The Australian Same Sex marriage bill will be something taken personally by many
28 replies, posted
[IMG]http://smartrecoveryaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/the-sydney-morning-herald-logo.jpg[/IMG]
Source: [URL]http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/samesex-marriage-bill-personal-for-many-20120917-261jk.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]The same-sex marriage debate has a personal dimension for Labor Senator Louise Pratt, who has a transgender partner.
An emotional Senator Pratt told the upper house on Monday the law as it stood discriminated against her relationship and those of many others.
"I am one of those hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who knows that the laws of our nation hold our capacity for love and for commitment to be lesser because of the gender of our partner," she said.
"One of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who knows that the laws of our nation say we are less deserving of rights, respect and recognition.
Advertisement
"We know that those ideas are not true and that the laws that reinforce them are not right.
"This debate has a personal impact for me."
The Senate is debating a Labor and Greens-sponsored bill that would legalise same-sex marriage by amending the Marriage Act.
The bill is identical to one now being debated in the House of Representatives.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said change was inevitable and might occur sooner if Prime Minister Julia Gillard provided greater leadership.
"It is part of our nature to give people a fair go, to not get hung up on the differences between us," she said.
Opposition attorney-general spokesman George Brandis said the opposition would not support the bill.
He said the progressive left had since the 1960s mocked and derided marriage as a patriarchal institution.
"All of a sudden, within the last few years, this institution so derided by you has been rediscovered by you as the test of whether or not one cares about the issue of sexuality discrimination," he said.
"Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, I have very, very, very great difficulty accepting your sincerity."
Liberal senator Chris Back said the legislation was "very adult-centric" when it came to the rights and needs of children.
"There is overwhelming research ... that a child's best interests are served when born into and brought up in a home which is provided by a husband and his wife in a long-term and loving relationship," he told parliament.
"That is what we should aspire to."
Marriage, between a man and a woman, was far older than any laws about marriage, Senator Back said.
"It has never been a same-sex union, even in societies where same-sex arrangements have been known and accepted."
Australian Greens leader Christine Milne accused Labor of trying to get the issue off the national agenda before the 2013 election by bringing on an early vote.
"Let's not pretend that this is a vote on the merits of marriage equality," she said.
"What this is actually about is the power of (unionist and anti-gay marriage advocate) Joe de Bruyn and Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association."
Labor Senator Mark Bishop dismissed Senator Milne's assertions, describing the minor party as bunch of "useless ignorant Stalinists" because unlike Labor their national conference is not open to the media.
The issue of gay marriage hardly rated a mention in his dealings with his Western Australia constituents and the status quo should remain, he said.
The bill also impinged on the rights of children.
Veteran Nationals Senator Ron Boswell said families with two mothers and two fathers could not properly raise children.
"Who takes the boy to football?... How does he go camping and fishing?"
"What about a young girl... is it fair to say to her you don't have a mother to take you shopping?"
Senator Boswell warned that many parents would object to children being taught about gay marriage in schools if it was legalised.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Veteran Nationals Senator Ron Boswell said families with two mothers and two fathers could not properly raise children.
"Who takes the boy to football?... How does he go camping and fishing?"
"What about a young girl... is it fair to say to her you don't have a mother to take you shopping?"
[/quote]
It just strikes me as [I]really[/I] pitiful when this constitutes as an arguement to ban same-sex marriage
He needs to watch this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ[/media]
[quote]"Who takes the boy to football?... How does he go camping and fishing?"
"What about a young girl... is it fair to say to her you don't have a mother to take you shopping?"[/quote]
Sexist much?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37697246]Sexist much?[/QUOTE]
That's beyond sexist, that's like being stuck in a 80/90's bad family sitcom
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;37697211]It just strikes me as [I]really[/I] pitiful when this constitutes as an arguement to ban same-sex marriage[/QUOTE]
If anything the little girl will have two people to go shopping with her.
Also he's forgetting about single parents as well, they still try to do that stuff
who will take this girl shopping you MONSTER!?
can't hold up 50's leave it to beaver stereotypes you're obviously going to fail as a parent even though nobody does any of that shit faithfully anymore
[QUOTE]"There is overwhelming research ... that a child's best interests are served when born into and brought up in a home which is provided by a husband and his wife in a long-term and loving relationship," he told parliament.
[/QUOTE]
This is a right-out lie. What a piece of scum.
"Because they're gay!" is not a valid reason that gay people should not marry, try again.
I don't know why but to me it looks like people like this who are looking for dumb reasons to not accept gay marriage are just trying to jealously keep something for themselves so they feel better.
In that case they don't want homosexuals to marry because it makes them feel better about having the ability to marry and have an "official" relationship, since other people can't do that. It feels like an advantage over others.
It's sad to say but in a way we all work like this. That's the base of consumerism. It's even sadder to see that people are so desperate to feel in possession of something others don't have they rely on racism and homophobia to get there.
[editline]17th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xyrofen;37697868]This is a right-out lie. What a piece of scum.[/QUOTE]
Quite honestly even until recently I still believed children would have difficulties with understanding the concept of love between people of the same gender. Then I was proven wrong by merely watching a girl accept the idea after like 5 seconds of talking about it and I stopped believing that.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37697913]Quite honestly even until recently I still believed children would have difficulties with understanding the concept of love between people of the same gender. Then I was proven wrong by merely watching a girl accept the idea after like 5 seconds of talking about it and I stopped believing that.[/QUOTE]
I can understand why people would think it might be the case on the surface at first since it's different from normal, but to claim there's actual [i]evidence[/i] from scientific research when actual research proves entirely otherwise makes him look like a huge piece of shit. The problem is people that want to agree with him won't look up the research he isn't citing and the ones that know he's lying already won't agree with him.
[QUOTE=Xyrofen;37697967]I can understand why people would think it might be the case on the surface at first since it's different from normal, but to claim there's actual [i]evidence[/i] from scientific research when actual research proves entirely otherwise makes him look like a huge piece of shit. The problem is people that want to agree with him won't look up the research he isn't citing and the ones that know he's lying already won't agree with him.[/QUOTE]
People that are either too lazy to argue properly or too desperate to use true statements tend to make up facts to back up their arguments. Everyone does it to an extent [sup][sup](see how I just said everyone as a fact while I really know jack shit about it)[/sup][/sup] but there's a point where it stops being normal and starts being incredibly dumb and misinformed.
As I said on the post above people are just desperate to be right and they are too proud to back off, like accepting other people's sexuality as a harmless thing would be an issue.
As a gay Australian I really hope this passes. Both my partner and I want to be married with adopted/artificially inseminated kids, one day. At least it's being brought up instead of continuously dodged.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;37698088]As a gay Australian I really hope this passes. Both my partner and I want to be married with adopted/artificially inseminated kids, one day. At least it's being brought up instead of continuously dodged.[/QUOTE]
Immigrate to France. We're voting a law on gay marriage and adoption for homosexual couples soon.
Also it's safer here because we don't have giant spiders that can kill you in no time.
how is this shit even still going on
I've been hearing about this in australia for like, the last eight months
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ObFwULH0A[/media]
got released today, interesting watch
[QUOTE=WhatAmI;37698240]how is this shit even still going on
I've been hearing about this in australia for like, the last eight months[/QUOTE]
It's amazing to see how something as petty as love between people of the same gender can turn into a months long debate that should not even exist in the first place.
It's probably because our govt doesn't want to admit they were wrong
In my observations of history, discrimination against homosexual marriage actually stems from misogyny.
You see, in older times, early societies were probably matriachal. Because a woman was able to continue providing people to sustain the society, they were able to basically do what they want, and this includes copulating with who they want, when they want.
But eventually, when the concept of inter-societal war became a thing, societies who had more people in them were more successful in warfare. Therefore, they needed a way to force women to become subservient to men, to be forced to bear their offspring as an obligation. This became codified into religion with the advent of the original sin of Adam and Eve - the concept that women must be controlled, for they are naturally sinful.
This had the side-effect of making same-sex unions equally hated as much as a woman with free will, as a same-sex partnership could not bear offspring and thus could not continue contributing population to a society.
As time progressed the need for such an archaic system waned, and now in the modern era we have the opposite problem of too many people. However, religion has persisted unchanged for many centuries, and the rules in them, intended for an era long gone, are still being taught to many. You'll almost always find those who dislike homosexuals are also abusive or domineering towards women. It all stems from the same source: religious doctrine which was spun out of control.
As for this vote, I will be following it with a personal investment. I am a homosexual man, and would very much like to enjoy the benefits granted to opposite-sex marriages, should I choose to marry another man.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;37698101]Immigrate to France. We're voting a law on gay marriage and adoption for homosexual couples soon.
Also it's safer here because we don't have giant spiders that can kill you in no time.[/QUOTE]
For most spiders it tends to be the other way around, the bigger the friendlier. You can hold a large tarantula and it'll be completely docile if you don't start flinging it around and punching it in the face. Try to pick up a teeny tiny Redback though and you'll be dead or severely buggered within a day.
Anyway on-topic, I hope this passes, there's no reason for it not to.
[QUOTE=1239the;37698783]In my observations of history, discrimination against homosexual marriage actually stems from misogyny.
You see, in older times, early societies were probably matriachal. Because a woman was able to continue providing people to sustain the society, they were able to basically do what they want, and this includes copulating with who they want, when they want.
But eventually, when the concept of inter-societal war became a thing, societies who had more people in them were more successful in warfare. Therefore, they needed a way to force women to become subservient to men, to be forced to bear their offspring as an obligation. This became codified into religion with the advent of the original sin of Adam and Eve - the concept that women must be controlled, for they are naturally sinful.
This had the side-effect of making same-sex unions equally hated as much as a woman with free will, as a same-sex partnership could not bear offspring and thus could not continue contributing population to a society.
As time progressed the need for such an archaic system waned, and now in the modern era we have the opposite problem of too many people. However, religion has persisted unchanged for many centuries, and the rules in them, intended for an era long gone, are still being taught to many. You'll almost always find those who dislike homosexuals are also abusive or domineering towards women. It all stems from the same source: religious doctrine which was spun out of control.[/QUOTE]I honestly don't think such vast concepts can be shoehorned into just misogyny. Doubtlessly part of the hate for homosexuality stems from it, but it's hardly a sufficient explanation for societal change over thousands of years across many civilizations.
[QUOTE]"There is overwhelming research ... that a child's best interests are served when born into and brought up in a home which is provided by a husband and his wife in a long-term and loving relationship," he told parliament.[/QUOTE]Ok....where are the results from said research? I want statistics.
You don't have any? Please sit down and shut the fuck up until you get some statistics.
[QUOTE=1239the;37698783]In my observations of history, discrimination against homosexual marriage actually stems from misogyny.
You see, in older times, early societies were probably matriachal. Because a woman was able to continue providing people to sustain the society, they were able to basically do what they want, and this includes copulating with who they want, when they want.
But eventually, when the concept of inter-societal war became a thing, societies who had more people in them were more successful in warfare. Therefore, they needed a way to force women to become subservient to men, to be forced to bear their offspring as an obligation. This became codified into religion with the advent of the original sin of Adam and Eve - the concept that women must be controlled, for they are naturally sinful.[/QUOTE]
no
human societies have always been overwhelmingly male dominated
there are a few exceptions of course but it's mostly been the patriarchy since the dawn of the human era and probably much before if our primate cousins are anything to go by
plus the rest of your post doesn't make much sense. homosexuality cannot be vilified because it doesn't produce children, if anything it should be celebrated in a male-dominated society. the line of thought would go "hey, if those dudes are fucking each other, then that means more bitches for me!". conversely, if homophobia is about controlling women then lesbians should have been the ones getting the worst of it, since a woman loving another woman is the ultimate subversion of that. but historically, it was homosexual men rather than women who got burned and ostracised. lesbianism wasn't even thought of as a thing.
[QUOTE=Lucien1337;37699396]For most spiders it tends to be the other way around, the bigger the friendlier. You can hold a large tarantula and it'll be completely docile if you don't start flinging it around and punching it in the face. Try to pick up a teeny tiny Redback though and you'll be dead or severely buggered within a day.
Anyway on-topic, I hope this passes, there's no reason for it not to.[/QUOTE]
Well we only have small cutesy spiders that won't do any harm to you.
They'll just sleep at your window and eat the nasty mosquitos and all these buggers
[editline]bleh[/editline]
Welcome to France, we have gay marriage and nice spiders
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37697130]Veteran Nationals Senator Ron Boswell said families with two mothers and two fathers could not properly raise children.
"Who takes the boy to football?... How does he go camping and fishing?"
"What about a young girl... is it fair to say to her you don't have a mother to take you shopping?"[/QUOTE]
Well hello there 1960's!
[QUOTE]"Who takes the boy to football?... How does he go camping and fishing?"
"What about a young girl... is it fair to say to her you don't have a mother to take you shopping?"[/QUOTE]
Isn't it the stereotype that lesbians love sports, and gay dudes love shopping?
Check and mate
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.