? Will you be sitting at home pulling yourself to gay porn in tribute?

Let's hear it.

[Slippery]

Family Guy summed it up for me;

If a man and a woman who hate each other can get married, then two guys (/girls) who love each other should be able to too.

[Big Kev]

ROFL!

Nice!

[AranchineD]

Will you be sitting at home pulling yourself to gay porn in tribute?

Of course, but I won't just on that day, I fap to lesbian porn all the time!

[Watchers]

ROFL!

Nice!

[Fenrir]

I'm curious to know people's opinions on this. ...

I'm curious to know how the hyper populace views same sex marriage though.
My views are fairly obvious - society's institution of marriage shouldn't be dictated by the Christians.

Do you support it? Are you against it? Could you not give a shit either way? Will you be joining the rallies? Will you be sitting at home pulling yourself to gay porn in tribute?
Yay; nay; out of loathe of the Christians, nay; wouldn't be able to make it so nay; and eh, sure, why not?

[Stevorooni]

I've got no problem with gay marriage but I don't care enough to do anything about it beyond maybe clicking 'yes' on an internet survey.


For what it's worth if heterosexual marriage was being taken away I probably wouldn't march for that either, I am a bitter husk of a human being.

[Theiffy]

My views are fairly obvious - society's institution of marriage shouldn't be dictated by the Christians.

Or any religion for that matter. That pretty much sums it up for me :P

[aubergine]

Hoping to attend the one in Queens park, if only for the puntastic location.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Gay people have rights.



THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT!

[Big Kev]

why would you abuse your rights blake???

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????????

(WTF is with caps lock filter?)

[Almighty Beanchild]

I am pro-gay marriage I guess, but I don't care enough to march or anything. Those sorts of gatherings are full of the kind of gay people that piss me off, which doesn't make a lot of sense but there it is.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

why would you abuse your rights blake???

The only right I abuse is the right of self-abuse!

[big_b]

ROFL!

Nice.

[Lex]

I've always wondered why polygamy is illegal...

[aubergine]

Polly got tired.

[Almighty Beanchild]

These threads are never very interesting anymore. The time when you would find someone who is vocally opposed to gay marriage is basically gone, so it's just a bunch of people making gay jokes and everyone agreeing gay marriage is probably the way to go.

This is mostly representative of WHY I don't like going to the marches, because a lot of people there who are pro-gay marriage can be very anti-other groups/beliefs. I don't feel like its either right OR helpful to the cause of gay people the way a lot of people approach those protests, I honestly believe that the sensible approach to the gay movement in modern society is to be pro-tolerance, not anti-discrimination.

I know not every gay person out there is of the anti-christian, militant stupidity variety, but its easier to avoid them if I don't go to these sorts of marches. Same reason I avoid the Gay and Lesbian club on campus at uni, the people who live and breath being gay as their defining quality just rub the wrong way. Fortunately I think my view is becoming more common!

EDIT: I also think poly relationships should get some kind of legal status, there's no reason to ban them.

[Lazlow]

Why must you tempt me so bean >_>

[UC1]

I'm opposed to gay marriage.

Marriage is an OATH before GOD between a MAN and a WOMAN. There's nothing in the Bible about gay marriage, in fact they say that to lay with a man as you would with a woman is a SIN.

Even supporting gay marriage (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) means you will end up in hell. And I know this because several people I know died and went to hell, and I have their eye witness testimonies that it is real, which is why I believe in it. How did they contact me? I'm into voodoo, which I'm also going to hell for.

[Lazlow]

Almost had me fooled >_>

[AranchineD]

These threads are never very interesting anymore. The time when you would find someone who is vocally opposed to gay marriage is basically gone, so it's just a bunch of people making gay jokes and everyone agreeing gay marriage is probably the way to go.

This is mostly representative of WHY I don't like going to the marches, because a lot of people there who are pro-gay marriage can be very anti-other groups/beliefs. I don't feel like its either right OR helpful to the cause of gay people the way a lot of people approach those protests, I honestly believe that the sensible approach to the gay movement in modern society is to be pro-tolerance, not anti-discrimination.

I know not every gay person out there is of the anti-christian, militant stupidity variety, but its easier to avoid them if I don't go to these sorts of marches. Same reason I avoid the Gay and Lesbian club on campus at uni, the people who live and breath being gay as their defining quality just rub the wrong way. Fortunately I think my view is becoming more common!

EDIT: I also think poly relationships should get some kind of legal status, there's no reason to ban them.

The first area in which they need to address is reality TV shows only putting gay couples on if they talk with a lisp and wear pink clothes 5 sizes too small for them!

BUT HOW ELSE WILL THE PUBLIC KNOW THEY ARE GAY?!

[Fenrir]

... I honestly believe that the sensible approach to the gay movement in modern society is to be pro-tolerance, not anti-discrimination.
Hmm. I'd never actually thought to distinguish the two, before now. Good luck getting the rest of society see the difference, though.

anti-christian, militant stupidity
The blatant anti-Christian sentiment is more of a backlash against a long and sordid history of Christian meddling, so I don't really blame the militants. The only way forward they see is to scrutinize the Christian belief system itself, and to be honest, I haven't got any better ideas.

EDIT: I also think poly relationships should get some kind of legal status, there's no reason to ban them.
I agree, but I'm beginning to think the idea of ever legislating marriage in the first place was flawed.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

who live and breath being gay as their defining quality just rub the wrong way.

When you're gay all the rubbing is the wrong way!

http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q321/fishfishmonkeyhat/Emoticons/V.gif

[dimorphic]

I don't care in the slightest. Let them marry if they want too as they are already given defacto relationship status, this is just the next logical step.

[Beinkasaurus Rex]

I'm a Christian =O
and I'd agree, there really wouldn't be any debate here. I'm all for it, everyone else is, etc <_<
Next topic guyz!

[Xanafalgue]

Tired of gays relying on others to do the groundwork while they mince around complaining about Beyonce's chart performances and Mariah's weight.

"Where are our equal rights!" disappears the moment they're in the presence of a cock. Lesbians have always been far more focused on such issues but are largely ignored.

[Vindik8or]

EDIT: I also think poly relationships should get some kind of legal status, there's no reason to ban them.

I think that there are some pretty good reasons. Let me find some.

I agree, but I'm beginning to think the idea of ever legislating marriage in the first place was flawed.

Again, there's some pretty good reasons to legislate the rights surrounding marriage, let me find them (a few are along the lines of privacy, eg. being able to find out the condition and location of your husband or wife if they are in hospital, powers of attorney, and estates without a will). Family units are an important and efficient social system and they should be supported by legislation.

EDIT: Okay, this was a bit harder than I expected, but here we go.

From a legal perspective, a great deal of laws, especially welfare, social security, and immigration laws would need to be changed so as not to provide avenues for exploitation or advantage over monogamous marriages. For a specific example consider the reversal of marriage - divorce. Current law often requires that assets and money shared by the couple is split equally and a certain standard of living be maintained. It can be considered that it involved only the two disputing parties, though this isn't the case where there are children involved and there are entire courts devoted to protecting children from harm in a divorce situation. If you then add to this other un-involved parties the law and a judge then has to try to consider whether in a divorce a person is divorcing one other person in a marriage, all of the people involved in the marriage, or a few of them (which raises more questions at the marriage stage concerning to whom a person is being wed). Depending then, what portion of the property are they entitled to? Either way more than just the persons involved in the dispute are liable to be affected adversely by a divorce - will we need a court to protect the rights of uninvolved spouses?

Then there are the sociological issues. In specific circumstances polygamy can be of great benefit to a social group. Polygyny (one man with multiple wives) can be very effective at increasing population growth, especially after a war where a larger proportion of the male population has been killed. Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) can control population growth where resources are limited and have more 'providers' for fewer children, given a greater assurance of survival. However given a first world country with stable population growth, neither of these purposes are applicable (and can be detrimental). Furthermore there is the (somewhat sexist and hetero-centric) issue of the most common form of polygamy (polygyny or polyandry) being 'unfair' to the opposite sex. Say that 10% of the men are married to 80% of the women, that leaves 90% of the men to compete over 80% of the women, placing women at an advantage for picking a desirable partner, and the men at a disadvantage.

All of that said, I am not against people having polyamorous relationships, that's their own choice and can of worms. I just don't think that such relationships should receive explicit governmental support.

[Fenrir]

Again, there's some pretty good reasons to legislate the rights surrounding marriage, let me find them (a few are along the lines of privacy, eg. being able to find out the condition and location of your husband or wife if they are in hospital, powers of attorney, and estates without a will). Family units are an important and efficient social system and they should be supported by legislation.
No need. I gather there are very good reasons for legislation to recognise and grant rights to formally established couples, et al - I just think basing such legislation on an age-old ceremony loaded with cultural and religious influences, is asking for massive shitstorms down the track.

[Vindik8or]

While logically sound, you gotta apply some more rigorous methodology than that to your analysis. Traditions and ceremonies are interesting, they have pathos, it's a kind of shared experience that humans can partake in and relate to on a communal sense. Sure the legislation shouldn't prefer one tradition over another, but neither does that speak ill of the tradition itself.

[aubergine]

I think that there are some pretty good reasons. Let me find some.



Again, there's some pretty good reasons to legislate the rights surrounding marriage, let me find them (a few are along the lines of privacy, eg. being able to find out the condition and location of your husband or wife if they are in hospital, powers of attorney, and estates without a will). Family units are an important and efficient social system and they should be supported by legislation.

EDIT: Okay, this was a bit harder than I expected, but here we go.

From a legal perspective, a great deal of laws, especially welfare, social security, and immigration laws would need to be changed so as not to provide avenues for exploitation or advantage over monogamous marriages. For a specific example consider the reversal of marriage - divorce. Current law often requires that assets and money shared by the couple is split equally and a certain standard of living be maintained. It can be considered that it involved only the two disputing parties, though this isn't the case where there are children involved and there are entire courts devoted to protecting children from harm in a divorce situation. If you then add to this other un-involved parties the law and a judge then has to try to consider whether in a divorce a person is divorcing one other person in a marriage, all of the people involved in the marriage, or a few of them (which raises more questions at the marriage stage concerning to whom a person is being wed). Depending then, what portion of the property are they entitled to? Either way more than just the persons involved in the dispute are liable to be affected adversely by a divorce - will we need a court to protect the rights of uninvolved spouses?

Then there are the sociological issues. In specific circumstances polygamy can be of great benefit to a social group. Polygyny (one man with multiple wives) can be very effective at increasing population growth, especially after a war where a larger proportion of the male population has been killed. Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) can control population growth where resources are limited and have more 'providers' for fewer children, given a greater assurance of survival. However given a first world country with stable population growth, neither of these purposes are applicable (and can be detrimental). Furthermore there is the (somewhat sexist and hetero-centric) issue of the most common form of polygamy (polygyny or polyandry) being 'unfair' to the opposite sex. Say that 10% of the men are married to 80% of the women, that leaves 90% of the men to compete over 80% of the women, placing women at an advantage for picking a desirable partner, and the men at a disadvantage.

All of that said, I am not against people having polyamorous relationships, that's their own choice and can of worms. I just don't think that such relationships should receive explicit governmental support.

That was really interesting. I would have just said that polygamy shouldn't be recognised by the state because it's so open to abuse and it doesn't clearly benefit the state, which marriage does.

Also, if I fathered everyone in a town with 20 women and then the kids all started interbreeding (even as half-brothers and sisters) eventually it would be like Slither or something.

Also, I know some polyrooting people and they are dickheads, although it's only one sample and hardly scientific. I hate anyone who has sex.

[Big Kev]

I've got some friends who have recently turned poly, and I find the whole concept fascinating.

It's become a running social experiment for me, as I get to observe the ways in which poly relationships work, and don't work. :D

I kind of like the concept, but am not sure if I'd be able to get over the whole jealousy thing.

[sausage]

I really don't give a shit, this is old news isn't it? What's with poo-pushers and lemon-squeezers these days? Jeez, you give them a inch and they take a colon.

Just go back to your fancy apartments and look after your african orphan children and stop clouding the real issues.

[Ad-Rock]

I think the whole concept of marriage is ridiculous.

[Vindik8or]

Either of you have something to add, or just failing at trolling?

[sausage]

Failure to troll on this subject merely reinforces my argument.

[texta]

I find the idea of Polygamy bizarre. Why would you want two women angry at you all the time?


But seriously, I think gay-marriage is a while off. For the Labor Party it's a vote loser more than it is a vote winner and I don't think there's the will in the executive for it to happen any time soon.

I really don't give a shit, this is old news isn't it? What's with poo-pushers and lemon-squeezers these days? Jeez, you give them a inch and they take a colon.Not really. There's growing pressure on the Government and it was all over talkback radio today thanks to the Tassie ALP State Conference voting for it. There a fringe event on it at the ALP National Conference this weekend and I think they're really going to push the Government on this. It's very much a current issue.

[sausage]

Well maybe it's just a Australian thing then; this issue was put to bed ages ago over here with our anything goes attitude.

FTR I'm totally ok with gay marriage.

[incompatible with life]

I've always found it amusing to no end that opponents of gay marriage constantly talk about the sanctity of marriage. I don't think you can quite claim that as long as people can get married in vegas by an Elvis impersonator (well... I am assuming it's still common practice).

That said, how important is a 'marriage' between a gay couple? The only prevailing reason I can really think of is for the various legal reasons involved with marriage and therefore why not settle for some sort of de facto status? I also perhaps say this with the view that all that marriage really amounts to is a fancy ceremony. Wait make that a horrendously expensive fancy ceremony.

[aubergine]

A marriage ceremony is not a marriage.

You ask "Why not settle for?" so I ask "Why settle for?"

the basic summary of what I wrote on The Beforeforum is that it's a human rights issue. Gay couples are being given MOST human rights, because they are MOSTLY human, but not COMPLETELY human are they, not like you and me.

[incompatible with life]

At the risk of stirring up the hornet's nest, how is this a human rights issue?

As for the question of why settle for "something less"? I take the position that marriage effectively serves as a legal union between two people and the rest is window dressing. Certainly I'm operating on the assumption that a marriage and a de facto relationship have equal legal standing with each other. Therefore it seems like a whole lot of fuss kicked up for a somewhat superfluous title and that it would be better to divert efforts to something else that probably matters more like say, gay adoption.

[aubergine]

Marriage is available to people who are attracted to the opposite sex but not to those who are attracted to the same sex, recommending that same sex relationships are not really valid. Gay people want the same rights as straight people.

[Almighty Beanchild]

At the risk of stirring up the hornet's nest, how is this a human rights issue?

As for the question of why settle for "something less"? I take the position that marriage effectively serves as a legal union between two people and the rest is window dressing. Certainly I'm operating on the assumption that a marriage and a de facto relationship have equal legal standing with each other. Therefore it seems like a whole lot of fuss kicked up for a somewhat superfluous title and that it would be better to divert efforts to something else that probably matters more like say, gay adoption.

I think the thinking by a lot of gay people goes that if the state won't recognise gay couples through marriage/civil unions then it seems unlikely they will be able to recognise a gay couple as a valid parental unit when it comes to adoption, so this fight has to be put down before the next one (the gay adoption one) is started.

Only, KIND OF, as gay adoption is very much a current issue as well, it just gets less focus.

[incompatible with life]

Marriage is available to people who are attracted to the opposite sex but not to those who are attracted to the same sex, recommending that same sex relationships are not really valid. Gay people want the same rights as straight people.
And therefore I interpret the crux of that being more wanting legal recognition of the union more than wanting to be "married" per se (ie. "What's in a name?").

[aubergine]

If there's nothing "in a name" as you suggest then there is no reason not to give them that name.

[incompatible with life]

Yes, but what I was originally saying was not that it shouldn't be given but more a pragmatic - "is it really worth all that effort"?

[banjoeskimo]

Apparently it is (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/18/2494260.htm). Not that I encourage that amount money being spent, but, evidently it matters to someone.

Anyway, the main crux of the issue for me is the reasoning as to why we don't allow gay marriage already. If it were the case that the gay community had come to a decision that they didn't care about marriage, or we as a society held that marriage carries is special to the individual only, with no symbolism attached, it'd be a different story.

As it stands though, most of the opposition to gay marriage being allowed comes from at worst, blatant homophobia, or at best, a tacit endorsement of an "Us & Them" society where gays somehow need to be classified as different. So even though it's ceremonial? It only perpetuates a system where the homosexual community has to be singled out.

Pragmatically, yeah, there might be other stuff that's worth doing first for the sake of making day to day life easier (your adoption example springs to mind, as well as hospital visitation rights and the like), but at the end of the day if we're honest about being an inclusive society we're going to have to get to it eventually, so absolutely I think it's worth fighting for.

[incompatible with life]

So then it essentially comes down to a debate about the concept of marriage and refuting the concept that it is only something that can occur between a man and a woman.

And from the position I stand at I still don't see what is inherently so special in a "marriage" that isn't already covered in say a de facto relationship (once again, aside from a fancy ceremony and a fancy name).

[aubergine]

You don't need to.

[banjoeskimo]

So then it essentially comes down to a debate about the concept of marriage and refuting the concept that it is only something that can occur between a man and a woman.

And from the position I stand at I still don't see what is inherently so special in a "marriage" that isn't already covered in say a de facto relationship (once again, aside from a fancy ceremony and a fancy name).

So your position is that marriage as an institution is useless, regardless of who's involved. Good for you. Other people feel differently.

[incompatible with life]

Yes, and no one has put forward any arguments as to why it's important.

[Dunkurtin]

Legal recognition is important. Ever think there might be gay gold diggers? Can't take half without a marriage.

[aubergine]

Penny Wong finally comes out of the closet on samesame marriage. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/27/3078331.htm)

[banjoeskimo]

Good for her. I mean that quite sincerely. Here's hoping the agitators within Labor are able to get this change across the line at the national conference.

Also, I seem to remember copping some argumentation from texta when I called bullshit on her "support" of the Labor party's position before the last election. Called it. :p

[Stevorooni]

I don't think anyone believed her "support" back then, so it's nice to see a little honesty instead of a party line run past focus groups.

[Vindik8or]

Do you, Dyson Cyclonic, take shag pile carpet to be your partner in life?

[aubergine]

You cant have love in a vacuum, but it's a rare day to have a politician being probably honest about something eventually.

[sausage]

honestly I don't know why all governments aren't just wtf go ahead about all this; the taxation and financial boost to the economy from the pink marriage dollar is amazing.

[Vindik8or]

The campaign donations from Hillsong and the Christian Lobby are even bigger.

[Cubby]

...they say that to lay with a man as you would with a woman is a SIN.
I love this quote from the bible.
If I were ever to "lay" with a women, that's all we'd be doing, therefore it is a sin to just "lay" there with a man, therefore "God" wants me to have sex with men.

"God" actually loves gays, it's the bi's he hates.

[Vindik8or]

Applying modern linguistic semantics to a translation of an ancient text. Why how could there possibly be any flaws in such an approach?

[AranchineD]

Removing quoted content that has been removed

more like Sweating Tautologies

[Xanafalgue]

Still lolling @ feces forcer

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Applying modern linguistic semantics to a translation of an ancient text. Why how could there possibly be any flaws in such an approach?

WHY HOW VIN?

Why how indeed.

[^gR]

I find the idea of Polygamy bizarre. Why would you want two women angry at you all the time?




LOL texta, quote of the decade. Wd

[Vindik8or]

WHY HOW VIN?

Why how indeed.

Say it sardonically.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

I did that's why it's in italics.