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 > No to marriage equality in Australia - unrepresentative democracy > Comments

No to marriage equality in Australia - unrepresentative democracy : Comments

By Clarrie Burke, published 17/10/2012

The majority of Australians believe in marriage equality, so why do their 'representatives' vote against it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Jack from Bicton, you may not be aware but we live in a secular democracy in Australia. Thats why we went into WWII war against facism, and those that would deny the right and equality of each and every person in Australia
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 6:36:11 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
You have equality kipp, by law, just not nomenclature. Well I'm sure there are a few laws left, and I would be keen to see them rectified.

When I get recognized as the mother of my children...

Anyway you've heard that one before I'm sure.

Given that you did say have every single legal entitlement of marriage, but it was called something else, what would the addition of the word marriage do for you in practical terms?

You even have equality in that a gay man can marry a woman, and a straight man can marry a woman. They are treated equal before the law. Similarly a straight man cannot marry a man, and a gay man cannot marry a man. So, equal again.

Female parents are called mothers
Male parents are called fathers
Homosexual lifelong commitments are called Civil Unions
Heterosexual lifelong commitments are called marriages

People who are attracted to the same sex are called homosexual
People who are attracted to the opposite sex are called homosexuals.

Why are you not looking for equality in homosexual couples to be recognized as heterosexual BTW? You don't have equality there, the heterosexuals should allow you the use of term heterosexual, as well as the term marriage shouldn't they? It's discrimination!
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 6:51:10 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
I agree with the author that politicians should listen to a majority number of their constituents on major issues such as gay marriage, euthanasia and capital punishment.

Members of political parties are elected to follow the wishes of a majority of their constituents, and should therefore be allowed conscience votes on all major issues.

The leader of the party should not be allowed to gag his or her members so that they have to follow his wishes alone...especially if they are religiously motivated.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 7:17:43 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
Clarrie Burke’s thoughtful and well-written article omits discussion of one important question: are politicians representatives or delegates of their electors? The duty of the former is to serve the interests of constituents while the duty of the latter is to do what electors prefer, regardless of the consequences, or the rights of a minority.

In a modern, representative democracy it is difficult to defend the idea that political leaders should act on popular opinion, especially in matters of financial and economic policy and foreign policy. Many commentators belief the European financial crisis is in part a consequence of governments lacking the courage to rein in spending - this is just one example of public opinion compromised by ignorance, self-interest or prejudice.

Edmund Burke, the most famous exponent of the representative theory of political duty, insisted that politicians act on their own judgment and conscience rather than on popular opinion; but it is also clear that, were he alive today, he would strongly support the view espoused here by his namesake, that elected members act on their own judgment rather than the opinions of party leaders or caucus.

The underlying question is still the one posed by this great conservative political philosopher - why should any politician defer his or her judgment on an issue of moral principle to any other person or group of persons, or even to the community at large? It is not (as my paper argues) a requirement of democratic theory, however much it serves the interests of major political parties.
Posted by maxat, Thursday, 18 October 2012 8:35:54 AM
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
The author avoids mention that homosexuals comprise less than 2 percent of the population.

He does not reveal that virtually all of the sexually active members of that minority are promiscuous.

That means that those who are likely to remain faithful in a same-sex relationship make up only a very small percentage of the 2%.

Furthermore, same sex couples can enter into civil unions that accord them virtually the same rights as married couples, except that they could not use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship.

It is clear that the author and homosexual activists grossly over-state the number that would be likely to "marry" should socalled same-sex marriage be legalised.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 18 October 2012 11:07:53 AM
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
I am sure referendums would result in far less minority groups hijacking the media and claiming a mandate.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 October 2012 11:33:30 AM
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. 5
  7. All

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