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 > General Discussion > Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All
I feel it is a total waste of time and money and has been promoted by so much propaganda from a dodgy media with dodgy arguments and am protesting in the way I am being allowed: who's doing the same?

Why or why not, may I ask?
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:56:57 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
You're right, Cupric, all those who are inclined to vote Yes in this dodgy and futile propaganda stunt, should boycott the whole charade and advise their friends to do the same.

Is that what you mean ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:04:14 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
Cupric Embarrassment,

I reckon that people who feel the way you do and may would, should just complete the question anyhow and not let the Machiavellians and other nasties win, 'Cop this, yer mongrels!'. LOL

Don't let them bluff you. Just go on your gut feel and tick yes or no. Do it deliberately, then post.

Never regard it as a win/lose. It is your right to express your opinion and a good thing. Maybe we might get asked more often.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:06:13 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
Ah, Joe, I'm voting no: didn't you get the memo?
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:43:38 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
leoj, I don't know what game you're playing but I don't trust it. There's only one solution...

** Boycott Boycott Boycott Boycott,.... I say Boycott everybody!
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 3:46:33 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 see it as my civic duty to complete and return a valid survey. Just as I always vote. It is not win or lose with me. None of that team colours stuff either.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 4:08:59 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 vote : I just refuse this survey on more grounds than it being non- compulsory!

I find the whole ordeal just a bit too fishy for me and seeing that I am allowed to not participate I choose to take that option!

If we look at the media they are basically trying to tell 10 million voters, in concert with the appalling behaviour of the politicians giving commentary on moral matters in this debate as if we were schoolchildren, that as adults we are not allowed to complain about our children being taught to be gay at school!

We have every right to complain about that stuff: so I protest by boycott!

My flesh and blood, let alone everyone else's in Australia, fought for the right to complain about that sort of bullshite!

Now the media and politicians combine to tell us we haven't even got the right to protest!

The whole thing has bells on it.... but that's just little Ol' Mois opinion!
Posted by mememememememe, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 5:12:39 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'm going to vote early & often, so I can see what it feels like to be a lefty.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 9:18:37 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
Me me me,

So fight back by voting, otherwise how does anybody know you're doing anything at all but wimping out ?

I used to letterbox, I think for the Democrats, and one bloke intercepted me at his letterbox and said that he wouldn't vote for anybody. I said that, in that case, the people he hated most would probably get in.

In a democracy, we each have one vote. It's not much, but then, after all, there are 24 million of us, so why should your vote count more than anybody else's - but from another point of view, why should anybody else's count more than yours ? Answer: if you don't vote.

Because if you don't vote, others will. Your least preferred option might get up, and by only one vote: yours, the one you didn't cast.

So be democratic: vote, have your say, like the rest of us.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 9:22:18 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'm going to vote early & often//

You only get one survey, Hasbeen. Opening anybody else's is opening somebody else's mail, which is a crime - for a good reason. How would you feel about some grub going through your mail? What is wrong with you?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:16:21 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
You could abstain from voting because you think it is none of the government’s business about who should marry who. You could vote NO because you do not want to see more government involvement in marriage. You do not want a bad situation to be made worse.

The YES vote will only tell us how many people want SSM. The NO vote could mean we do not approve of further government involvement in marriage. It says nothing about our attitude to homosexuals which is disappointing for those who like to claim bigotry.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:24:47 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
Of course I shall be voting.

It's the only way I know to let the government know
what I think. The government is spending an awful
lot of money for me to have my say - so of course
I am not going to waste the opportunity because if
I didn't vote and I didn't like to outcome, then I'd
have no one else to blame but myself.

I have to vote and let them know what I think. By not voting
they won't know. The old adage - "Bad things happen when
good people do nothing," (or words to that effect).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:33:17 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
cont'd ...

I agree with Scott Morrison who stated that -

"This survey will give us a very clear picture about
whether the Australian people want to see a bill like
this one come into the House and be dealt with by the
Parliament. We have been given an opportunity to have
our say. It is important that we do so."

He also explained about religious protections being
put in place. Mr Morrison said -

"This is a survey, effectively the plebiscite that
the Government promised to the people at the last election.
If that is passed, then a private members' bill would be
facilitated and the Parliament would work through the
bill." Meaning adding the necessary protections.

To not take part in this survey would be foolish.
We should not ignore the opportunity we have been given.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:58:02 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
It is understandable that the public would be so exasperated with not being heard by political parties that pander to minorities to buy their vote in swinging marginal seats that the public sees no worth in exercising their democratic right to vote.

Through refusal to allow their own members to influence party decisions and adamant refusal to move in the direction of Party intra-democracy - in fact the opposite is usual and elites and factions rule - the three, Labor, LNP and Greens exhibit their contempt for democracy. Arrogance betrayed by their referral to the public as 'punters', foolish gamblers.

That is why Trump was elected in the US. And why he is re-electable.

Any who disagree with the survey and the way they are being treated by the political elite should vote 'NO'.
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 9:00:10 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
Hasbeen,
> I'm going to vote early & often, so I can see what it feels like to be a lefty.

I understood the phrase "vote early and often" originated with the Orangemen of (mostly Northern) Ireland, who had a reputation for being pretty right wing.

How did you come to associate it with lefties?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 9:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm going to walk around pretending I've got a carrot up my ass so I can pretend I was born to rule and therefore always RIGHT because mummykins and daddykins said so/wouldn't(/...refused to...) apologise for class ......... !
Posted by mememememememe, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 11:57:26 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
...because they were tryhard, ...obviously <rolls eyes> &#128541;
Posted by mememememememe, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 11:59:21 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
Hi Mememe,

I'm trying to deconstruct your posts in the context of homosexual marriage. Nope, still can't get it. Was that a plea for vegetable rights ? Including the rights of homosexual vegetables ? Yes, why should only humans be allowed to marry ? Should one be able to marry one's favourite vegetable, such as - as you point out so eloquently - a carrot ? I wasn't aware that there were male and female carrots though - perhaps all carrots are male, just as all mangoes are female ?

Of course, anal intercourse is now legal, so there should be no legal problem for you to have relationships with, or even to marry, a carrot. Mind you, it might only last a few weeks, judging by the carrots in my fridge. Hmmmmm .... so sexy when they were fresh :( Now you've given me ideas >:)

Once the current marriage laws have been broken down, and we move towards polyamory, can this include vegetables ? Pets, I can understand, even trees, but vegetables ? What would be the point ? Very short-term marriages, before they shrivel or rot ? Wouldn't that come close to some form of prostitution ? How would inter-life-level marriages affect inheritance rights ? Could divorce rules be extended to vegetables ? Then what about the division of property ? Visiting rights to any offspring ?

Too complicated for me :(

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 12:50:34 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
Aidan ask Hillary, she knows all about it, as do the unions.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 3:20:19 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
Dear Joe,

«so there should be no legal problem for you to have relationships with, or even to marry, a carrot. Mind you, it might only last a few weeks»

Very useful idea: suppose one wishes to upgrade their status from "Divorced" to "Widowed" for better success at the meat-market, then marrying a carrot can do the job wonderfully!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:41:43 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
Dear Hasbeen,

Why don't you answer Aidan's question?

How did YOU come to that conclusion.
(Hilary and the unions is not an answer).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:41:45 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
After thousands of years of a Man and a woman.
I am being asked to make it a man on man or woman on woman.
Ask me another question please!
Posted by BROCK, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:50:52 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
Hi Yuyutsu,

Yes, to get the benefits of legal recognition from a de facto relationship, you have to be in one for six months, I'm told. So a human-vegetable relationship might last only a fraction of that - but as you indicate, one may be able to claim some sorts of benefits as a widow (if married to a carrot), or a widower (if married to, say, a mango). [Why do I keep thinking mangoes are female ?}

Fruit too, of course. Those amongst us who are inclined towards polyamory could try a punnet of strawberries, but obviously for extremely short relationships, more like one-night stands. Of course, would they respect you in the morning ?

So what about shell-fish ? Oysters or pipis ? Moreton Bay bugs ? Why can't they have the same rights as fruit and vegetables ? Adventurous blokes could try first with periwinkles, but perhaps they should avoid clams.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 4:55:23 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
Toni Lavis,
I intend to vote as many times as I can by collecting ballot papers that are discarded by others or given to me.
Since there is no identification on the envelopes or the ballot paper they become basically untraceable and easily duded.
I might ever print a few thousand with envelopes as well
I will of course be voting NO
Can someone out there tell me how it is possible for a government to rush new laws through parliament to compliment this vote thing with massive fines and prison terms for people who upset the alternate genders but they can't introduce the same penalties for criminal offenses especially where they involve layabouts and junkies.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 8:13:11 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
chrisgaff1000,

It is understood that the returned forms will be checked mechanically by a reader and at the same time the address of the voter will be checked off. That would still permit fraud, but the opportunity would be very limited.

Regarding the sentiments expressed in your closing paragraph, it doesn't bode well for after SSM is introduced does it?

Scratch a federal politician, male or female and find a bullying authoritarian beneath. No surprise that young men who were denied the vote and couldn't legally buy a beer were drafted (thanks to a big turn out of women voters for Menzies) and sent to war in Vietnam. There is no real Left in Australia.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:56:04 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
Joe, you should give a trigger warning before you start on about looking for firm vegetables in your crisper. Nearly sprayed my screen with coffee!
Now you've started off my memories of discussions with emergency room nurses about all the different and bizarre objects shoved into anuses that were presented to emergency for removal lol.
Posted by Big Nana, Thursday, 14 September 2017 9:07:40 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
Hi Big Nana,

Yeah, I just bought one of those continental cucumbers, about a foot long - I thought, yeah, that might do it: I have to make a quiche, so that should do. Maybe a bit bland ?

On the whole, I'm not much in favour of marriage at all, except that it offers women a slightly stronger sense of commitment, and a slightly stronger disincentive to the bloke to piss off when the wife is at her socially and financially weakest.

But I'm intrigued by the attacks by Gramscian communists (having been one myself a few decades ago), and how their tactics are moving towards Anarchism, and away from standard Leninist Socialism. Either way, I suspect that both paths inevitably lead towards Fascism. So their attempts to destroy marriage and family structure and stability by enlisting homosexuals is intriguing.

I expect much more racist references in the coming 'discussions', that if Blacks and Whites can marry, why not male and male ? I would have thought that 'male and female' would have been a more appropriate analogy, given that inter-marriage has always been legal - and even encouraged - in Australia. I certainly never experienced any discouragement.

I suppose homosexual advocates can't go too far with the analogy: white-white marriages ? Black-black marriages ? Therefore male-male marriages etc. ? But wait for even more racist comments and angles, more contemptible 'comparisons', even from some OLO contributors.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 9:55:53 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
Joe,

I’m not sure why you have a problem comparing opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition interracial marriage. The two are suitably analogous: both are irrational.

The fact that interracial marriage has always been legal in Australia is irrelevant to the analogy, because the question is not about what HAS been legal, it’s about what SHOULD be legal.

Your assertion that such comparisons are racist is quite bizarre, too, and makes no sense at all. If someone is comparing opposition to interracial marriage with opposition to same-sex marriage, then clearly they find both abhorrent. How on earth could that possibly be considered racist?

The only prejudice the analogy exposes, if any, is homophobia on your part because you apparently find it offensive when mixed marriages analogised with same-sex marriages. Presumably, you find it an insult to mixed marriages that they be compared with same-sex marriages.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 10:21:55 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
homophobia?

"The gay people against gay marriage"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22758434
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:06:56 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
Yes, leoj, you read that correctly: homophobia.

If the gay opponents of same-sex marriage in the article you linked to believe that it is an insult to mixed marriages to be comparing them with same-sex marriages, then they too are homophobic (and homophobia does exist within the gay community, believe it or not). Somehow, I doubt they would, though.

Speaking of self-hating gays, the article you linked to briefly mentions how this is the result of an internalised hatred. In my observations, this seems to occur most frequently among gay people who are raised in ultra-religious households where the indoctrination borders on psychological abuse.

My gay brother-in-law once dated a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party. This bloke was against same-sex marriage and even believed that homosexuality was immoral. He had never once dated a woman, mind you, so I’m not sure how he reconciled such conflicting beliefs, but there you go…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:28:03 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
Philips:

"I’m not sure why you have a problem comparing opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition interracial marriage."

What makes them comparable? The only thing that can be compared is the fact of marriage. How can sexuality and race be comparable?
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:46:57 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
Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?

Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:56:36 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
Dear phanto,

Your apparent eagerness to engage in communication with me raises my levels of doubt regarding the extent to which the expressed offence and hurt, of which you spoke in our previous discussion, was indeed genuine.

<< What makes [opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage] comparable?>>

The fact that there are individuals who are against each one for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

<<How can sexuality and race be comparable?>>

By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry.

I trust this clears up any confusion you may have had with regards to the above matters.

--

leoj,

Good questions.

<<Up until recently senior politicians form Labor for example were opposed to SSM. Previously homophobic? Y/N?>>

That depends on the reasoning behind each individual’s opposition to it. As a guess, I'd say most of the time it would have been. The political party they belong to is irrelevant, too.

<<Homosexuals the same, it is only very recently that the pendulum is said to have swung towards the previously despised and irrelevant marriage. All homophobes before? Y/N?>>

No.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is not in and of itself homophobic. Opposition to same-sex marriage may, however, be a sign of homophobia, depending on the reasoning behind it. You don’t seem to be understanding the difference there.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 12:35:34 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
Philips:

I never said I was offended or hurt. I said you were aggressive. That's a totally different thing.

"By the fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced towards certain varieties of each of the above for reasons that stem from mere bigotry."

People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison. Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.

When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation? Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons which could be misinterpreted as slights against their opponents.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:04:00 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
Having now seen the ballot paper, with it's simplicity, I'll bet the printing ogresses in a number of universities are running hot.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:09:08 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
Dear phanto,

My sincerest apologies for the clumsy wording. I hope you will forgive me.

<<I never said I was offended or hurt.>>

Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt, that your reaction suggested …”? I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.

<<People are prejudiced about many things why did you choose this particular comparison.>>

Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition. If you have any other more appropriate analogies, then I would be pleased to hear of them.

<<Maybe it is a backhanded way of trying to suggest that SSM opponents would have been racists in the time when interracial marriage was outlawed.>>

I am afraid not. I have quite plainly stated, on several occasions now, that homophobia is as dreadful as racism, and that it is simply the 'new racism’. I did not mean to suggest anything indirectly. I apologise if I gave you that impression.

<<When interracial marriage was the cause of the day what did they use to compare with their situation?>>

I am not sure if they had an analogous situation, or if they had even endeavoured to find one.

<<Or maybe they just presented it on its own merits and did not need to rely on comparisons …>>

Perhaps. However, analogies are always a useful tool for communication. They are frequently used in law for this very reason. The use of an analogy, no matter how offensive it may be to some, is not indicative of the level of a proposal’s merit.

Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:34:11 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
AJ,

Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.

Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to. There was an incident in the NT when I was a kid, when a white bloke ran away with a 'full-blood' girl. The Welfare Officer, Harry Giese, chased them across the country until they got into WA, where they got married. Then they came back, with no further repercussions. End of.

What authorities didn't want was casual liaisons, and therefore more illegitimate kids (something which may not occur with any homosexual liaison). Marriage, they didn't mind. In the SA 1939 Aborigines Act (and in WA's legislation too), it was an offence for a white man to 'consort' with an Aboriginal woman, but not to marry her. That's how they jailed Don McLeod, on that pretext, even without any evidence of any actual liaison. In SA, courts seemed to be pretty firm but gentle with this, exploring a whitefella's intentions, and advising him to cease contact if he had no real permanent plans. If he was prepared to marry, then no worries: do it and the matter is settled.

I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ. So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really. 'Black-white = equal'; 'Man-woman = equal'. I'd advise you to move on and find grounds for homosexual 'marriage' somewhere else.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:59:51 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
Philips:

“Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt,”

But there was no apparent offence or hurt so you would be lying.

“Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition.”

If bigotry is the only reason then why is there a need to make any comparison? We all know what bigotry is so it is enough to say that opponents of SSM are bigots. Saying that they are bigots like opponents of interracial marriage were bigots tells us nothing more. A bigot is a bigot. You can’t be more or less of a bigot so it adds nothing to the argument. It is totally unnecessary and so it must be presumed that the intent is to cast an unrelated slur against SSM opponents.

“analogies are always a useful tool for communication.”

Not if they contribute nothing to the description of bigotry which we already have.

“Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.”

Equality is not an argument – it is a value in certain situations but not all situations. There is no argument to prove that it is of value in this situation.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:06:41 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
Spot-on, Phanto, thanks !

Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ: witness my ludicrous vegetable and shell-fish examples.

Gramscians will use 'whatever means necessary' to tear down bourgeois society and replace it with - what ? - I don't know, I can't even imagine, except perhaps nothingness. I felt very sorry for Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party in the 1920s, a cripple jailed for fifteen years by the Fascists in Italy - and the working class did nothing for him, for the Party, for socialism, and instead supported Mussolini. So proletarian revolution was out: what else ? Well, whatever could be used to tear down bourgeois institutions.

So the long-term strategy to use 'useful idiots' like adolescent uni students, homosexuals, anybody who had a gripe against the 'system'. As for tactics, use whatever works: violence, slander, shouting people down, accusing everybody but yourself of being a 'bigot', etc.

Well, it's working so far :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:30:50 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
Interesting to see how many people regard homosexuality as immoral, but fraud as totally fine. And all in the 'no' camp. If ever there was a case for ethics education in schools...

Fraud is not OK, people. It's criminal and it's wrong. Clearly some people's parents didn't raise them very well.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:35:53 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
Actually, Joe, I don’t know it.

<<Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.>>

And it’s a little strange for you to claim this after how disastrous your last attempt at portraying the analogy as ‘racist’ was:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229227

<<Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to.>>

Correct.

However, I have already explained that this is irrelevant because the issue is not about what HAS been legal, but what SHOULD be legal.

The question of whether interracial marriage SHOULD be legal is independent of whether it HAS always been legal, because what HAS been done in the past is not, in itself, an argument for what SHOULD be done, and to suggest otherwise is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

I’m not sure what part of this you’re not understanding.

<<I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ.>>

I’ll put it as simply as I possibly can: both are forms of marriage, both forms of marriage have their opponents, the opponents of each form of marriage have no rational argument against that which they oppose, and opposition to the two forms of marriage are usually just driven by bigotry.

<<So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really.>>

You have not yet justified this claim. Even if my analogy weren’t valid, that still wouldn’t explain why drawing such parallels is racist or offensive.

<<Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ ...>>

Correct. At no point have I suggested otherwise. In fact, I’ve gone into some detail regarding this on several occasions. I’m sorry you missed it.

--

Dear phanto,

I will resume communications with your good self when you are prepared to cease referring to others as tellers of untruths in a haphazard fashion. Thank you for your time.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:47:57 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
Well this one came through the pipeline today;

25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

Thought some of you might be interested in this;

https://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/

It shows voting predictions based on last years Census. It was based on six factors. The ones predicating a No vote were older, male, religious, non-english speaking background immigrant, low income and rural.

So if a No vote does get up we can blame the alliance between old WASPs, like the kind that haunt this place, and NESB migrants. Oh the irony.

If fact we may well be able to say this will be the first time NESB migrants could responsible for changing the course of this country, with the full blessing it seems of some of our OLO clan. There is little doubt that without such a solid No position being taken by our new arrivals this would not be a contest.

My shire only had a couple of red flags, how did yours go?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:59:45 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
Sorry. Forgot to fix the links;

http://www.25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

http://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 September 2017 3:17:23 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
Joe:

The issue of inter-racial marriage is only introduced as a slur directed at people who oppose SSM.

If there are genuine arguments for SSM then they should be presented but saying it is 'like' something else always has an ulterior motive. Philips has an ulterior motive to try and hurt those who oppose SSM because he is bitter and resentful about his Christian background and he equates opposition to SSM with Christianity.

Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:25:20 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
Hi Phanto,

Yeah, I would have thought that the essence of BOTH legal marriage and inter-'racial' marriage is that the parties are NOT the same, male/female, Black/white. So the analogy with male/male or female/female breaks down immediately.

In SA, from the earliest days, if a white man married an Aboriginal woman, SHE was offered a lease of land, in her name, to be surrendered if she died. Out of the hundred or so leases to Aborigines in the late nineteenth century, perhaps half a dozen were to Aboriginal women. In one case, her Aboriginal husband had held the lease which was transferred to her when he died: because she had a large number of kids, she was provided with rations until the boys could grow up and take over the lease, eventually about twenty years later.

Probably quite irrelevant :) But inter-marriage between Black and white British subjects (and from 1949, citizens) has never been illegal. I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:33:47 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
' Of course he will deny that but he lies about many things so that is not unusual.'

Yeah AJ is consistant with the bigots and thugs on the YES side of the debate.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:34:43 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
Name-calling does not give anyone credibility.
No one likes or supports illogical, abusive
debaters.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:48:55 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
Joe,

How is the biological sex of the parties fatal to the analogy? How does that negate all the parallels that I mentioned? If this is indeed the case, then you should be able to explain what it is about the genders of the parties makes the analogy fail. The mere fact that they are different is not a reason in itself. Analogies do not have to be perfect, there need only be a shared and relevant factor.

Why are same-sex couples not deserving of equal treatment?

<<I really can't see how, as AJ insists, there is some analogy between that and homosexual marriage.>>

I have already explained it in quite some detail now, and you have said nothing to counter any of it. You are just digging your heels in now.

Speaking of equality and parallels, though, equality is another parallel that I should have noted when listing the parallels. That equality is whatever we want it to be is a premise you had inserted into my claim. I had said nothing to suggest that this is what I thought. There is no reason why same-sex couples should not be deserving of equal treatment.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:53:52 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
Foxy:

I agree.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 8:53:55 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
Mmmm,

Wonder where the free speech advocates will side on this one?

A couple have their ceremony cancelled at a church because they express support for same sex marriage on their facebook page.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/church-cancels-wedding-because-bride-and-groom-supported-gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 15 September 2017 12:43:43 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
They weren't denied the right to speak - Facebook guaranteed that. They just have to deal with the consequences of their speech. They don't have a right to be married in that church.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 2:49:14 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
So far there is an anonymous complainant saying she is representing her partner to be as well, while the party complained against is known and in the full glare of media and social site publicity.

What is the full story? Who would ever know?
Posted by leoj, Friday, 15 September 2017 3:17:16 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
Dear phanto,

Of course this was an attack on their right to free speech, or perhaps we have a differing definition of such.

Mine pretty well aligns to that given by Wikipedia;

“Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.”

This couple's words were not inciting harm toward others, they were not hateful, and in fact they probably espouse a true christian perspective. I certainly deem the actions of the minister as societal sanction. Why don't you?

And you claim they don't have a right to be married in that church. Why not? They appear to have been part of the congregation for 10 years presumably giving of themselves and their money to support it. There most certainly is an implied right and if that smug, petulant, so and so didn't want to officiate then so be it. They should have been allowed to have someone else do it in the church, their spiritual home.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 15 September 2017 4:41:52 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
Dear Steele,

The Church is supposed to be a Christian Institution
and as such it is supposed to accept people of
all persuasions. Apparently due to the ever reducing
numbers of believers in attending Churches the Ministery
is not following the teachings of religious belief
and the prejudicial leadership that's being exhibited by
some ministers is driving away many believers whose
only fault seems to be a different interpretation of their
faith to those preached by their Ministers.

On the other hand I recently read the following letter in
our local newspaper which gives a different religious
viewpoint:

"I am concerned over how any debate on civil marriage
is now developing. Later this year, I shall have been
in the priesthood 58 years, and as a priest, I am
obliged to care for all, no matter what gender or
cultural background. All that matters is their belief
in Catholic values.

I shall be voting yes for civil marriage, something
very different to the marriage sacrament.

However, in doing so I can see no avenues open for those
who desire to inflict vindictive hatred on those who
do not agree with their position."

Reverend Mother Nerissa Marshail.
Sept. 11th 2017.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 September 2017 5:14:15 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
Steele:

I was thinking that denial of free speech was denial of speech. What would you call it when people are denied the opportunity to speak at all so we could never know what their opinions were? Facebook gives people a platform which they might not otherwise have.

I think the term 'societal' is a bit broad. Within that society we have smaller groups who have the right to set their own rules and members of those groups agree to abide by the rules. The couple have not been banished from the church just refused one of its services.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 15 September 2017 5:45:12 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
The "NO" campaign is falling apart, this week they wheeled out their big gun, the old fuddy duddy himself, Geriatric Johnny, who tried to unload om Malcolm.

In a statement, Howard said the Government was "washing its hands of any responsibility" to protect religious freedoms should the survey come back with a majority Yes vote.
Turnbull has repeatedly said the Parliament will change the Marriage Act, with the necessary gurentees before the end of the year if there is a Yes vote. So much for the half baked claims by Howard.

In other news; The political stoush over the same-sex marriage postal vote has taken an ugly turn after former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s godson was punched “standing up for marriage equality”. The Queensland police are on the case, could this be the work of "NO" extremists?

There has been stuff ups with the postal vote, one voter received seven voting forms at his address. six for previous tenants who had not changed their address details with the AEC. Is this a $122,000,000 sham? With two thirds of those intending to vote indicating a "YES" vote preference, the "NO"'s will need every vote they can get by hook or by crook, including the above mentioned seven!

In advertising the "NO" campaigners have been exposed as liars, with such nonsense as schools will force boys to wear dresses, and then they will teach children how to masturbate, disgusting lies from some desperate people!
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 September 2017 5:50:08 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
Why shouldn't the public vote 'No' to a proposal, the push for which has been from the leftist political elite, who inform the public that they are not going to discuss what comes next after they trash the Marriage Act, notwithstanding that it is one of the fundamentals of society?

The public are being treated as bovines, "Just vote with the eye-blinkers on (also known as blinders) and never you mind, we the superior 'Progressives' take it from there".

Up until very recently, homosexuals to a man, and emphasis on 'man' because it is gays who are strident and bullying, were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.
Now the public is being led to believe that overnight black has turned into white and the backflip has it that is was actually the nasty exclusiveness(sic) of heterosexual marriage that is causing some homosexuals to feel offended and even to harm themselves.

The other, far more numerous backers of SSM and its engine room, are the feminists, who are on record as despising marriage for its inevitable power imbalance and dreadful harm done to women. -But now they would have the public believe they actually love marriage and marriage IS love. Just as feminists have no problem with Islam, the 'most feminist religion' with beaut dress-up for women ('empowering' according to feminists), so too they laud same sex marriage. Amazing!

The wedding dress, the church, the vows, are now feminist approved?

If there is one thing the 'Progressives' who trash 'traditional'(sic) marriage and plump for the new, u-beaut and wonderful SSM agree on, it is that marriage never had a definition (according to them) and it is just 'love'. That must impact on the already ambiguous and broad definition of de facto 'relationships'(sic) that feminist and marriage-dissing Julia Gillard brought in (again without public consultation, of course).

The public are being required to buy a pig in a poke and questioning what and why is not allowed, wrong and invites censure. Why?
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 7:36:49 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
leoj says:
“Up until very recently, homosexuals […] were utterly opposed to and dismissive of State controlled heterosexual marriage. Marriage was the butt of their jokes.”

It’s interesting to watch, isn’t it.

Back in the heady days of Les Girls and Carlotta, there were only two identifiers in play - gay and lesbian. The surrounding embryonic movement grew into the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras which, over the years, became a cultural icon.
The gay and lesbian community got to show off and be outrageous in a street parade. When the straight community got the hang of it, they also applauded the idea and the Mardi Gras went on to become a yearly highlight televised around the nation. The Rev. Fred Nile was quietly ignored by all.

These folk were celebrating their differences and the last thing on their mind was conforming to any notion of patriarchal conformist marriage.

Fast forward to 2017 and there seems to be a very different agenda promoted by a very different group of people.

The new crowd demand respect.
The old crowd commanded respect. That’s very different . . and they got it.
Posted by Dustin, Saturday, 16 September 2017 8:38:47 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 upcoming postal survey is pretty straight
forward. One simple question is being asked.
And all we have to do is say yes or no.
The other arguments being presented are merely
suppositions on what may or may not happen.
Why not just take the opportunity to have
your say. That is all that is being asked of you.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 September 2017 11:20:23 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
Why should the public buy a pig in a poke?

What is the definition of marriage, Foxy?

What about resolving these outstanding matters?

"Same-sex marriage: What does human rights law say about claims of equality?
..
But the "marriage equality" claim is not borne out by the decisions of the highest human rights authorities in the international order. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage. In so ruling, these bodies have actually affirmed the inherent equality of all persons..

United Nations Human Rights Committee

In Joslin et al. v New Zealand, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that "marriage" is a definitional construct which, by the expressed terms of Article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), includes only persons of the opposite sex.

Importantly, the committee held that the right to equality under Articles 2 or 26 of the ICCPR, which is the applicable international covenant that Australia has ratified, was not then violated.

That is to say, there is no inequality because the definitional boundary did not enfold persons of the same sex.

Such people are equal in all respects and defining marriage as being between persons of the opposite sex was not to render such people as unequal.

That is consistent with the UNHRC's clarification, that "not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the covenant"."
tbc
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 12:23:18 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
contd..
"European Court of Human Rights

Although Australia is not subject to its decisions, similar conclusions have been reached by the other principal arbiter of international human rights jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights.

In decisions handed down in 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the court has also concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose an obligation to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.

Consequently, the court has consistently held that the prohibition on discrimination (the right to equality) under Article 14 of the convention was not breached by states that continue to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/what-does-human-rights-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 12:24:26 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
But leoj is not according to you the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the European Court of Human Rights a couple of pinko, commie, lefty, progressive, feminists, Fabian, Julia Gillard/grennie run front orgs out to destroy the free world and the American way! why should we listen to them, its as bad as tuning into the ABC.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 16 September 2017 5:04:34 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
"They treat their members like mushrooms. They keep them in the dark and they feed them on bull*bleep*." Greens Senator

'Inside the Greens', ABC
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 6:11:13 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
leoj,

The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 by John Howard to read
that marriage in this country was to be only - "between
a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others."
Prior to that time marriage was not defined.

Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided
over by the government.

And as such it should not be defined in the manner in which
it was by Mr Howard as it excludes non-familial
consenting adults who want to get married. It prevents
them from doing so.

Now the postal survey asks one simple question.
Should same-sex couples have the right to marry
Yes or No.

At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard
made.

If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then
vote No.

There's nothing more to be said.

Bringing in the United Nations et cetera is simply a diversion
on your part -
and irrelevant to what is being asked of us in this country
concerning same-sex marriage.

Have your say in the opportunity that is being given to you.
Leave the rest of us to make up our own minds on the
subject - we don't need you to try to do it for us.
Thanks.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 September 2017 6:30:06 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
Foxy,

The public are being sold a pig in a poke. You are high-handed, telling people that their only involvement is to place their mark on a piece of paper.

SSM is the creature of the political elite and to date it has been discussed in that realm, almost exclusively.

Very, very few members of the public participate in political forums. Their only exposure is at election time, where the comments by the PM are reduced to just sound bites, and some of that is voiced over, even while the PM is speaking.

The overwhelming body of the public are not on boards like OLO or hanging onto Tony Jones' every word (make that his ear microphone's words) for hours, days and even months of their lives as some here might be. They are too busy getting skills, earning their keep, raising their families and paying taxes. As well, they have other interests.

"FORMER prime minister John Howard has called on Malcolm Turnbull to explain what steps will be taken to protect parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom in the event of same-sex marriage becoming law.

Mr Howard says the protections need to be spelled out before the end of the postal survey, which started this week.

“The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws,” he said in a statement today.

“On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protections in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony,” Mr Howard said.
It was “completely disingenuous” to say the marriage law change would not have other consequences...

“It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the government will do on protections before they vote,” he added.
“Otherwise, people will not be fully informed when they vote.”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-pm-john-howard-claims-turnbulls-government-isnt-taking-responsibility-for-ssm-debate/news-story/aeb32ef6e994bbe2b1d531ad7bc17b0d
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 16 September 2017 7:33:46 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
Dear Foxy,

«Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided over by the government.»

That's what politicians and their laws say, but it doesn't change the facts!

«Now the postal survey asks one simple question. Should same-sex couples have the right to marry»

No, the survey asks: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" - which is not only a different question, but also a very strange one since no current law forbids it!

«At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard made.»

Of course they can!

The government would not recognise such marriages - but so what?
Under existing Australian law, neither a same-sex couple who marries nor the person(s) who marry them commit any offence.

«If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then vote No.»

It is discriminatory IN FAVOUR of same-sex couples: they are not conned to pay the state $291 for a worthless piece of paper. In order to remove that discrimination, NOBODY should be conned that way!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 2:19:50 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
leoj,

Of course Mr Howard wants everything spelled out.
He was the one who changed the Marriage Act in
the first place (2004) - without consulting the
public. However, the postal survey is very
straight forward. And a simple process. It does
not deal with any other issues and those will
be dealt with in Parliament later - depending
on the outcome of this survey. Everything else is
simply scare-mongering.

Dear Yuyutsu,

No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not
legally recognised in this country. Hence the postal
survey to have the law changed. You may not recognise
the fact that marriage in this country is a legal
contract presided over by government - but that does
not change the fact that is what it is - whether
you choose to recognise its legitimacy of not.
We've been over this ground before and I don't see
the point in re-hashing it all over again with you.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 8:31:11 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
Dear Foxy,

«No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not legally recognised in this country.»

I never claimed that they are, so why the "No"?

«Hence the postal survey to have the law changed.»

Please read your postal survey form carefully. In the way it is worded, it asks:

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

It does not ask:

"Should the law be changed to legally recognise same-sex marriages?"

Don't you think this is funny, given that same-sex marriage has not been disallowed to begin with?

$122,000,000 for a meaningless and ridiculous question!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:35:21 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

No I don't think that it is a silly question at all because
the law currently does not allow same-sex couples
to marry. Therefore the question is relevant.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 11:34:24 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
Dear Foxy,

«The law currently does not allow same-sex couples to marry.»

Can you please point me to the law/Act you refer to, including the penalties that a same-sex couple might incur if they contravene it and marry anyway?

Thanks.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:09:53 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

Under the current legislation, The Marriage Amendment
Act (2004) which made amendments to the original
Marriage Act (1961), the law states that "marriage
means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion
of all others..."

Therefore, same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.

This information is available on the web.

I can't make it any clearer for you.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:38:12 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
Why would you want to close down public information and debate? What about some education and balance, answers? Instead you would only allow the public to 'tick the box within the confines of yes and no. So that later it can all be worked out behind closed doors.

Of course the public would be wondering what the hell is going on. The leftist 'anti-No vote' violence at Sydney University for instance, what, who, is behind that?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-campaigners-show-their-true-colours/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

Background
Avowed Feminist & Fabian, PM Julia Gillard and her equally committed feminist and socialist Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, asserted that they had removed ALL discrimination against same-sex couples from ALL legislation, 84 different laws in all. Their statements in Parliament were cleared by the Labor caucus. Gillard in particular has been critical, dismissive, of 'traditional' marriage and remains so.

Gillard and Roxon would claim credit for greatly extending the coverage of de facto, now de facto 'relationships' as their idealism has it, their feminist and socialist difficulties with the institution of marriage causing them to find a new politically correct term for the 'common law marriage' in use elsewhere. They further extended the de facto relationships to include homosexual couples, giving them married rights, such as to partner superannuation benefits and accompanied spousal travel entitlements in public employment and to politicians (but of course!).

Arguably the political interference and political regulation of homosexual relationships is now the same as was forced on heterosexual couples. And that was something that homosexuals always strived to avoid, State interference and crippling lawyer costs and adversarial days, months, years in the Federal Court of Australia.

Yes, some already entitled, well-to-do, educated middle class have gained more form government and their employers and they have the Court to fight one another over million dollar houses and income streams.

But what about the rest? Who says they needed the State , a public service clerk and the court to tell them whether they are in a relationship or not and how to divvie possessions?
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:41:44 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
leoj,

Say something intelligent and relevant and
you may get people interested in what you post.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:07:13 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
Dear Foxy,

«Therefore, same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia.»

I agree and this was never disputed: undoubtedly indeed they cannot legally marry, or in other words, they cannot use the law to achieve a marriage between them.
[and I believe that nobody, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, should be using laws to that end anyway]

But they can still achieve marriage by any other means (other than by relying on laws) and no Australian law that I am aware of declares such marriages that were obtained by other means to be "illegal", nor imposes any penalties for such marriages.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:10:30 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
Yuyutsu,

I understand the point you are making.

However as outlined in my post on the previous page, feminism's and socialism's replacement for their despised 'traditional'(sic) as in heterosexual marriage has already been implemented AND extended to homosexuals.

That was done and dusted behind closed doors by Gillard and her Attorney General Nicola Roxon and of course with the full knowledge and beavering away behind the scenes by the big hitters of Emily's List, including key feminist academics, lawyers and other educated middle class feminists. See here,

leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:41:44 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926&page=12
And my posts on the few pages before.

It is State compulsion, the very broad and murky provisions of de facto 'relationship' [aka 'common law marriage' elsewhere, but the term studiously avoided by feminists], that are easily and AUTOMATICALLY triggered and without the motivation, intent and decision of the parties, which could be otherwise. The 'equity' is that both heterosexual and homosexual partners are affected, and it can consider bigamy, but not treat it as such.

By way of example of the last mentioned, a woman could be married to a man who is in undeclared (to her!) affairs with another man or woman or both or several, (or a blend, tres 'Progressive'!) and any and all of them could have legal demands on the married family's assets and income.

Now the same feminists and 'Progressives' who refuse to accept any of the negative consequences of their previous social experiments are storming, bullying, to have homosexuals and the rest of the community allow them free rein again after a 'yes' vote to get behind closed doors again to fiddle some more.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 5:58:32 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
Dear Leoj,

I was trying to avoid the political dimension.

Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.
Who are they anyway but a gang of thugs?

I don't care whether they support traditional or progressive marriages - states should have nothing to do with personal relationships, as indeed they should not even exist in the first place.

For the record, I have no issues with feminists or homosexuals, yet since you mentioned 'progressives' and Gillard, I am yet to suffer a massive blow from them:

Once their NBN reaches my area and my copper connection taken away, I will no longer have any communications, no phone, no internet, I would be completely isolated - or I may be forced to sell my house and move away to an area that is not affected.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 6:42:52 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
Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the civil reply.

The point is that the choice has already been taken away. The de facto 'relationship' [common law marriage] provisions are most intrusive on the private individual and are the dead hand of the State.

My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 6:58:14 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
Dear Leoj,

Yes, de-facto provisions can be intrusive, though I wouldn't say that they are "most intrusive" as there are so many other things that government does which are even more intrusive.

«My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.»

Yes, this would be much better than how it is now, but I'm confused by the word "default" since no state, even a small one, can be created without deliberate intention. The default as I understand it (which is actually not my preference as some readers here may believe), is having no organisation whatsoever.

My preference, is for people to organise themselves voluntary into society(s), on the basis of common values rather than on some arbitrary territorial basis.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 7:40:32 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
Hi Yuyutsu.

As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all?

<<My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.>> Leoj, pull the other leg.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:12:48 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
"As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all? "

The only logical option would be to vote NO in order to stop a bad situation from becoming worse.

You cannot vote YES without implying that you agree with government involvement in marriage. The question remains why would anyone agree with government involvement in marriage.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:46:09 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
Dear phanto,

Many people are voting yes - simply to give same-sex
couples the same legal rights as the rest of us
have regarding marriage in this country because
at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:19:25 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
Foxy:

But they are also voting to give the government powers which they do not need. You can't vote YES for SSM and NO for government involvement without being totally illogical.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:51:17 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
Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage. If one was to agree with me, then one would also have to agree that religions have no legitimacy in regards to marriage.

I am not perturbed, by people who want to marry, be it of the opposite, or the same sex, be it once, or multiple times, those marriages could even be concurrent, providing they are all consenting adults, and there is no harm to anyone.

If people really need a certificate of marriage, maybe all they should have to do is go online and with the help of 'Photoshop', knock one up. Or if they are 'old school' buy one down at the local newsagents when they put their 'Lotto' entry in. two gambles at the same time.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:54:22 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
Foxy,

Homosexuals have had Common Law marriage for years, since the Gillard government grossly altered and extended the de facto to de facto 'relationships'.

Homosexuals are deemed to be in Common Law marriages whether they want it or not. As any who happen to deal with Centrelink would be aware.

And those who are now forced to pay expensive lawyers to represent them in the Federal Court to dissolve their married status and decide assets, would be feeling in their wallet and through the delays. Delays in Queensland can be between two and four years.

Gillard's changes were beaut and very advantageous for the well off such as herself, enabling Gillard to claim married entitlements for her coupling convenience, as she also enabled for a lesbian coupling if that was her thing. However, few people are advantaged like Gillard and others of the feminist and 'Progressive' elites, being able to come out well on top out of the expanded Common Law marriage, de facto 'relationship' law changes.

Many people lost on the swings and roundabout of her changes that increased State involvement and power (automatic and deeming especially) and the lawyers and Federal Court processes are adversarial.

To think that formerly homosexuals were able to sort things out themselves and decide if they were couples or not. So easy to gather possessions and leave if things were going pear-shaped or just because.

But not after they allowed the feminists and 'Progressives' to take control. Now they are like heterosexual couples, forced to line the pockets of lawyers and going cap in hand before a judge of the Federal Court, to have him/her pass opinions and final judgement.

Now the same suspects want carte blanche to do all again behind closed doors just like before when Gillard was in the seat! Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary people are waiting years and losing their life savings to lawyers writing letters to each other, enabled by complicated family law. Then there is the increased acrimony.

To ALL politicians, fix the mess from before, NOW! As well, 'NO!' 'No way Jose!'
Posted by leoj, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:04:25 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
Paul1405:

“Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage.”

But it depends why you are participating. If you participate to stop the rot then all you are saying is that governments cause the rot. You are not legitimising the rot. If you are taking the opportunity to stop things from getting worse isn’t that saying something about the current situation? Why wouldn’t you take that opportunity? How can that be read as affirming the current situation of government involvement?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:28:35 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
Hi Leoj,

Yeah, that puzzles me: unless one partner more or less stays home to mind the kids and do the housework, why can't each party to a divorce simply take what's theirs and be done with it ? Obviously, in the past, when that role was almost exclusively women's, there was a need to calculate who got what, and marriage itself gave perhaps the illusion of some sense of security to women. I don't know how that works in the case of liaisons involving homosexual partners. It's interesting though, that we come back to the core rationale for marriage, i.e. to raise kids and to take care of the home.

Clearly, in the case of homosexual couples where children are not involved, much of that rationale falls away, to be complicated further by the factor of divorce.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 September 2017 12:56:14 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
Dear phanto,

Marriage in this country is a legal contract
presided over by the government - whether
we want to recognise its legitimacy of not
is a different issue.
That's the way that it currently is. And by voting yes -
all people are doing is giving the
right to be legally married to same-sex couples.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 1:49:06 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
Foxy:

It is not a different issue it is entwined in your vote for YES. Can you vote YES for SSM and vote NO for government involvement? Then the two things are all part of the same issue.

You can, however, vote NO for further government involvement. This is the opportunity that a citizens vote has provided which would not have been available under a parliamentary vote.

You can vote to make a better society. One where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple. This is the best outcome and SSM makes the situation worse. Same-sex couples should fight for what is best for society and not just for themselves.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 2:44:11 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
Hi Phanto,

You've got it in one: " .... a better society, one where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple."

i.e. a society in which relationships are strengthened and treasured regardless.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:00:54 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
Dear phanto,

I fear you may have presented us with another false dilemma. There is a third possibility: one may disagree with government involvement in marriage, but want there to be equality for same-sex couples for so long as there is.

Unfortunately, your false dilemma appears to assume that having the government involved with marriage is a bad thing, and that it is worse than having greater equality. Both are assumptions that I regret to inform you have not yet been justified.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:07:05 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
Philips:

And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:18:30 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
Dear phanto,

As I am not aware of any downsides to having the government involved in the registration of marriages, this question of yours, however apt, appears to me to be a no-brainer.

<<And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?>>

Nevertheless, there may be some drawbacks to government involvement in the registration of marriages that I am not aware of. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter.

I would note, however, that even if you are right, and that no government involvement is indeed better than greater equality, the survey is not asking if the government should remain involved with the registering of marriages. The survey is asking if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Therefore, your message would fall on deaf ears and we would be left with less equality (in the event that the ‘No’ vote wins), and still have government involvement anyway.

For your point to have any validity, one would need to explain how having reduced government involvement in the registering of marriages is preferable, despite the discriminatory manner in which you propose we achieve this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 3:55:27 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
The results of the postal survey on same-sex marriage
should prove to be interesting. The Australian Electoral
Commission has finished processing nearly a million
changes to the roll including adding more than 100,000
new people. Two-thirds of whom are around 25 years of age.
That leaves more than 16 million Australians eligible to
vote.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:07:48 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
Dear Paul,

This seems like the old argument of evolution versus revolution (or "things must get worse before they can get better").

My preferred option is also not to pay for this (or any other) survey with my tax-money. This option is now gone.

But since the survey is already out, I rather use it to support those two rare things: 1) that ordinary people are being asked at all, about anything; and 2) that the survey is non-compulsory.

I have seen people harassed by the demands of the ABS when randomly chosen to fill a compulsory survey. I know one case where the person involved was desperately crying and wanted to commit suicide. Eventually she relocated as a result and left her (rented) place in the middle of the night without leaving a trail (such as mail forwarding), so the ABS will not be able to follow her.

Thus my second-best option is mitigation, not unlike what I do in general elections.

---

Dear Foxy,

«at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia.»

Can you see the difference between "legally unable" and "unable to legally"? Or between "legal marriage" and "marrying legally"?

When you are "legally unable" to do something, you may still be able to do it without breaking any law, but if you are also "unable to legally" do it and still do, then you could be charged and incur criminal penalties.

"Legal marriage" is marriage that is enshrined by law.
"Marrying legally" is when no law is broken by one's marriage.

In summary:

You are correct in saying that at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia. However, they can still wed legally since no law stops them from doing so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:38:33 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
Philips:

"Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter."

No.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:42:17 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex couples currently do not have the same
legal rights unless they are allowed to marry in
this country. If their marriage is not recognised
legally problems can arise when a partner dies
regarding what happens to property and other assets
as well as Superannuation funds. Then there is the
emergency medical situations that can arise where
partners can be excluded from not only hospital
visiting rights but also exercising medical power
of attorney.

Having a marriage recognised legally does have
its benefits as things currently stand and to deny
people that same right as the rest of society -
is simply wrong.

The following link explains:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:07:40 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
Dear phanto,

It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information. I was looking forward to the challenge of critiquing any drawbacks you could present with regards to the State registration of marriages. But, alas, it was not to be.

One cannot help but wonder, however, what the motive behind your initial question to me was, if you were not prepared to inform me of what the drawbacks were so that I may compare them with the benefits of equality. It does seem rather odd, I am sure you will agree.

I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:09:44 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
Philips:

“It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information.”

You are lying again.

“I am sure you will agree.”

That’s another lie.

“I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.”

That’s another one.

Three lies in three paragraphs!
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 5:43:45 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
Dear phanto,

It is rather unfortunate that you appear to have resorted to accusing others of telling untruths. This was not the case, once upon a time.

A common theme which I have noticed, with regards to these accusations of alleged untruths being told, is that they are invariably explainable by a more innocent difference of perception. The first alleged incident of an untruth being uttered by myself in this discussion thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926#245292) was a typical example of that which I speak.

I view your decline of my offer as unfortunate; you do not.

I was sure that you would view your initial question as rather odd after you revealed that you were not willing to discuss the drawbacks of government involvement in the registration of marriages anyway; I now see that you do not.

I was thankful for your time, despite the abrupt tone in which you rejected my request for further information; you do not believe that I was thankful.

This does not mean that either of us is engaging in the telling of untruths. Why, I could just as easily accuse your good self of the same, however, neither you nor I can see into the mind of the other. All we can do is take it on good faith that the other is being open and honest in their communications, and treat each other with respect accordingly.

While it is admirable for one to call to account those who would speak untruths, one must also take care not to adopt a scattergun approach to the identifying of alleged untruths, as this could be mistaken for desperation and histrionics; which would be most unfortunately in the event that you do indeed correctly identify untruths uttered, as they may fall on deaf ears which had stopped listening long ago.

Please take my criticisms in good faith, and be well.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:26:48 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 have just received my 'SS" vote paper in the mail.
There were three discarded vote letters in the waste by the mail boxes.
Nothing to stop me form filling them in and mailing them back the way I feel.
Stop!
There is a bar code on the envelope.
There are two bar codes on the voting form.
What is to say they don't know who I am.
Why the bar codes and why not tell us what they represent.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:32:28 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
Philips:

And one must not abruptly change one's persona without other 'ones' smelling a rat.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 18 September 2017 6:39:20 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
Dear phanto,

All we can do is take each person as they come. If your positions in debate are tenable, then you will be able to respond in kind. For only those who do not have the truth and reason on their side will ultimately rely on aggression and abuse to communicate their beliefs.

This is the only rat to be sniffed out here.

Perhaps it is just me getting older, but I am rather enjoying this more calm and gentlemanly method of communicating. A surprising discovery which I have made is that I feel far more relaxed communicating in this manner. I was not expecting that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 September 2017 7:02:45 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
Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the reference!

While nearly all abnormalities were already solved, a handful remains and these too should and will be addressed very soon.

Apparently, as a vestige from the past, having a marriage recognised legally still has a handful of benefits - but also disadvantages: both should go.

All references to personal relationships, be it "marriage" and its grammatical derivatives or "de-facto", should be erased from all legislation.

Now I shall endeavour to address the particular points from Charis Chang's article one by one:

“If you look at the case law, you could have a will that leaves everything to your partner, but you can have siblings or other families that refuse to accept it was a defacto-like relationship.”

So? a will is binding, no matter what family-members refuse to accept. Even if a couple was married, family-members might still refuse to accept that marriage (this also applies to heterosexual marriages). Taking the deceased's assets without permission is theft and is recognised as such by the criminal code.

"...may be less likely to be invited to family events like weddings and graduations..."

Whether married or otherwise. You cannot force anyone to invite you to their event.

"Superannuation funds are problematic because a trustee determines who gets the money and they don’t have to follow wishes expressed in a will"

Easy to fix that one: change the law so trustees must follow the deceased's will. Regardless, superannuation should be merged with the estate. Are you aware that under some circumstances superannuation-beneficiaries might have to pay taxes, whereas when the superannuation is paid into an estate, no tax applies!?

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 10:01:47 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
[...continued]

"people in relationships for 30 or 40 years denied defacto status by superannuation trustees"

You shouldn't have to tell trustees why you want a certain person to be your beneficiary: change the law so they must accept whoever you elect, no explanations required. However, better not elect anyone because taxes might be incurred.

"there were still resistance among conservative members of families to recognise these relationships at the time of death."

In that regard, legal marriage would not make any difference.

"Some states have introduced reforms so that same-sex couples can register and be recognised legally as being in a defacto relationship"

This is a good and practical idea for a transition period, but ultimately no relationships should be legally-recognised, including de-facto.

"But unlike heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners don’t have the option to clarify their relationship status via marriage."

Nor should heterosexual couples have the option to clarify their relationship using a state-issued document.

"Everyone should have the same status"

What about "human"? or "citizen"? Nothing else is required.

"partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another."

This also applies to heterosexual couples who choose not to be legally-married. The situation can be fixed and there are quite a few ways to address this.

"“I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write ‘spouse’ on incident reports”"

No reason why one should not be able to write the truth. So long as there is no fraud and one honestly believes that the other person was their spouse, this should be good enough.

"“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room, ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!’”"

Once state-based marriages go out the window, that lady will no longer need to yell.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 10:01:53 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
Dear Yuyutsu,

There was a case recently on TV where a same-sex couple
had purchased a unit together in a retirement village.
The unit was in one of the couple's name. That partner
died and left a will leaving the unit to his partner.
The company that owned the retirement village did not
recognise the will and the partner was forced to buy
the unit if he wanted to live there despite the fact
that his partner had left it to him in his will and
the unit was already bought and paid for by his
partner.

You can argue all you like about what should or should
not be - however under the current legislation couples
who are not legally married will have to face legal
problems and that is what this postal survey is all about.
Giving same-sex couples equal rights with the rest of us.

It is not about what should be happening - it is about
what it currently is - as far as marriage laws are
concerned.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 8:12:56 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
Dear Foxy,

So ...... the company didn't pay out a refund on the unit already bought to the beneficiaries of the deceased person's will, including his partner ? So they would have been happy to sell it twice ? How can that be legal ?

Is this common in old people's homes, by whatever name ? Is this more to do with property law and the loop-holes that those sorts of companies can use rather than any law to do with marriage ?

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 8:21:35 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
Dear Foxy,

Yes, this is bad. Lucky I have no television so I don't get to see these things!

This is robbery and I do hope that the partner is successful in court to get back what is his.

Nevertheless, the village's poor excuse is that the couple was not legally married, rather than that they were of the same gender. That could similarly affect any other couple that doesn't invite the government to their wedding, or in some cases even cannot, such as a brother and a sister, or in the case when three or more people wish to live together (remember, neither living together nor marriage require sexual relations).

«under the current legislation couples who are not legally married will have to face legal problems»

Under current legislation, some couples face legal problems because they are not legally married while other couples face legal problems because they are. Removing all legislative references to the word "marriage" should solve both.

«It is not about what should be happening»

But it is: the proponents of same-sex legal marriages want the law to be changed in a particular way.

I want the law to be changed in a different way which will only simplify life. BOTH ways will lead to marriage equality, but the currently-proposed way will also increase bureaucracy, cause hardship to others and take us in the wrong direction. What I hope for, is that once the 'No' vote wins, all this young energy will find its way and be channelled into my alternate solution.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:44:55 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 hope that the 'boycotters' and 'discarders' of the opportunity to vote on changing the Marriage Act are those who think it is OK to wreck tradition and turn Australia into another Gomorrah.

That's the petulantly, childish sort of thing they would do.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:21:34 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
Dear Ttbn,

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not actually indulge in homosexual acts for pleasure: they only did so in order to cause suffering to visitors (this at least is the Jewish scholarly view).

Regarding discarded envelopes, I suggest that you should be careful: these could be traps, where the bar-code doesn't actually belong to any person. If you fill and post them, then the ABS would recognise the fraud and could match your fingerprints with those envelopes.

While I vote 'No', it is in no way an expression against homosexual people. In time, they too will realise that they are better off without legal marriage. If they want to be married, then I welcome and support the churches that marry them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:42:54 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
Joe:

“You've got it in one: " .... a better society, one where no one has to marry in order to gain rights which should be available to every couple."

i.e. a society in which relationships are strengthened and treasured regardless.”

This is where homosexual people lack dignity and have sold out to the government’s conditional distribution of those rights. They are prepared to marry in order to get rights which should be theirs by virtue of citizenship. They are prepared to do what the government says they should so they can have those rights.

Anyone who pursues a government issued marriage certificate in order to obtain those rights has little self-respect. This includes heterosexual people.

The only equality that homosexuals end up with is in the lack of self-respect. They are prepared to trade their dignity just so they can claim equality with heterosexuals. This generation of homosexuals will go down as the generation who sold their souls just so they could feed their need to appear as the equal of heterosexuals.

Nothing is more valuable than a person’s dignity – certainly not being married. Human dignity is an absolute value but being married is a very minor relative one.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 5:44:20 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
Dear phanto,

Marriage is not a humble requestion for rights from a leviathan of sorts. Rather, it is merely a bureaucratic means of registering one’s interests. Why, one may just as well complain that the Torrens system is oppressive. However, like marriage, the Torrens system is there to create certainty and protect rights, not as a means of arbitrarily determining who may obtain a property.

If the government were standing over us like oppressors and arbitrarily determining to whom it will be granting marriage rights, then you would be right to protest. However, I fear both you and Joe have placed a slant on the situation that does not reflect the reality of it as accurately as it could. Like the Torrens system, marriage is a form of registration, not a tool of oppression.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 6:53:18 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
Of course, that should be, "Marriage is not a humble request ..."

My apologies. How utterly careless of me!
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 7:10:51 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
Hi Yuyutsu, I went to Google Maps and for some reason I couldn't get directions to Sodom and/or Gomorrah. I checked the Geographical Name Board's web site as well, and they don't seem to list then either. i was thinking of spending my next holidays there. Are they anywhere near Bullsville? Is there a regular bus service? How do you get there?

I do not understand how you could vote in this government instigated survey, at a cost to the taxpayer of an estimated $20 per returned vote. Given your belief that the government has no legitimacy in the determination of marriage. By your participation in the survey you are giving tacit approval to the governments involvement.

If the CWA was to send you the same survey wanting to know if you approved of that organization changing their "law on marriage", would you reply? I would not, as I am not a member, I didn't renew this year, and because I do not think the CWA has any authority when it comes to marriage. Get my drift.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 9:56:32 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
Philips:

There is nothing oppressive about it - quite the contrary - which only exacerbates the indignity of those who give in to it. It would be oppressive if you had to marry in order to get your rights but you do not. You have the option to fight for your rights by demanding the government give you your rights without condition. You do not have to accept the government's conditions. It is undignified to accept those conditions without any kind of fight.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:13:14 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
Dear phanto,

Same-sex couples have been "fighting" the good fight
for decades but the odds against them winning remain powerful
after centuries of their not being accepted being the
social norm.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 11:26:37 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
Paul1405:

“By your participation in the survey you are giving tacit approval to the governments involvement.”

How can you tell the difference between tacit approval an attempt to limit the damage done by government involvement? A NO vote could be interpreted either way. It would be rather illogical if you were given the chance to prevent the situation from getting worse not to take it. It is not necessarily a sign of approval at all.

Foxy:

The thing is that they are not fighting the good fight. They are fighting to be like heterosexual couples who also refuse to fight the good fight and who also acquiesce to the government’s conditional distribution of rights. Anyone who accepts the government’s conditions lacks dignity.

The good fight would be to stand up to the government and demand your rights unconditionally. Anything else is cowardice.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 1:33:47 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
Dear phanto,

Most people just want to get on with their lives.
And standing up for wanting to have the same legal
entitlements as the rest of society is by no means
cowardly - on the contrary the abuse that people
have to take - is bravery and nothing less.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 1:53:02 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
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
- United States Declaration of Independence

I voted about 3 days ago. 'Tis now in the hands of the Gods (and Australia Post and the ABS).

I voted yes.

It's really simple, there's only one question:

Do you think the law should be changed to allow same sex marriage?

And then two boxes to mark, for 'yes' or 'no'.

And that's it! Just mark your box, stick it in the envelope and off you go.

There were no other boxes to fill in. There wasn't one to tick for or against Safe Schools, there wasn't one to tick against gay parents, there wasn't one to tick for or against free speech, there wasn't one to tick for or against religious freedom, and there wasn't one to tick against the whole institution of marriage.

If you wish to stage your own little private protest, feel free to go ahead and spoil your ballot: nobody is stopping you. Go ahead and write 'Hah! More like Unsafe Schools' or 'Not Big Brother's Business who gets married!' or 'Screw the State! Screw Marriage!' or just draw a big cock & balls on the thing for all I care.

Or, if you prefer, vote 'no' and hope that the ABS employ a mentalist with powers approaching that of the legendary Amazing Phanto, who will be able to discern each man's motives for their vote by mystically fondling their surveys and pass that information along to the relevant channels of government. But I reckon that's a tall order... nobody is as psychic as the Amazing Phanto.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 2:54:35 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
Or, Toni Lavis, my favourite one that's become popular of late:

"I was going to vote 'yes', but then I saw all the bullying from the Yes campainers.'

Yeah, right. Just admit you were going to vote 'no' all along and do it already.

It's the lie that reveals itself.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 3:13:45 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
Actually, I think that one deserves its own meme:

http://i.imgur.com/6rJ3EnF.jpg
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 3:40:32 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
Foxy:

“Most people just want to get on with their lives.”

What is life if it is not fighting for your unconditional rights?

“for wanting to have the same legal
entitlements as the rest of society”

Why should they accept the condition placed on those rights of having to be married? Why does the ‘rest of society’ accept those conditions? Why do you accept those conditions? Why do you condone taking those rights by stealth and in doing so compromise your own integrity as a human being?

“on the contrary the abuse that people
have to take - is bravery and nothing less.”

No it is stupidity. They do not have to try and be like heterosexual couples. They can stand apart and with dignity they can demand from the government that they give them their rights without having to first be married.

Philips:

I see you have resorted to mockery now. Where is the ‘gentlemanly’ attitude which seems to have evaporated after a few short days?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 4:23:29 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
Dear phanto,

They do not want to be LIKE heterosexual couples.
What they want are the same legal rights as
heterosexual couples have in being able to marry.
You seem to have a problem in understanding this.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 4:32:03 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
Dear phanto,

My mockery was most appropriate given the sheer dishonesty of that line, which I have noticed just recently is becoming rather popular on social media. There is a time and a place for everything - even mockery.

From here on in, however, your good self will only ever be seeing the best of me because it is my belief that your position on this matter requires the eventual resorting to of ad hominem attacks and cannot survive sustained cordial discourse.

Of course, you are most welcome to prove me wrong there.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 September 2017 5:07:10 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
Dear Paul,

Modern Sodom (Sdom) is an industrial area near the southern tip of the dead sea in Israel. Gommorah no longer exists, but Mt. Sdom is a tourist attraction: http://igoogledisrael.com/how-to-hike-the-magnificent-mount-sodom-in-israel

Regarding the vote, what else would you suggest for me? Starting a revolution? Blowing up the parliament building? stabbing police? shooting or running-over innocent people? Sorry, but that's just not my style, I am a Hindu and I believe in non-violence.

What I do by voting is mitigation: to try to prevent a bad law from becoming even worse.
Also, voting 'No' is tactical because this angry energy of the marriage-equality movement has to go somewhere, so it will then be diverted against the whole concept of state-sponsored marriage.

«If the CWA was to send you the same survey»

Well they actually have, it's no longer an "If" and they wouldn't take "I'm not a member" for an answer either. Rather, they arrogantly say: "If you are not a member then step out of this continent or we'll kick you out by force". Let them accept that I can live here without membership or harassment by their group, then I won't bother replying to their surveys.

(however, my reason for not wanting anything to do with them is that I don't want to be part of a group which violently forces itself on others, so paradoxically, had the CWA allowed people to live their life in this continent without being members, then I would probably have no reason not to join them)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 September 2017 1:15:53 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
//Well they actually have, it's no longer an "If" and they wouldn't take "I'm not a member" for an answer either. Rather, they arrogantly say: "If you are not a member then step out of this continent or we'll kick you out by force".//

Really? The Country Women's Association threatened to kick you out of the country by force?

Man, the times sure are a-changin'. A militant Country Women's Association... it's like a Monty Python sketch come to life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-I3QTT8mY

//had the CWA allowed people to live their life in this continent without being members//

They do. They're really just nice old ladies that know how to appreciate a good sponge cake. What do on earth could anybody have against the CWA?

You worry me, yuyutsu.

//then I would probably have no reason not to join them//

Well whilst you've certainly got the first syllable of their name down pat, you're not a woman so you don't qualify.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 21 September 2017 2:34:03 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
Dear Toni,

I believe that by "CWA", Paul was referring to the "CommonWealth of Australia" - I've never heard of this "Country Women's Association" before.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 September 2017 3:24:56 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
//I've never heard of this "Country Women's Association" before.//

No, of course you haven't...
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 21 September 2017 4:09:10 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All

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