Tag Archives: gay

Everyone’s talking about it: Gay Marriage

Gay marriage!

So here are a few arguments, for and against, from the comments section of Australian news websites. Real people, with real opinions, telling us what they really think (usually with incorrect grammar and spelling).

It’s wrong:

Opposition comes from the position that there is a morally right way of expressing sexuality, and a morally wrong way of expressing sexuality. Homosexuality is viewed as morally wrong by those who oppose it.

– Issac, here.

The ever-present animal comparison:

There is no reason to allow gay marriage. Love is not a legitimate reason to allow it, as some people love kids or animals in the same way. But we’re not going to support marriage to children or animals, are we? Then be consistent people!

– Ryan, here.

Is it time to allow people to marry animals too?! get real. A marriage has been between a male and female for 4000-5000 years! why suddenly change?

– Hooda, here.

Choose another word; not marriage, because those eight letters are just so precious to us heterosexuals:

Civil unions is a formal recognition for gay people. Marriage is clearly defined in legislation (rightly so) between a man and a woman. The gay community need another word, not marriage.

– Simon, here.

If same-sex couples want to live together, then they can. But don’t call it marriage!
Marriage is a holy and sacred covenantal agreement between a man and a woman before God and others. Please don’t steal our word and make it mean less than that.

-BethyBennett, here.

The Bible says ‘No’:

No. This is a predominantly Christian community. Over 70% of Australians identify as Christian. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

– Jenny, here.

And the counter-argument:

The bible also says that to show your love to your child you should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24), and that if your child curses you they should be put to death (Lev 20:9) – do you do that?

The bible also says it is a sin to eat shellfish (Lev 11:9-12) – have you eaten prawns or lobster latety?

Have you run around killing Muslims, Buddhists and those of other religions lately – after all that is commanded by your Bible (Ex 22:20, Deu 17:2-7)? What about atheists, killed any of them lately to bring about peace (2 Chr 15:15)?

You may wish to pick and choose a selection of rules from an iron age story – but don’t expect the rest of us to, nor that you can impose your religious beliefs on everyone else.

– rob1966, here.

We are Christians God damn it, and the human race, 9 billion strong, depends on us heterosexuals fucking to survive:

This is a christian nation – that is where our great nation began – on good moral ground – and we need to stand our ground on issues like this. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion, then humanity’s survival is at stake – without a “mummy and a daddy”, there would be NO human race!

– SusieT, here.

What discrimination?

The Marriage Act applies to one man and one woman, there is nothing ‘discriminatory’ in that. I notice that the gay lobby and the Greens do not think that it is discriminatory to refuse Muslims the right to more than one wife although Centrelink already accepts such arrangements.

– Jessica and Josh, here.

The country is in crisis; it is not the time to talk about gay marriage. Let’s postpone this debate until the nation is growing and happy and fuel prices are back at 60c/L.

No time should be taken up by Parliament with gay rights. As they obviously can’t produce children, they don’t need any other rights other than to be able to live together, which they can do at their own choice now.

– Tracker, here.

Well done Adam Brandt, get yourself into feeding off the tax payer then your big aim in life is this. What about the 25,000 homeless children in Australia ?

– Trump, here.

Another minority group:

I do not believe that the majority of people support gay marriage. There is no good reason for legalising gay marriage. It makes no difference to the legal standing of the relationship. This is another push by a minority group to impose their views on the rest of society.

-Terry, here.

You’re a dickhead:

To call a same sex union a marriage defies the language and once you start to stuff around with the definition of language all other definitions are under threat as well as all legal and the meaning of legislated law.

– Deiter, here.

I don’t care, therefore no one cares:

Give us a break! Most people are sick to death of a minority’s sexuality issues thrust in our faces everytime we want to read the news. I’m seriously thinking about going to other media outlets for my news. There is no balance here.

– Simon, here.

The totally uneducated:

It’s not a human rights issue a. we have never had the right to marry so its not something that has been taken away from us and b. do those straight couples who choose not to be married or those that just cant find a partner are they also in breach of their human rights? Hardly.

– ChrisG, here.

It is an illness. Treatable with counselling/jail etc. Allowing gay marriages will also increase the risk of AIDS.

GoBigOne, here.

You’ve almost persuaded me:

Who said Guy marrigers must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, they all turned gay, now were are they ?

– Dale, here.

Do you support gay marriage?

Heaven is Virtual Reality. Heaven is a fantasy. This is heaven.

Imagine this:

Sometime in the future, everyone on the planet decides to live in a utopian virtual world [think Second Life 100 years from now], however they don’t access that world via a computer screen and keyboard.

The physical body would be stored away on life-support. Everyone would be tube fed the perfect amount of energy, fat, vitamins and minerals; delivered in a constant stream throughout the day.

We would have electronic messages sent right into our brain so our eyes wouldn’t have to be open. Smells, tastes and touch would all be created in our brain or spinal cord. The mind would be free to escape the physical disabilities of real life; the paralyzed would be able to walk, no one would have AIDS or bird flu. We could all choose to live our lives however we chose, free from the constraints of real-life.

In a utopian virtual world, where resources are unlimited, would we have to buy products and services, would we have to work to earn currency, and how would goods and services be priced?

Some other questions:

  • In the absence of work, what would we do all day?
  • What would we talk to our friends about?
  • Would we be immortal?
  • What value would life have if we were immortal?
  • Would there be a government; someone to make decision about the world?
  • How would that government be chosen?

How would heaven be different to this utopian virtual life?

If every ‘good’ person goes to heaven for eternity, there must be quite a few people up there. Just like in a virtual world, they won’t need physical things like food, water, medicine, money, and they won’t need to go to work to buy things.

  • What would these people do and what would be their purpose?
  • How would they feel fulfilled?
  • What would their dreams and aspirations be?
  • What would they talk about with their friend and family?
  • Maybe they will decide to learn and gain knowledge and wisdom. But, for what purpose?
  • Maybe they will decide to play sport or compete against each other. But how will teams be chosen?
  • Will there be rules and regulations for competitors? Who will make these rules?
  • Would they compete for a prize? What could the prize be?
  • What if I am really passionate about my team and someone says they’re rubbish? Could I dislike them?
  • Would there be arguments? How could arguments be resolved?
  • Would music, art, movies, entertainment or literature exist in heaven?
  • If I was passionate about writing theatre, film, music or poetry, could I continue with that in heaven? Could I share my work with an audience, maybe in a theatre? Who would perform my work? How would they be chosen over the many others who wanted to perform? Who built the theatre?
  • How would someone passionate about food or wine get on?
  • What if my whole family was here except my very lively and entertaining gay sister and her caring partner? Their two adopted children are here though, forever without their parents.

Heaven is a fantasy. This is heaven.

Centophobia’s guide to voting in the Senate ’07

I’d like to begin by disclosing that I am a member of the Australian Democrats.

We are another step closer to the Federal Election with Senate preference flows being submitted last Saturday (3 Nov ’07).

Firstly, a brief description of the parties in the Senate contest (some of these parties are only running in certain states):

  • Labor: New Leadership, Education Revolution, Sorry, end WorkChoices, high-speed broadband, do something on Climate Change.
  • Liberal/National: More of the same, economic prosperity, lower interest rates, security, spending on roads.
  • The Greens: the environment and global warming, public education and health, indigenous health, ‘No to Nuclear’.
  • The Australian Democrats: human rights, equality for women and respect for aboriginal people, political accountability, international leadership.
  • Family First: health and well-being of the family.
  • One Nation: protectionist trade strategies, reduce immigration (especially from Asia), reduce benefits given to indigenous Australians
  • Pauline: reduce immigration, fixed parliamentary terms, inquiry into energy sources viability and environmental impact, give product aid rather than cash,
  • Climate Change Coalition: ratify Kyoto, reduce carbon emissions, oppose nuclear power, introduce emissions trading scheme.
  • Carers: funding for disability, aged care and mental health, increased recognition and support for carers.
  • What Women Want: female representation in Parliament, fairer workplace, paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, support as carers, choices in child birth, better post-natal care.
  • Non-Custodial Parents Party: prevent family breakdown, equal parenting in marriage and after divorce, protection of children after divorce, decreased government intervention, don’t support War in Iraq, free trade, globalisation, reduced emphasis on coal for energy.
  • Hear our Voice: ?
  • Conservative for Climate and Environment: responsible and economically responsible action on climate change.
  • Senator Online: no policy platform. Suggests that the Australian people who have access to the internet will vote on legislation and the majority opinion will be expressed by the candidate.
  • Socialist Alliance: end WorkChoices, environment, free health and education, public housing, end discrimination, defend the rights of Aboriginal Australians.
  • LDP (Liberty and Democracy Party): decreased government intervention, free trade, reduce tax, minimal public spending, individual freedoms.
  • Democratic Labor Party: social and economic justice, firmly against recognition of gay relationships, per capita education voucher, increased military spending, no tax on income saved or invested,
  • Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party/The Fishing Party: They like fishing people! oppose bans or restrictions on recreational fishing in National Parks.
  • Australian Shooters Party: oppose The Greens policies to protect the environment – defend the right to own a firearm and 4WD in National Parks.
  • Citizens Electoral Council: protectionist trade policies, public assets over privatisation, range of assistance for family farmers, remove the GST, increased infrastructure spending and immigration.
  • Christian Democratic Party: ‘Christian values and ethics’, security for country and property, improved family life and protection of children (cough, cough), support for Christian education, (wait for it!) ‘legislation to guard life from all destructive forces’.
  • Independents: obviously each independent candidate has their own ideas and opinions. Therefore it is difficult for me to write about every independent candidate in the election.

If you vote above the line, the party you vote for will decide who they will give your vote to if they are knocked out of the contest. If you vote below the line, you are able to choose the order of parties that will get your vote if they are knocked out of the contest. Make sure to number ever box though if you are voting below the line, and make sure you display your ability to count.

I was having a discussion with my family about voting for minor parties in the Senate recently. I was suggesting that they vote for a minor party or independent in the Senate so that no matter which major party has control of the Lower House, the Senate would always be a second opportunity for policies to be discussed, and altered. My grandma however revealed a number of things about her political experience when she suggested matter-of-factly that “a vote for the Democrats, is a vote for Labor”. The two things being – her dislike of Labor, and her limited political knowledge (I’d like to point out that I don’t consider myself politically knowledgeable, I just have good googling skills). So is a vote for The Democrats a vote for Labor?

Order of preferences for Democrats in Queensland: Major premiseA vote for the Democrats is not a vote for Pauline!

We Like: Climate Change Coalition, Carers, What Women Want, independents, The Greens.
At least they are better than the Major Parties: Socialist Alliance, LDP, Senator Online, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, independents, Labor, Liberal/Nationals.
Not in Hell: The Fishing Party, Democratic Labor Party, independents, Family First, Non-Custodial Parents Party, independents, Australian Shooters Party, Citizens Electoral Council, Christian Democratic Party, One Nation WA, Pauline.

Senator Andrew Bartlett explains:

In deciding our Senate preference ticket in Queensland, the Democrats used the following general principles as a guide to group the various parties:

  • smaller parties and independents who are sufficiently like-minded to justifiably put ahead of the Greens.
  • smaller parties and independent too philosophically different to be able to justify putting ahead of the Greens, but still okay enough to put ahead of the major parties.
  • smaller parties and independents who are basically too antithetical to Democrat philosophy to preference ahead of the major parties.

[..] Given the importance of ending the current situation where one major party controlled the Senate – and the appalling display of debauching due process which the Coalition had engaged since it gained that Senate control – we decided to put our preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition.

In Queensland, an ‘above the line’ vote for the Democrats will be counted as a vote for Labor before it is can be counted as a vote for the Coalition (I have a limited understanding of how the counting process occurs and trying to explain it is even more difficult). However if I vote below the line, I am able to put Labor and the Coalition in any position I like. Therefore, a vote for the Democrats is not necessarily a vote for Labor. Moral of the story – just take the extra 10 seconds and vote below the line!

Check where your preferences will be going (if you vote above the line) : New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory.

The rights of homosexual citizens…

Earlier this week the Prime Minister’s office revealed they were preparing a submission to review the rights of homosexual couples (ABC). Conveniently revealed during Syndey’s annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (the PM is a clever little fella), the laws would give citizens in same-sex relationships equal rights as people in heterosexual unions, in areas such as superannuation, tax and welfare.

However, the Prime Minister has twice rejected ACT legislation which would have recognised civil unions. This state legislation would have given homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples and would have recognised their relationship as a legal union (Your Guide: Canberra, IBN News). It seems the Prime Minister, while recognising that homosexuals shouldn’t be financial disadvantaged, doesn’t believe he has any obligation to correct social inequality.

In the Prime Ministers words:

Well I don’t criticise gay people for that lifestyle, that’s their choice. What I do say, and I don’t apologise for saying, is that there are certain benchmark institutions in our society that ought to be defended and promoted and marriage is one of them and the reason I don’t support gay marriage is that I think it in different ways reduces the status of marriage as so commonly understood in our society, that is partly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition of our society, it’s also influenced by other things as well, it’s not only people of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is obviously the dominant one in our country, who hold that view, others hold it as well, but there has to be a point at which you stand up for certain benchmark institutions. I don’t think that’s intolerant, I think it’s common sense because they contribute to the continuity and the stability of society. (emphasis added: Radio Interview: 891)

Lifestyle choice? Defend Marriage from what? Benchmark institutions? That gays would corrupt, corrode? Reduce the status of marriage?

The Prime Minister believes that the institution of marriage is far more important than the rights set out by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He thinks that because we are influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition, people are allowed to be discriminated against for the stability of society (which happens to be exactly the same argument Mr Bush uses).

Why does the Prime Minister believe that if 5-10% of the population married within their gender the whole institution of marriage and society at large would crumble to its knees? Heterosexuals have done a pretty good job of recking the institution of marriage on their own – Hollywood stars stay married for about the same time it takes to tie my shoelaces.

The Prime Minister’s reason for defending marriage is also a dangerous one. He cannot say that because our society was based on a religion which had certain values, that we can forsake the rights of citizens which don’t fit with that religion. The Christian religion didn’t value women, yet society hasn’t crumbled because women are allowed to vote or have the freedom to choose a career. Many Muslim countries restrict women’s rights. Does that mean because the Muslim religion allows this discrimination we shouldn’t be concerned?

Would society really crumble because gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?

tag: , , , , , , ,

Read my essay on the rights of homosexuals in Australia.