While we are being asked to vote on the right for gays to marry, the gays are actually seeking marriage equality, not just the right to marry.

So how can we have marriage equality if gay marriage is not recognised as equal to many hetro couples marriages in their eyes.

I fear this debate will go on forever as the right to marry, if granted, may not satisfy the needs of our gay community at large. Then what.

PM Julia Gillard and her ministers Jenny Macklin, Penny Wong and others, made sure that any gay who was feeling in need of assurance of marriage equality could just slip into Centrelink for that gratifying recognition and ruling that their relationships are just as equal as 'traditional' heterosexual coupling.

Julia and her Emilys lister womyn were not keen on that 'm' word as in feminist despised 'marriage'. But they sure made gay relationships equal down Centrelink way. Perhaps Centrelink should be a sacred site for gays, as one of the very first places that their equality was recognised. Maybe statues of Gillard, Macklin, Wong and ors, with a tasteful message below, "Advise us of your (or others!) gay love and we will render you equal, tout suite".

rehctub,

I have only ever heard or understood the term "marriage equality" to mean equality at law.

Some will never accept the validity of interracial marriage, but that doesn't mean that interracial couples have don't have equality, or have not attained it in jurisdictions where it was once not legal.

<<I fear this debate will go on forever as the right to marry, if granted, may not satisfy the needs of our gay community at large.>>

Nah, I reckon once the older generation has died off completely, it will be about as much of an issue as mixed marriages. The same thing happened with with the Civil Rights movement in the US. The older, more conservative folk didn't all change their minds, they died off.

The younger generations seem genuinely baffled by opposition to same-sex marriage (intolerance is taught), and the Churches will adapt to accept homosexuality (some already are). They're forever adapting to social changes, regardless of what their book says. They'd become extinct if they didn't. I mean, how many churches will actually excommunicate, or refuse to marry, a divorcee nowadays?

AJ,

" They'd become extinct if they didn't. I mean, how many churches will actually excommunicate, or refuse to marry, a divorcee nowadays?"

The Catholic Church for one.

Nobody should have a right to marry and all existing marriages should no longer be legally recognised - that's equality!

Is Mise,

Yes, and the Catholic Church is rapidly losing members as a result of its unbending stance on various issues.

The Church may still be big and strong, but that's because they've had so much financial and political capital to play with. Let's see how quickly they change their position on their backwards stances when the Church's terminal decline approaches fatal.

The Catholic Church will adapt or it will die. And even then...

Catholicism is heretical anyway, so it doesn't count. Read your Bibles.

--

Yuyutsu,

That may be equality.

<<... all existing marriages should no longer be legally recognised - that's equality!>>

But it's not equitable. Learn the difference.

AJ,

Inter-racial marriages have always been legal in Australia, with qualifications in places like the NT in relation to 'wards'. In SA, in the earliest days, if a white man married an Aboriginal woman, she could get a lease of land which he could work. But he lost access to it if she died. Of the hundred or so land leases taken up by Aboriginal people by the end of the nineteenth century, perhaps half a dozen were held by women.

Neither did the government here in SA stand in the way of an Aboriginal man marrying a white woman: in all the cases that I have come across, the Protector in fact provided rations, services, etc., over and above what he was required to. In one case, he arranged the rental (and paid it) for a very ill Aboriginal man, his white wife and their family, in the city (just off Carrington Street). After he died, the Protector kept paying the rent for six months. In another case, a young bootmaker ran off with his supervisor's wife and was helped to set up shop in Adelaide, where he worked for the next fifty-odd years (at Glenelg).

Please leave this odious comparison with homosexual marriage alone.

Joe

AJ has become an ' expert' at pointing out faults of previous generations while being totally oblivous to the sick degrading secular culture we have today. Such self righteousness must make him feel so smug.

Dear AJ,

Some people have got what's left of their life's to
continue to be jerks. Don't you wish that they'd
take some time off from this forum?

I admire your patience.

You are wrong AJ. Many young people do not support SSM.

And many do!

In any case -

We shall see what Australia has decided on
Wednesday 15th Nov. 2017 when the ABS will
let us know the results.

Apparently there's been a large turn-out of
young people voting.

Interesting times ahead.

//You are wrong AJ. Many young people do not support SSM.//

Bit too late to be claiming that the numbers are on your side, dear. Voting has closed. By this time tomorrow we'll have the results... you might want to consider mentally preparing yourself for the possibility of a defeat just in case not everybody agrees with you as much as you imagine they do.

Joe,

We've been through this five times already. Whether interracial marriages have been legal in Australia is irrelevant to my analogy, and I have explained why many times now.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994&page=0#247482

<<Please leave this odious comparison with homosexual marriage alone.>>

I will, just as soon as you explain to me why it is not valid (let alone “odious”). That you don't like it is hardly a reason. As I have pointed out, too, it is rather homophobic to label the comparison "offensive" or "odious".

Please, this is just getting ridiculous now. Either put up or shut up.

--

Big Nana,

That depends on what you mean by “many”.

<<Many young people do not support SSM.>>

Too “many” to cram into your average house? Sure. A majority? No, and all the polling during the survey confirmed this.

The sad part of this sick and sorry saga is that we are dealing with a very determined bunch of 2 to 3 year olds, (the YES camp). If per-chance Aussies vote NO, I am sickened by the fact that the YES camp will not only keep up this barrage of abuse and vilification but when the the elections come next we are going to get another bunch of sick'os taking over. (labour) And they have made it an election promise to bring in the queers bill once elected. For those of you out there who still possess a modicum of decency and morality and believe the YES vote is the right thing to do, please look up the article on Massachusetts and what these disgusting and demented people have done as a result of their sick push for so called marriage equality. It makes for life changing reading. The number of decent lives they have attacked and scarred, is historic. If we don't reject these sick individuals we will end up the same way. Given that their type of mentality or attitude is to win at all cost and to hell with anyone who dis-agrees, I say this. You YES freaks may win this battle but guess what, the NO camp is not going to let you enjoy your ill gotten victory. You will be attacked, even physically, at random, day or night. You will be shunned openly and denied things that 'normal' people will otherwise enjoy. We don't give a s#!t about the law, because the law will be seen wanting if it proceeds to give queers rights and priority over normal decent people. Looking over your shoulders, will become the norm for you.

Dear ALTRAV,

It appears that most Australians disagree with
your point of view as the results of the postal
survey clearly show.

ALTRAV,

You sound like a very sick and twisted person. I mean, threatening ‘Yes’ voters with physical violence (How will you ‘No’ mob identify who voted ‘yes’, by the way?).

I liked this bit, though:

<<... I am sickened by the fact that the YES camp will not only keep up this barrage of abuse and vilification …>>

“Abuse”. That's adorable. It reminds me of this Betoota Advocate article:

‘Man Who Used To ‘Bash Poofters’ For Fun Says Leftie Bullies Turned Him Off Voting Yes’

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/entertainment/man-used-bash-poofters-fun-says-leftie-bullies-turned-off-voting-yes/amp/

//You will be attacked, even physically, at random, day or night... We don't give a s#!t about the law//

It's good thing is this all just empty bravado.

Because otherwise you will be caught, arrested, charged and accommodated at Her Majesty's pleasure where your cell mates will use you as currency because you're a sad little coward.

Toni L, not really caring what you queers have to say. I feel I must respond as a matter of duty. My comments are taken from articles written long before this debacle began. As you are all so keen on the origins of the material quoted here, I will again remind you of one very reputable source. It is all collated and clearly set out with headings and everything so that even the YES camp can understand it. It is a collection of stories written from early 2000 when Massachusetts passed the queers bill. One of the best and most striking of passages was the one where soon after the bill was passed till today the incidents of violence, attacks, deaths between these wonderful queers, went through the roof. There has been a dramatic increase in VRO's. So much for love.
OH and another thing. This was not a 'resounding' victory for the YES mob. Less than half the voters responded. Of them 60% voted YES. Not a real spill. The other little reality check is in the form of the thing the YES camp fear more than kryptonite,and that is the, wait for it, THE CONSCIENCE VOTE. So you NO people we're not finished yet. The true religious polys will obviously vote NO so we'll see how many 'soft cocks' will suddenly sprout a backbone and vote how they truly feel or believe in: NO!

[Deleted for abuse.]

I'm not sure how this whole 'marriage' thing is even valid.I thought, by it's own definition of the word 'marriage', carried with it the caveat of 'consummation'. So until the newlyweds have sex, that means HE inserts HIS PENIS into HER VAGINA, they are not legally or formally married. I can't wait to hear how you get around this one? That is just another reason why you can't call it 'marriage'. It must be called something else. If we must accept this new paradigm, fine, but let's not mix things up.

Good Morning ALTRAV,

You may not realise it but "consumate" means to have
sexual intercourse - and there are more than just one
way to do this. I suggest that you talk to your
medical practitioner and have him/her explain all the
possibilities to you. Therefore your argument concerning
same-sex couples and their inability to consumate is
false.

cont'd ...

Hi ALTRAV,

It just occurred to me that religious nuns get married
into the church - how do they "consumate" their marriage?

foxy, no you can try to talk your way around this but it means a man and a woman and you know it does. And as for the nuns, the priests are gods representatives here on earth so the priests do the bidding on behalf of God. Have you ever asked yourself why nuns have these loose fitting/hanging 'habits'? Ever noticed they sometimes go off to a 'nuns retreat'. You put it all together as you seem to have a much more vivid imagination than most other commentors. I really would like your take on this one.

Actually, it doesn't, ALTRAV.

<<... [Consummate] means a man and a woman ...>>

Consummate:
Make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consummate

No mention there of biological sex. You're adding that bit in yourself.

It has been abolished as a legal concept in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation#Civil_marriage

I should add, before some halfwits I could mention fixate on the idea this is some sort of recent change, that it has been abolished since 1975.

Maybe in Australia but not in the Catholic Church.

//Maybe in Australia but not in the Catholic Church.//

And probably not in a number of other legal codes, which is completely irrelevant. Citizens of Australia live under Australian law, not canon law.

No Toni, when it comes to these kinds of factors it is precisely why the govt is going to consider exemptions when debating SSM laws. It has already established that religion is one of the things it will exempt. Freedom of religion.

Dear ALTRAV,

Then why are you still arguing?

Because foxy, there are too many OTHER issues involved and even though the NO camp has got buckly's chance to convert anyone, at least the points are made they are on the record for the NO camp to feel vindicated down the line.
Here is one such vindication. In a recent response I was quite vocal about the YES camp celebrating this first step in this sad and sorry saga. I explained how this recent decision and more so if the govt votes for the YES camp, the queers will suffer physically with continual attacks and so on. As I predicted the attacks have begun. The newspaper of a day or so ago has stories of recent attacks on queers who were lured to various locations with the promise of sexual favours. When they got there they were set upon by one or more people. There were too many cases for me to remember but it was what I would call 'plague' proportion. In some cases it was just one person. The attacks in all cases were quite violent with the use of such things as baseball bats. Some had attached metal objects to increase the amount of pain/damage. So those of you who want to criticize me go ahead, I told you this was going to happen. I'll say it again, this will keep happening and with more aggression and frequency, but it's OK, don't listen to me. Remember my closing words were, keep looking over your shoulder. When I said to go back in your closets it was not just for our sake but also for the safety of the queers. But as a YES camper insisted, no one was going to tell them what to do because they had just as much rights as everyone else. Yeah, sounds great standing on a 'soap box', not so great lying in a hospital bed in a coma with nearly every bone and organ in your body broken or failing.

A follow on comment on the poofter bashings of late. I realise that the offenders, 'if' caught will be punished by law, but I couldn't care less if it was me that had been attacked. The punishment will eventually be served and the aggressor will get on with his life, to do it all again if he is so inclined. On the other hand the queers will be living in fear every day, unlike the attacker. So I caution you YES folk once more . Don't shoot the messenger. Take this opportunity to avoid what is now a whole new world. Before we knew you were there, we did not have to do anything for us all to live in harmony. Now you have attacked/invaded something of ours, and we don't like it. Remember the YES camp brought this on yourselves. The NO camp was away with the fairies, not giving the YES camp even a second of thought.

Dear ALTRAV,

Your concerns for gay safety is commendable.
However, you're not telling us anything new
about gay bashings. These existed particularly
in NSW. It was an injustice of epic proportions.
Homophobic police culture at the time (1960s,
70s, 80s, and 90s) meant that police did not
take the cases seriously. And according to the
Sydney Morning Herald worse, they had at least
some involvement in the "poofter bashing"
rings responsible.

A swathe of murders rocked the LGBTIQ community
in Sydney and the Central Coast during those
times. Around 88 gay men were beaten to their
deaths. Yet many of their deaths were recorded
by police as suicide or accidental. Of 88 cases,
30 still remained unsolved.

We've seen how the recent campaign was marked by
unforgiveable criticism of the LGBTIQ community.
Bigotry and homophobia were openly paraded.
The sexual preferences, the families, and ultimately
the very legitimacy of gay and lesbian Australians
were debated as though their own views hardly mattered.
It was a dismal glimpse at the narrow confines of
conservative minds.

The LGBTIQ community did not welcome this process, and
indeed many have suffered as a result of it. The hatred
and mendacity of the No campaign will live on in the
memory of those it targeted, as a reminder that the
fight for equality must continue.

But as stated earlier, the response to the survey showed
the best of Australia. In a generous and optimistic
exercise of democratic will, millions of ordinary
Australians stared down the forces of superstition and
repression to extend the right of marriage to ALL their
fellow citizens.

Now our Parliament will ensure with the passing of the
Smith Bill and its amendments "that nothing in the
Bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to
express the views of their own religion on the subject of
marriage."

We cannot ask for anything fairer than that.

foxy,your views are sweet and generous if not, as I have said previously, a little naive. Your comments read like a 'wish list'. This has never been about what the YES camp 'want' but about what the NO camp will let you have. Before, we 'got used' to the queers. We knew they were amongst us and they were not, 'in your face'. Now we have a whole new dynamic. We will never know the true numbers of NO's as there have been too many social and emotional factors which have led to NO voters 'not wanting to get involved'. It does not matter. We are here now and the final lap is upon us. Once the govt has decided to 'run this up the flagpole' we will see what we have to work with. But again foxy, I employ the YES camp to not 'shirt front' the NO mob. The consequences are already evident. The difference is that whilst the run up to the voting the YES camp were running a terrorise and threaten campaign, now we will be seeing a genuine terrorist like action groups, or individuals. You won't be able to tell who is a threat to you and who is not, so you won't know from where the attack will come or when. Where-as the queers are clearly visible and insist on making themselves stand out and therefore an easy target. I am aware of your comments on poofter bashings of the past. I have lived through it. I am now concerned about the poofter bashings of the future. Stay well; and remember keep looking over your shoulder.

//This has never been about what the YES camp 'want' but about what the NO camp will let you have.//

Still hasn't quite sunk in, has it? Your team lost. You're not in a position to dictate terms.

//We will never know the true numbers of NO's//

We already know them. That was the point of the survey.

//You won't be able to tell who is a threat to you and who is not, so you won't know from where the attack will come or when.//

And now we're back to the lame threats... give it a rest. We aren't intimidated by yellow-striped trolls.

Listen here, Toni Troll. I don't waste my breathe on time wasters like yourself. I give genuine accounts. Now the fact that YOU have some kind of problem, you work it out I don't care. I have actual concerns about life after SSM. I wrote my concerns in the form of being forewarned. You choose to discredit and vilify, that's your sick problem. I, on the other hand have shown true concern for what will be a terrible time for the YES camp. My concerns were acted out a day or two ago by the large number of queers who were lured into situations where they were set upon and badly beaten up. Some had to go to hospital. So before you shoot the messenger, stop and actually take in what I am trying to say. The debate is one thing. The outcome is another. So when I spoke of getting beat up, you take it as a threat, I intended it as a warning. Guess what TONI, I am at pains to say it but you were wrong and I was right. How about reading ALL my posts and you might get a better picture of who you are dealing with, not who YOU think you are dealing with. Remember, look over your shoulder.