Foxy,

"If John Howard could change the Marriage Act why can't
it just be changed back in Parliament?"

The simple answer to that is there is no impediment at all to parliament amending it back to where it was before Howard tampered with it.

The plebiscite is nothing more than a tool being wielded by the govt in order to frustrate a vote on SSM - and also to create a climate whereupon society can have a right royal bun fight...along the lines of Brexit.

That's what Conservatives like to do, it seems.

A J Philips :

You seem to be saying that any argument against change is just a socially acceptable way of hiding bigotry. What does it matter if they are bigots or not since the only thing that matters is the validity of their argument? If you can dismiss their arguments then that is all you need to do in order to achieve change. There is no need to call them bigots or homophobic or any other name.

“Because if those who expressed this view really cared about parliament not wasting time, then they would want the government to just get on with it already and push legislation through”.

The government should do what it has a responsibility to do and nothing more. It should not be responsible for defining marriage relationships. Doing what it should not be doing is wrong whether it takes a short time or a long time. It is all a waste of time because any time spent doing what you are not meant to do is wastage of taxpayer resources. The government should be answerable for any time it wastes.

“The argument doesn’t wash, sorry.”

If you apologise when you have done nothing wrong it sounds patronising.

“By the way, issues of equality always matter.”

No they don’t. There are millions of inequalities between people all round the world. Some are more important than others. People pursue the ones that matter to them and ignore the rest. Without a hierarchy of importance we would be exhausted trying to pursue them all

phanto,

Until someone can provide a valid argument against change, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.

<<You seem to be saying that any argument against change is just a socially acceptable way of hiding bigotry.>>

Because I think I’ve heard and engaged in this debate enough now to determine that a valid argument against change is looking exceedingly unlikely. Furthermore, the arguments against change that I've heard are so obviously false or beside the point.

<<What does it matter if they are bigots or not since the only thing that matters is the validity of their argument?>>

It wouldn’t matter. The problem is the complete absence of a good argument. The bigotry is implied from that.

<<If you can dismiss their arguments then that is all you need to do in order to achieve change. There is no need to call them bigots or homophobic or any other name.>>

Correct.

<<The government should do what it has a responsibility to do and nothing more.>>

Yes, I agree, and one of those responsibilities is to improve equality and reduce discrimination. Societies have never benefitted from going the other way.

<<It should not be responsible for defining marriage relationships.>>

Agreed. We can all do that ourselves.

Again, the argument that the government should stop wasting time and get on with governing is perhaps the most obviously disingenuous argument against change. Because if that were the only issue, then you would want the government to get on with the change so it can focus on other issues given that this is obviously an issue that is not going away.

<<No [issues of equality] don’t [always matter]. There are millions of inequalities between people all round the world. Some are more important than others. People pursue the ones that matter to them and ignore the rest. Without a hierarchy of importance we would be exhausted trying to pursue them all>>

This doesn’t negate my point that issues of equality always matter. It just highlights the importance of prioritising, and one factor to consider is the ease with which an inequality can be corrected.

A J Philips:

“Until someone can provide a valid argument against change, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.”

So if everyone who does not agree with you is a bigot then why do you engage with them? All you need to do is read their post and if they do not agree with you then you would dismiss them as bigots and there is no point in engaging with bigots because bigotry is not a rational position – it is an emotional one.

“Yes, I agree, and one of those responsibilities is to improve equality and reduce discrimination. Societies have never benefitted from going the other way.”

It does not follow that this particular issue is the government’s responsibility. You can have equality and reduce discrimination without government involvement. There are lots of scenarios in society where people take care of these things without government intervention.

“Because if that were the only issue, then you would want the government to get on with the change so it can focus on other issues given that this is obviously an issue that is not going away.”

No you would want the government to cease forthwith because proceeding to change means that time will be wasted. It is not a question of which is the lesser of two evils. If you can cease immediately then you should do so. Legislation should be changed firstly because you think it is reasonable for the government to be involved and secondly because there are good reasons for it to be changed. If you do not accept the first part then the reasons for the second part are irrelevant.

“This doesn’t negate my point that issues of equality always matter. It just highlights the importance of prioritising, and one factor to consider is the ease with which an inequality can be corrected.”

If you agree that priorities need to exist then you need to show why this issue is more important than many other issues. You have not presented such an argument.

AJ Phillips,
Going by those estimates only about 3% of same sex attracted people in the UK have expressed an interest in marriage, what's more there's no equality between the three different types of marriage, they're all completely different.
Face it "Marriage Equality" has little to do with either Gays or marriage, in the main it's all about virtue signalling by mainly heterosexual bourgeoisie and to a lesser extent New Left liberation theory re-jigged for the 21st century.
If 60% 0f the population supposedly supports Gay marriage then it's clear that that the figure drops to only 3% among same sex attracted people, if homosexuals in the U.K almost unanimously reject Gay marriage, why should I support it?.
It's a trivial issue trumped up by companies like Google and Facebook for their own commercial gain, to get people clicking on sponsored ads, in the real world outside the internet it means nothing, least of all to Gays, it seems.

Yes AJ, I guess if you decide that any view that doesn't accord with your own is definitionally invalid, then clearly all views that don't accord with your own are not valid. Of course, its then an easy step to decide that these invalid views need to be suppressed, which is the (intended?) destination for the homosexual lobby. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/antidiscrimination-test-over-catholic-churchs-marriage-booklet/news-story/ea8aaee464a1a65c32db6552117fad5f)

At the risk of raising invalid arguments, it seems to me to be arguable, at the very least, that a move to legitimising and normalising homosexual marriage is a (further) assault on the family. Given that the family is a fundamental building block of our and most other civilisations, both now and in the past, it would be prudent to give great consideration to going down that path. Also, given the ramifications of getting it wrong, it seems only right that it be a societal decision rather than one made behind closed doors by people whose main concern is their own political status.

The family as it was once understood has been under sustained attack for the past 50 or so years and society is none the better for the changes made so far. A pause to consider seems prudent. A decision to continue down that path or a decision that this will not affect the value of family seems to be one that all society ought to be invited to participate in.