The Law Marriage Equality III

[Monniehawk]

You do understand what legal rights are, don't you?

If heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated equally under the law, there is no legal differentiation. The terminology used in statute is irrelevant.

I fully understand where you are coming from. You are Law trained. The argument you hold to is very 'dry' and has credibility in a strict legal sense, but it does leak a fair bit of common sense when applied to the more complex and impure 'real' world. (I hate using that term, but...)
The law is only one aspect of deep and bitter debate. At the heart of it is acceptance.
If the law (as it now stands) does differentiate, then it is discriminatory. It was specifically changed by Howard to ensure that it discriminated. No amount of legislation to inflate any peripheral 'rights' of gay unions will ever compensate for the removal of a prime right - to be included in what is available to other legal couples: marriage.
At the very best, civil unions will give a parity in a legal sense, but it rings hollow when that legal 'parity' actually reinforces other inequalities; such as social exclusion.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

And it would now seem that Rudd has changed his tune:

Kevin Rudd has endorsed gay marriage, changing his position on the issue.
"The secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage," Mr Rudd wrote in a blog post on Monday night. "This change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-endorses-gay-marriage-20130520-2jx65.html#ixzz2TrOROUGg

 

[Sanders]

You can be in favour of equal legal rights for homosexuals without being in favour of gay marriage.

Not really, no

 

[Sanders]

Of course you can. There are very, very few people who oppose equal legal rights for gay couples. The opposition is towards labelling those rights 'marriage'.

Nonsense.

you create different social constructs and you have different rights.

Marriage exists beyond civil partnerships in the straight community, and so it should in the gay community.

The church & its minions need to stop believing it owns "marriage"

 

[Gough]

Bloody KRudd, you've got to hand it to him. Most other backbenchers would have been lucky to get a mention if they'd announced this, our boy gets a whole page in the Oz for his particular Damascene conversion.
Good on him btw.

 

[evo]

Bloody KRudd, you've got to hand it to him. Most other backbenchers would have been lucky to get a mention if they'd announced this, our boy gets a whole page in the Oz for his particular Damascene conversion.
Good on him btw.

As a prominent MP in the ruling party of the last 6 years - many of those years as leader- he had ample opportunity to amend this injustice but did nothing. Now on the eve of an election where he knows his party has no hope of re-election we are supposed to believe he has suddenly had a road to Damascus moment.

Ferking spare me.

LOL@ people believing the ALP are a progressive party.

 

[Power Raid]

You can be in favour of equal legal rights for homosexuals without being in favour of gay marriage.

we can let blacks on the bus but only the back seats.

They still get the ride, so what's the problem?

 

[Power Raid]

Nonsense.

you create different social constructs and you have different rights.

Marriage exists beyond civil partnerships in the straight community, and so it should in the gay community.

The church & its minions need to stop believing it owns "marriage"

We should just ban Christians from marrying.

 

[Pie eyed]

And it would now seem that Rudd has changed his tune:

Odds on Gillard's will look very similar in the near future. As will Abbott's once he concedes his current position.

 

[Power Raid]

Odds on Gillard's will look very similar in the near future. As will Abbott's once he concedes his current position.

I hope so.

Any politician advocating discrimination should be jailed.

Imagine if an employer gave gays the same rights but titled their employment by another name. ie class A employees and class b employees.

No difference other than by name and emphasised the only reason was the employees sexual preference.

The politicians would be outraged, the government departments and the law would be mobilised into action.


It just emphasises how gutless our leadership is and how it is all about them, rather than doing their job.

 

[Pie eyed]

I hope so.

Any politician advocating discrimination should be jailed.

Imagine if an employer gave gays the same rights but titled their employment by another name. ie class A employees and class b employees.

No difference other than by name and emphasised the only reason was the employees sexual preference.

The politicians would be outraged, the government departments and the law would be mobilised into action.


It just emphasises how gutless our leadership is and how it is all about them, rather than doing their job.

There's a bit of playing to the electorate too....

 

[Power Raid]

There's a bit of playing to the electorate too....

yep,

politicians are doing what is in their best interests (votes) rather than what is right.

I would prefer the debate was; do we want to have anti-discrimination laws or not? if yes, then there is gay marriage. if no, then we are all free to discriminate.

being a white, male, heterosexual, middle aged, anglo-saxon of average height and weight I should be fine.

Look out if you are a women, a redhead (Julia), short, fat, gay, old, young, a foreigners or a Christian (Abbott). Were winding back the clock and bringing the good old days back!

 

[Caesar]

Nonsense.

you create different social constructs and you have different rights.

Marriage exists beyond civil partnerships in the straight community, and so it should in the gay community.

The church & its minions need to stop believing it owns "marriage"

By and large, marriage has historically been recognised as exclusively a relationship between a male and a female. As such, it's not unreasonable for some people to believe that this is a fundamental aspect of the social construct. For such a person, redefining marriage to include gay couples is like redefining green to mean blue.

If you believe the concept of gay marriage makes no logical sense than you can hardly be in favour of it, even if you wish to see that gay couples have equal rights before the law.

 

[Monniehawk]

politicians are doing what is in their best interests (votes) rather than what is right.

We generally know what is 'right', even if we don't always support it.

There are three main opinion-forming instruments who, by and large, consider the electorate to be populated primarily by imbeciles and who need 'guidance' or 're-educating':
politicians, the commercial media and social media.

It is noteworthy to review the list of opinionated people who, with much to gain personally, have tilted their caps towards controlling at least two of those instruments. i.e. Palmer, Rinehart, Murdoch, Hersant, et al.

Robert W. McChesney, "The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century" is worth a browse, even if he does get a little excited at times.

 

[MrCharisma]

By and large, marriage has historically been recognised as exclusively a relationship between a male and a female. As such, it's not unreasonable for some people to believe that this is a fundamental aspect of the social construct. For such a person, redefining marriage to include gay couples is like redefining green to mean blue.

If you believe the concept of gay marriage makes no logical sense than you can hardly be in favour of it, even if you wish to see that gay couples have equal rights before the law.

Please post examples of the current differences between NZ married heterosexual relationships and Australian ones. Surely there are now couples in NZ who believe 'green is blue " - explain to me what is happening to them right now , given recent law changes.

 

[Caesar]

You're missing the point.

 

[Contra Mundum]

we can let blacks on the bus but only the back seats.

They still get the ride, so what's the problem?

IF I sit at the table but have no food on the table does that make me a diner? I am only a diner if you let me dine.

Let them get married and share the affliction with us heteros!

 

[blackcat]

IF I sit at the table but have no food on the table does that make me a diner? I am only a diner if you let me dine.

Let them get married and share the affliction with us heteros!

yeah. I wait for the gheys going thru a mid life crisis at 50ish, and leaving their husband (if you are a bottom, are you still a husband?), and then finding out they are really hetero and were oppressed by societal restrictions to get married and could not be with the person they were(sic).

*i know the last line makes no sense if you read it literally.

 

[Monniehawk]

By and large, marriage has historically been recognised as exclusively a relationship between a male and a female. As such, it's not unreasonable for some people to believe that this is a fundamental aspect of the social construct. For such a person, redefining marriage to include gay couples is like redefining green to mean blue.

Good point. Though, I guess it is worth considering whether that paradigm is immutable - or even valid - in today's climate. I don't think it be either. And recent events have further informed that opinion. People are changing their opinions because there is a new 'norm' being constructed. Eventually it will become just as precious as that which it displaces.

If you believe the concept of gay marriage makes no logical sense th(e)n you can hardly be in favour of it, even if you wish to see that gay couples have equal rights before the law.

Bravo! Sometimes we pro Gay marriage advocates can overlook the obvious. People have entrenched ideas and it is painful for them when challenged.

You're missing the point.

Have to agree he is missing your point. MrCharisma does clearly see his own point, though!
But then, he is arguing from a stated prejudice. You are presenting a technical argument of reason without buying into the debate.
That's probably good moderating, I suppose.

 

[medusala]

IF I sit at the table but have no food on the table does that make me a diner? I am only a diner if you let me dine.

If three people are at the table eating are they not diners as well? If you split hairs you split hairs.

 

[blackcat]

If three people are at the table eating are they not diners as well? If you split hairs you split hairs.

Cory Bernadi? come one meds. if that is the inference. that is a rower from adelaide.

 

[medusala]

Cory Bernadi? come one meds. if that is the inference. that is a rower from adelaide.

Platten, Jarman, Hall. My interest in anything SA doesn't extend much beyond that.

 

[tandino]

If three people are at the table eating are they not diners as well? If you split hairs you split hairs.

If it's all about equality, then why not?

 

[cancat]

I hope so.

Any politician advocating discrimination should be jailed.

Imagine if an employer gave gays the same rights but titled their employment by another name. ie class A employees and class b employees.

No difference other than by name and emphasised the only reason was the employees sexual preference.

The politicians would be outraged, the government departments and the law would be mobilised into action.


It just emphasises how gutless our leadership is and how it is all about them, rather than doing their job.

Imagine if we gave one group of employees the same rights but titled them based on gender ie class A and class B employees - then made them use different toilets and have different dress codes?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Platten, Jarman, Hall. My interest in anything SA doesn't extend much beyond that.

No homo but you could spend your life thinking about Johnny Platten - what an incredible player he was - a gut runner who did not seem to lose speed no matter how old he was