TL;DR: Australian politics sucks, go watch the video.
People outside of Australia won't be aware of this, but gay marriage is shaping up to be a big political issue in the near future. It actually has strong community support; more than 60% of the population is in favour of legalising gay marriage. It's also a federal issue here, which makes things a lot clearer than in the USA.
A little over a year ago, we got our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. As it happens, she's also our first atheist PM. From being wildly popular as a leftist, outspoken, deputy PM (she deposed the sitting PM, rather than winning an election from opposition), she's jumped her politics straight to the centre and now doesn't say squat if it hasn't been run past ten spinmeisters and a focus group. So now she has the lowest approval rating of any recent leader - even worse than John Howard, who lied to the electorate repeatedly and got us in to the Iraq war when only 9% of the country supported it. She also almost lost an election due to her sheer uninspiringness, resulting in a hung parliament and a minority government.
Anyway, I got sidetracked. We were all happy that an atheist, strongly left-of-centre leader had gotten in and were all sure that gay marriage would be one of the first pieces of legislation she introduced. Not so. Since day one, she's been strongly against it. Her initial excuse was that the Labour party policy was anti-gay marriage and that she didn't have the power to overturn that (rubbish). More recently, she's been talking about how there are "deeply held convictions in society" - somehow ignoring that the more strongly held convictions are in support of changing the law.
The Labour Party conference is coming up and it's the #1 issue to be discussed, in order to officially change the party policy. Almost every state-level Labour Party has passed resolutions in support of gay marriage and insisting that the federal party should do the same.
So... what does Julia Gillard do? She tells everyone that she's going to allow the bill to go to parliament, but make it a conscience vote. For those not familiar with the concept, it means that the members of parliament can vote according to their personal beliefs and aren't forced to follow party line. This also means that the bill is doomed, as the Labour Party doesn't actually hold a majority in the parliament; to pass any laws, they have to get three out of four independent and minor-party MPs to agree with them. Given that several Labour MPs are strongly Catholic and are under a lot of pressure from the church not to support any changes, and given that the (right wing) Liberal Party is not going to allow their members to vote with their conscience, this means that it's more or less impossible for this law to be passed.
So, that's shit.
Anyway, I never actually intended to spend 20 minutes writing up this essay. I just thought the following video needed some context.
That IS sweet x_x
Aw.... I never got why everyone is against gay marriage. Its so retarded.It doesnt hurt anyone. if anything, It'd help the economy and shit.
Jesus, that video was really sweet. Almost brought a tear to my eye. It was a perfect representation of how a gay couple is exactly the same as a male/female couple. Brilliant. And extra thumbs up to the lack of stereotyping.
We were all happy that an atheist, strongly left-of-centre leader had gotten in and were all sure that gay marriage would be one of the first pieces of legislation she introduced.
[Citation needed] ('We' being?)
What you're saying is that you're unhappy that the person who rules your country rules by her own opinion, rather than by yours, and so she must be wrong? Surely the point of democracy is so that the leader of the country shares the opinions of the majority? If it is the majority opinion, it stands to reason that you'd elect someone with that opinion.
The issue of civil partnerships has got totally out-of-hand in Britain; it was legalised a few years ago (civil partnership being basically what you would call a gay marriage, since 'gay marriage' is actually an oxymoron) and has now become very aggressive, to the extent that Christian preachers who refuse to wed a gay couple can actually lose their jobs.
I think we (my 'we' being Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality) should respect non-believers' rites to live as they wish, but in return it'd be nice if our rites to object to homosexuality could be respected.
So I hope Australia doesn't follow our example.
Posted 11-26-2011 at 10:04 AM bySplat Updated 11-26-2011 at 10:48 AM bySplat
I loved that video to, the ending was so happy
The UK is a bit technical with "gay marriage" as it is a "civil partnership" urgh, yeah, technicalities...
So, what I want to ask is, does Australia have this "civil partnership" thing at all, or any sort of "bonding" for gay couples?
What you're saying is that you're unhappy that the person who rules your country rules by her own opinion, rather than by yours, and so she must be wrong? Surely the point of democracy is so that the leader of the country shares the opinions of the majority? If it is the majority opinion, it stands to reason that you'd elect someone with that opinion.
You only have to look at the politicians in Britain to know that all of what you said here is bullshit. You've probably heard of the liberal democrats.
And over in Britain, when I vote, I vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils, not because I actually like or agree with the party I voted for. I doubt that it's so different in Australia or anywhere else. It's not really a democracy, it's not much better than a morton's fork.
:
The issue of civil partnerships has got totally out-of-hand in Britain; it was legalised a few years ago (civil partnership being basically what you would call a gay marriage, since 'gay marriage' is actually an oxymoron) and has now become very aggressive, to the extent that Christian preachers who refuse to wed a gay couple can actually lose their jobs.
I think we (my 'we' being Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality) should respect non-believers' rites to live as they wish, but in return it'd be nice if our rites to object to homosexuality could be respected.
So I hope Australia doesn't follow our example.
A lot of people don't get married because of religion. They get married because they have it in their heads that that's what you do as a display of commitment. If a man is too childish to refuse to perform a service which is integral to his job just because he thinks that the idea of a man and a man having sex is just too gross, he needs to figure something else out for himself. A preacher can say whatever the fuck he wants, but he cannot impose his views on others.
At this point in time, marriage is no longer strictly a religious ceremony. Thus, gay marriage (or to the pedantic, civil partnership) is a political issue, and politics should be kept secular.
Posted 11-26-2011 at 11:29 AM byOddjobAbe Updated 11-26-2011 at 11:32 AM byOddjobAbe
:
but in return it'd be nice if our rites to object to homosexuality could be respected.
I think that gays should be allowed to be wed in government marriages (do they have those things I'm sure they do, anyway, like secular weddings) but the Church, The Synagogue, The Temple etc, shouldn't /have/ to do it.
to the extent that Christian preachers who refuse to wed a gay couple can actually lose their jobs.
[citation needed]
I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that one. It's an argument that the religious right has used over and over again and yet I've never actually heard of it happening. Unless the UK has some seriously bullshit laws, religious leaders simply cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony that they don't agree with. That's like saying that I can ask a priest to perform a circumcision and he would be fired if he refuses.
:
('We' being?)
People with similar politics to me. I figured that was implied.
:
What you're saying is that you're unhappy that the person who rules your country rules by her own opinion, rather than by yours, and so she must be wrong?
Mainly because we didn't get what we expected. Perhaps a better word would have been 'disappointed' rather than 'unhappy'. But given the massive swing against the Labour Party at the last election, towards to strongly left-wing Greens Party, I'm not an isolated case.
T-Nex is pretty much right. Most people here think she's playing political expedience rather than following her own opinion. And it has backfired on her repeatedly, not just on this issue.
:
(civil partnership being basically what you would call a gay marriage, since 'gay marriage' is actually an oxymoron)
Okay, a couple of things here. Civil partnership in the UK is absolutely not the same as marriage. It is not legally equivalent and there are also restrictions on what can occur in the ceremonies.
In any case, your claim that 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron assumes that marriage is a religious institution. It isn't, and it hasn't been for a very long time. Marriage is a legal institution in almost all Western countries that can, if the applicants choose, be supplemented with a religious ceremony. For instance, when my sister got married, the ceremony was performed by a rabbi, they signed the Jewish marriage contract, smashed the glass, kissed... and 20 minutes later they went off in to a private room and signed the marriage certificate only in front of the witnesses. Similarly with Christian marriages, the ceremony is religious but the actual legal marriage is the signing of the civil marriage certificate, which may or may not happen in front of everyone at the ceremony.
Uh, Lets just privatize marriage, then institutions can decide who they will marry. Though assuming there is state regulated marriages, at this point in time it would seem fair to allow homosexuals to wed (to each other). Apart from religious ones (separation of church and state - yay), I don't see any reason to oppose gay marriage. For some reason to me any marriage just seems stupid and pointless anyway.
I don't mid how you're doing it Nate; though some gays (particularly feminist-lesbians) who continually rant on about the absence of gay marriage as if it's the biggest violation of human rights in the history of the earth, in the end just appear arrogant self-righteous and really don't help the cause.
Also eww, GetUp.
Posted 11-26-2011 at 07:40 PM bymoxco Updated 11-26-2011 at 07:51 PM bymoxco
I don't see where discrimination against gay marriage has any place in the modern world. Two people love each other? Two people want to commit their lives together? A gay couple want to be bound by the same symbolic vows as straight people have the right to? It's bullshit, people with power should stop sucking the dicks (excuse me) of the people who stigmatized it in the first place and start appeasing the majority who would like to see this being encouraging, not only legalized.
Also, that had to be one of the nicest videos I've seen in a while.
I agree with this but I still think it shouldn't be forced upon religious institutions if they disagree with it. Allow them to have secular marriage if religion won't do it.
It is a grave misfortune that religion still attaches so much negative connotation and stigma to homosexuality, also because of one or two passages in each holy book (Sodom and Gomorrah for example), and it generally is a problem, because as I've said in the past, the way I was brought up and because of my religion, until I was about 14 or 15 I was very much homophobic, and I was quite disgusted with the whole idea. Thank God I don't feel the same way I did then, it sickens me that at such a young age, I was indoctrinated into having a disdain for gays. And that's the thing, religion I think, teaches that homosexuality is wrong, in almost all organised religious institutions.
I would like to make it clear again that that was how I was, not how I am now, and I feel wretched for ever being a homophobe.
I agree with this but I still think it shouldn't be forced upon religious institutions if they disagree with it. Allow them to have secular marriage if religion won't do it.
No-one is suggesting that it should be forced on religious institutions.
Erm...
After thinking for a moment about a few douchebags I know, I should correct that to "No-one sane or with any level of political power is suggesting it should be forced on religious institutions".
Is gay marriage a federal or state issue? In Queensland (an appropriately named state) the Labor party is trying to pass legislation allowing gays to have civil unions. The leader of the opposition (a liberal party member) supports gay marriage but he's voting against it because the Liberals have a coalition with the Nationals and needs to secure the conservative farmer's votes.
:
A majority never has any rights to discriminate against a minority. Ever.
I dispute that not having gay marriage is form of discrimination; not that I oppose it. Marriage is, at the moment, something that is between a man and a woman; Every man and every women are allowed to marry. Perhaps the only genuine argument I have seen against gay marriage is that it will lead to other obscure relationships being able to wed. Not that I think that is a bad idea, just an interesting point. Could one claim by not being allowed to marry an organism of another species is discrimination? What about polygamous marriages - is disallowing them discrimination too?
This is why I hate marriage in general and would just wish the state would have nothing to do with it.
Is gay marriage a federal or state issue? In Queensland (an appropriately named state) the Labor party is trying to pass legislation allowing gays to have civil unions.
I'm not familiar with that particular example but, yes, it's covered by federal law in Australia. Whatever Queensland was proposing would not be equivalent to marriage; it's probably similar to what some municipalities have done in Melbourne; they've set up registries where gay couples can 'register' their relationship and have it officially 'recognised' (as well as a nice ceremony in front of their families), but it doesn't actually mean anything practically different.
Discrimination against homosexuals has diminished greatly over the years in some countries, and it will most likely continue this way as long as there are people fighting against homophobia. However, there are some people and places who are still stuck in the past in this instance. Take Uganda for example. In my opinion Uganda obsesses far too much over the fact that people can be gay. By focusing all their efforts on trying to erase it from humanity (it will never, ever happen) they're bound to be ignoring issues that can actually be changed.
The thing is religion, even secular groups sometimes, indoctrinate people, usually at a young age, and through seemingly innocent ways, into hating the gays. It happened to me...fortunately I managed to wake up, and actually I can safely say that perhaps 50%-60% of what made me realise how fucking terrible having such views was, was by OWF.
I don't know what it is about "objecting to homosexuality" that can possibly be respected, since it's awful. Indeed, I don't know how to or why anyone should respect an idea or view they don't have. If you don't share it, then you think it's wrong. And a wrong idea has failed the only test that matters to ideas. At what point does that become worthy of respect? If I respected an idea I would agree with it.
Am I the only person who doesn't like the word homophobic. Most so called homophobes are not really scared of gays, just disgruntled by their acceptance in mainstream society. Sexualityist doesn't role off the tongue very well though.
