The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Labor won't silence same sex marriage advocates > Comments

Labor won't silence same sex marriage advocates : Comments

By Kevin Boreham, published 19/8/2010

On the issue of same sex marriage, why do Labor leaders stand to the right of the 'evil' Dick Cheney?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Yes, Eric G, there is a paucity of understanding about the continuum of human sexuality, and its expression physically and psychologically.

Besides the physical as male, female, intersex (of which there are many variations) and transgender, there are those who do not feel what they physically are.

Non-human mammalian physical variations are evident, too.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 19 August 2010 1:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
diver dan, there have been several articles on OLO expressing antagonism towards same sex marriage in the last week or so. They were all written by Christians, with the exception of the man who argued for "natural" marriage. I don't know if he is a Christian or not, but his point was, couples should only get married if one's got male and the other's got female genitals.

A miserably reductive and hydraulic view of marriage, is what I say.

And Mickey K is right - the Articles nowhere say that men and women must marry each other, and the Australian Marriage Act amendment of 2004 does not comply with the UN covenants in making marriage only "a union between a man and a woman."

As we are signatories to these covenants, we are obliged to bring our laws into line with the conventions, this is one of the undertakings we make when we sign them.

The 2004 amendment was brought in by Howard, that great disrespector of many UN conventions to which Australia is signatory, not least of which is the Refugee Convention.

Gillard and the ALP will do nothing to repeal this amendment because they are terrified of losing the religious vote.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 19 August 2010 4:04:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickey K, "It seems a pretty straight forward assertion then that the Marriage Act contravenes these two articles."

No, a normal reading of the Articles does not give that interpretation at all and that is why the OLO author was keen to give the impression in the paragraph I quoted that Articles 26 had a revised wording or interpretation which it plainly hasn't or else both he and you would have been quick to refer to it.

Eric G & McReal,

What a niggly little diversion, claiming that GLT(I) is the inclusive term that should be used in lieu instead of simply gay de facto or gay marriage. That is the new push by Gay activists and the Greens is it? However if it is necessary as you pedantically assert, why reserve your criticism for now and why didn't you both slam others who have used more general inclusive terms for convenience as is usual in writing and common speech? However, Intersex persons are resistant to that inclusion anyhow, which if you were frank at all, you might have noted.

Now what about that question I asked about specifically what change, if any, has been made to The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and when was it signed?

This is a straightforward question to bring out the facts. After all, it was the key criticism the OLO author made against the Australian government and the Marriage Act.

Briar Rose, "Mickey K is right.."

You too are reading what you want into it, but it doesn't work that way. However if that really was the interpretation understood by the signatories why would Kevin Boreham go to pains to point out that The UN Human Rights Committee sought in hindsight and after the passage of years to dispute and change the wording, a move that was unsuccessful.

The facts are that the Marriage Act fully complies, but the de facto changes do not.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 19 August 2010 4:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
next they will be wanting the gay/lesbian activist to be teaching kids in the schools. No wonder private schools are busting at the seams. I wonder if anyone is ever going to produce figures on the disease rate spread by sodomy. If people has got no moral conscience they should at least be concerned about health.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 August 2010 5:15:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,
Terms of convenience are generalisations and less inclusive not the other way around.

If a transgender woman is in a relationship with a man you want to call them gay and say they are in same-sex relationship when their sexuality is heterosexual or bisexual. What an insult to them. Lesbians used to being in the shade might tolerate being called Gay but gay is not inclusive of bisexuals, transgender, intersex or any other sex or gender diverse people. Why not use 'marriage equality' over 'same-sex marriage' when the former is more inclusive?

Despite your uninformed assertion to the contrary, I, Eric Glare, have advocated strongly on inclusive language.

As to intersex people being resistant to inclusion: Gina Wilson from intersex group OII Australia has said they want to be included: "Unless the argument is for Marriage equality and equality at law rather than 'same sex' then those of us that do not fit sex and gender binaries will continue to be marginalised." letter at: http://mcv.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/features/beyond-the-aisle-007007.html

Against the hurt of marginalisaton and excess rates of suicide and poor mental health in our GLBTI communities, your language of 'niggly little diversion' and 'pedantically assert' seems rather uncaring.
Posted by Eric G, Thursday, 19 August 2010 5:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK here are the two conventions:

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

:::
::The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized::

It seems to me Cornflower that it is you who are 'reading what you want to into it'

I apologise Eric G if transgender and intersex people feel excluded by this language, but I think and hope the argument here is about marriage to whoever you love, not one that is limited by any notions of gender, sexuality or sexual identification
Posted by Mickey K, Thursday, 19 August 2010 8:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy