Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[kami]

You actually consider your agenda website a source? Asia and Africa didn't even have "marriage" in proper sense (in the way we understand it, western). And if the best actual example you can come up with is Nero .. people would usually use Nero to destroy arguments, not support them, primarily becuase Nero was a complete nutter, Augustus made the Roman Empire's stance on homosexuality very clear, the only reason nobody enforced it against Nero was becuase he was emperor.

Its actually quite possible to come up with a range of sources, but I gave you the most accessible so that you would actually read it. I also think its important to note that 'marriage' in the proper sense is now a legal convention as it has changed from being just a western/christian tradition (e.g divorce, interracial marriage etc. which are arguably more significant changes to marriage than same-sex marriage) so referencing the traditional western model holds little weight. Its also important to note that 'our' culture is not exclusively western, it is made up of many different groups of people who have different views on what marriage should be - you can't exclude them from an argument about Homosexuality in Australia.

Your Nero statement is also irrevelant - you wished to make an argument on what is right by what has (or in your opinion, has not) come before in which you dismissed any notion of their being same-sex marriage in roman times. Nero's method to obtain that marriage is also not really relevant to this debate, as it revolved around the precedents you deny. If however you wished to take that tack, then you must be an absolutely rabid oponent of the legality of divorce considering how King Henry VIII abused the then current system of marriage (western system of marriage I might add) to bring it about.

 

[bshoc]

Its actually quite possible to come up with a range of sources,

lol so from your "wide array" of sources you select the most blatantly pro-gay one you can find, nice, I really believe you.

I also think its important to note that 'marriage' in the proper sense is now a legal convention as it has changed from being just a western/christian tradition (e.g divorce, interracial marriage etc. which are arguably more significant changes to marriage than same-sex marriage) so referencing the traditional western model holds little weight.

Which country do you live in? From what are its primary values derived? Whats the biggest single religious group in the country? If you can answer those questions, we're done. There's no support for gay marriage here or anywhere else in the west, the only way gay marriage gets done is through activist judges, even the liberal states of the US like colorado struck down gay marriage 5 to 1, one would have simular results here.

Also notice that the last few years of gay legislation in this country have gone towards banning gay marriage outright, not the other way around. Give up son, no everyone lives in your nice inner-city liberal dreamworld.

Your Nero statement is also irrevelant - you wished to make an argument on what is right by what has (or in your opinion, has not) come before in which you dismissed any notion of their being same-sex marriage in roman times. Nero's method to obtain that marriage is also not really relevant to this debate, as it revolved around the precedents you deny. If however you wished to take that tack, then you must be an absolutely rabid oponent of the legality of divorce considering how King Henry VIII abused the then current system of marriage (western system of marriage I might add) to bring it about.

Ok see if this gets through your head: If Nero had not been emperor at the time and tried to marry a man, the Roman authorities would have him killed (see Augustus Cesar's morality code).

 

[Xayma]

Which country do you live in? From what are its primary values derived? Whats the biggest single religious group in the country? If you can answer those questions, we're done. There's no support for gay marriage here or anywhere else in the west, the only way gay marriage gets done is through activist judges, even the liberal states of the US like colorado struck down gay marriage 5 to 1, one would have simular results here.

Umm 5 to 1 implies it was headed by judges. Which would inteperet it based upon the states constitution. Obviously the states have different constitutions. Also isn't one of the purposes of judges to look at laws which conflict with the constitution?

 

[bshoc]

Umm 5 to 1 implies it was headed by judges. Which would inteperet it based upon the states constitution. Obviously the states have different constitutions. Also isn't one of the purposes of judges to look at laws which conflict with the constitution?

Umm no it was a citizens referendum, like these, best part is every single one passes, I mean I wouldn't mind having some popular votes in Australia right now on all issues gay, and see gay marriage banned and so on 3 to 1, even 2/3'rds of SBS viewership opposes it and they're like the most liberal people in the country, afterall democractic society right?

On the other hand our gay marriage laws are in the constitution, and voting on the constitution is extremely rare in our history

"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=1541&TABLE=OLDBILLS

 

[Generator]

On the other hand our gay marriage laws are in the constitution, and voting on the constitution is extremely rare in our history

"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

Source: Marriage Act 1961 (different link, same piece of legislation)

No.

The Commonwealth's power with respect to marriage comes from s. 51(xxi) of the Constitution. Section 51(xxi) states:

The Parliament shall ... have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: - Marriage.

The effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) and section 109 of the Constitution is that the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia (i.e. there is no room for States to legislate).

Source

As the above clearly states, the Constitution merely gives the Commonwealth the power to power to make laws with respect to marriage - it doesn't disallow gay marriage.

 

[bshoc]

Generator that clause relates directly to disallowing state legislative abilities in using a different definition to the federal one I posted above (that is the Amendment of 2004, not the originial 1961 text you're implying)

 

[Generator]

Generator that clause relates directly to disallowing state legislative abilities in using a different definition to the federal one I posted above (that is the Amendment of 2004, not the originial 1961 text you're implying)

Ah, but you said that the constitution disallowed gay marriage and then posted a passage from the Marriage Act in a way that suggested that it was actually from the Constitution.

Come back when you can make a point that stands up to scrutiny, please.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Generator that clause relates directly to disallowing state legislative abilities in using a different definition to the federal one I posted above (that is the Amendment of 2004, not the originial 1961 text you're implying)

When you claim a law is 'in the constitution' usually the fact that the constitution allows for such a law is not sufficient... there's no need for a referendum on allowing gay mariage.

 

[bshoc]

Ah, but you said that the constitution disallowed gay marriage and then posted a passage from the Marriage Act in a way that suggested that it was actually from the Constitution.

Come back when you can make a point that stands up to scrutiny, please.

Its an amendment, it's no different to the first or second amendments in the US, its law, I don't see how any of your stuff is "scrutiny"

 

[bshoc]

When you claim a law is 'in the constitution' usually the fact that the constitution allows for such a law is not sufficient... there's no need for a referendum on allowing gay mariage.

Yeah, becuase its banned already.

 

[Xayma]

Its an amendment, it's no different to the first or second amendments in the US, its law, I don't see how any of your stuff is "scrutiny"

Except that amendments in Australia require a referendum which has never been held over this issue. Amendments to the Federal US constitution doesn't. No amendment has ever been even held in australia over marriage, so it cannot be the case.

 

[dieburndie]

Yeah, becuase its banned already.

You are saying that there's no referendum required to allow gay marriage, because it is banned already.
You have stated that gay marriage is banned by the constitution (and have not admitted that you were proven wrong by Generator and NTB)

To change the constitution requires an amendment, voted for in a referendum.
Therefore,
If gay marriage is banned by the constitution, a referendum would be necessary to allow it. If it wasn't banned by the constitution, no referendum would be necessary.
The latter is the truth, but I am just presenting the clear and basic flaw in your argument regarding the former.

 

[lalala trip]

Ok i think its complete bullshit that homosexuals cannot get married in this country, many countries across the world are already allowing it, but no John Howard is a George Bush kiss ass (America dont allow it either) we live in a fucking democracy, not allowing gays to get married is discrimination!
Gay people can live together like straight couples, the can have sex, hold hands in public and the rest of that crap, they can join the army and defend thier country but they cannot get married and leave thier superanuation and will to thier partner? thats fucked and makes no sense? not allowing gays to get married achieves nothing, it doesnt stop people being gay does it?, it just makes thier life harder, which is discrimation people. John Howard is completely stupid. It doesnt matter whether you, or i, or John Howard thinks being homosexual is immoral, the truth is we cant stop people being who they are, we have to accept them as people and extend the same rights and freeedoms to them because they are doing nothing illegal!

 

[withoutaface]

Time for devil's advocate, because I'm bored.

Ok i think its complete bullshit that homosexuals cannot get married in this country, many countries across the world are already allowing it, but no John Howard is a George Bush kiss ass (America dont allow it either) we live in a fucking democracy, not allowing gays to get married is discrimination!

Not neccessarily. While it makes no sense to say marriage as a legislative structure must occur between a man and a woman, and a man and a woman only, it's not really discrimination, because a homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man, and vice versa.

Gay people can live together like straight couples, the can have sex, hold hands in public and the rest of that crap, they can join the army and defend thier country but they cannot get married and leave thier superanuation and will to thier partner?

I can live with my dog, I can take it for walks, and it can even be a sniffer dog at the airport defending Australia against evil marijuana. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my dog?

thats fucked and makes no sense?

That's not a question, dear.

not allowing gays to get married achieves nothing, it doesnt stop people being gay does it?, it just makes thier life harder, which is discrimation people. John Howard is completely stupid.

I don't think the aim is to stop people being gay. I think it was more along the lines that the majority of the Australian population would not be more inclined to vote for a gay marriage supporting government than one which did not, and in fact I'd say the majority of the Liberal voter base would not support gay marriage, and John Howard cannot afford to lose the support of what he considers "middle Australia".

It doesnt matter whether you, or i, or John Howard thinks being homosexual is immoral, the truth is we cant stop people being who they are, we have to accept them as people and extend the same rights and freeedoms to them because they are doing nothing illegal!

The argument you should be making is that legislating for marriage in the first place dictates an advantage to individuals who choose to settle down with a partner, as opposed to those who choose to be single for their whole lives. But that's just my two cents.

 

[lalala trip]

Oh fuck off dear i think your a little bored to say something as stupid as oh but why cant i marry my dog? come on be intelligent SWEETHEART, John Howard chooses to listen to those he agrees with and yes the majority of voters, but how many people protested war on Iraq? and did that stop him from supporting america? no. Its quite a simple issue, the whole of Australia doesnt have to agree on something for it to happen, example: 1968 referendum, white Australia policy there were alot of stupid racist people back then disagreeing with Aboriginal rights, and theres alot of stupid homophobic people now disagreeing with Homosexual rights. Makes sense doesnt it? Give them thier rights and stop complaining Australia.

 

[Xayma]

Time for devil's advocate, because I'm bored.

Not neccessarily. While it makes no sense to say marriage as a legislative structure must occur between a man and a woman, and a man and a woman only, it's not really discrimination, because a homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man, and vice versa.

While it isn't discriminatory on basis of sexual preference it is on basis of sex. A woman does not have the same right to marry a woman as a man does.

 

[withoutaface]

Oh fuck off dear i think your a little bored to say something as stupid as oh but why cant i marry my dog?

If I can use the exact same logic as what you said about homosexuals marrying to prove that I should be able to marry a dog, then I should either be able to marry a dog, or your logic is faulty.

come on be intelligent SWEETHEART, John Howard chooses to listen to those he agrees with and yes the majority of voters, but how many people protested war on Iraq?

The majority of voters supported the Iraq invasion in the first place, and the average voter does not consider something like the war in Iraq to be a massive issue in their voting preference.

and did that stop him from supporting america? no. Its quite a simple issue, the whole of Australia doesnt have to agree on something for it to happen, example: 1968 referendum, white Australia policy there were alot of stupid racist people back then disagreeing with Aboriginal rights, and theres alot of stupid homophobic people now disagreeing with Homosexual rights. Makes sense doesnt it? Give them thier rights and stop complaining Australia.

The difference being that there's nothing about homosexual marriage in the constitution, and if you held a referendum the majority of people would say no.

 

[dieburndie]

Just for the record, the 1967 referendum passed with something like 90% support.
Also, comparing this with gay marriage is stupid. You don't have to be homophobic to oppose gay marriage. You should really read the rest of this thread.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

If I can use the exact same logic as what you said about homosexuals marrying to prove that I should be able to marry a dog, then I should either be able to marry a dog, or your logic is faulty.

The majority of voters supported the Iraq invasion in the first place, and the average voter does not consider something like the war in Iraq to be a massive issue in their voting preference.

The difference being that there's nothing about homosexual marriage in the constitution, and if you held a referendum the majority of people would say no.

Sorry but I don't think you are using the same logic. You are assuming that anything that can be said to defend the country, or live with you, or whatever should have the same rights as a human being. Her logic is not faulty because she is obviosuly referring exclusively to human beings, not saying you should be able to marry your dog or your air conditioner.

When did we do a referendum on the invasion of Iraq? How can you say that the majority of voters supported the Iraq war without any proof?

 

[withoutaface]

Sorry but I don't think you are using the same logic. You are assuming that anything that can be said to defend the country, or live with you, or whatever should have the same rights as a human being. Her logic is not faulty because she is obviosuly referring exclusively to human beings, not saying you should be able to marry your dog or your air conditioner.

When did we do a referendum on the invasion of Iraq? How can you say that the majority of voters supported the Iraq war without any proof?

She qualified the nature of a relationship which should be a sufficient condition for marriage, I then took another relationship with the same conditions as what she described, and made a conclusion which was fair under her logic.

There was no referendum because it did not need a constitutional change, but polls from around that period showed support was above 60% (iirc).

EDIT: The majority (78 per cent) of Coalition supporters are in favour of Australian forces being part of military action backed by the UN while 43 per cent of Labor voters remain opposed to any Australian involvement, regardless of the circumstances.

From smh, 2003.