Presbyterian minister and writer, Mark Powell, wonders what happened to the same-sex marriage boom that was to happen after the ‘yes’ vote giving the go-ahead for people of the same sex to tie the knot with the trashing of the Marriage Act. Great things were predicted, and at least 50% of homosexuals would race to the altar, according to supporters. There would be an economic boom, said the leading economic geniuses in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Queensland government, who share the ABC’s brilliance in finance, agreed. Jobs-would-be-created! Government - issued marriage licences would swell! There would benefits “directly from the increase in spending through a range of taxes." (actual taxes not identified). ANZ economists reckoned the loot from SSM would be “be over $1 billion” if only half the number predicted took the step. The real money masters, going broke themselves, Fairfax, punted on a $3 billion gain.

Not surprisingly, all the pundits were wrong; and the whole process is likely to have cost much more than it brought in. Since “marriage was redefined”, there have been “just shy of 2,500 marriages”. (about 5% of SS couples) 94.3% of same sex couples have decided to leave their relationships as they were: no marriage for them.

So, it was all “magic pudding” economics from people who “don’t understand how the economy works”.

The original reason for SSM was a lie. The economic benefits of SSM have proved to be another lie. But, as international SSM pusher, Masha Gessen said: “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying …. “

I voted yes, because it was the fair thing to do, avoid knowingly mixing with same sex people, a bias I think is my right,but if they want to wed, in a world that more and more hetro sexual do not bother doing so? ok by me. other issues concern me far more than this issue

First he's angry because gays can get married. Then he's angry because they're choosing not to get married.... they're a weird bunch, these tories.

Hi Belly - you "avoid knowingly" mixing with homosexuals? Why? What are you afraid of? Btw - gays are everywhere and you deal with them daily. "Unknowingly", of course.

HereNow my training about human rights was intensive , that controlled my behavior as a union official and still does as a human, but give me a break!as a single man, the oldest remaining at home after dad died syndrome,I have often faced unwanted advances, from other men, felt just a breath of the fear women do every day, when using a toilet after dark, have seen workers who had to work in a park/beat and face being charged with discrimination, for asking that nude people simply move on,while campaigning for the yes vote until I had enough, being propositioned all the time, dislike me, and my views, while I am aware some of my mates are gay, I chose not to be other than my post said, Do I have that right in your view, after all it is about rights isn't it?

Toni,

I am a liberal conservative, and on that basis I voted for SSM because I believe in equality for all under the law. However, I don't subscribe to identity politics where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Shadow Minister,

Then let me see if I understand you correctly -

So you do believe that religion
should not interfere with our laws in our secular
state - that we should all be equal under the law?

Is that right?

SM,

That you were lead to believe that a yes vote was about ‘equality’ was lie number one. It had nothing to do with equality; it had nothing to do with homosexuality; it had everything to do with changing the Marriage Act and, therefore, it was an an assault on the family, which the Marxists oppose because it cannot control it. Believe it or not, the Marxists were quite open about this. You just had look for their motives, which they made no effort to hide (see my reference to Gessen and follow it up). Unfortunately, the average person’s innate sense of fairness was used against them to con them into voting yes. The very fact that 90% of homosexual couples have not taken up the opportunity to wed surely indicates that the whole thing was a farce designed to bring down Western society another notch?

//However, I don't subscribe to identity politics where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.//

Sorry, you've lost me. What does that have to do with gays not wanting to get married? I don't follow.

They've won the right to get married. If they choose not to exercise that right, where is the problem? They weren't campaigning for compulsory marriage. As a heterosexual I've always had the right to get married but never exercised it. How is that any different from gays choosing not to get married?

And what on earth does it have to do with some being more equal than others?

More than 370 same sex marriages have been registered
across Australia within the first month of gay weddings
becoming legal. NSW has led the way with 142 gay couples
registering their marriages since January 9th.

While same sex marriage was signed into law in December
couples had to give a month's notice of their intention to
marry. Some 88 same sex marriages have been registered in
Victoria to date. In Queensland 61 same sex marriages were
recorded to the end of January. 45 in WA, 25 in SA, and
Tassie - 10, since January 9th.

The overall number of same sex marriages who tied the knot
in January is likely to be higher as most jurisdictions
have some time before they are registered.

Plus there's also the fact that gay couples are now joining
their straight counterparts in hunting out vacant venues,
photographers, caterers, and celebrants.

Perhaps one day soon same sex marriage will be as common as
hetero marriages - with the same problems. As well as those
who choose not to get married will at least now have a choice
whether to or not - which they were not able to have
previously.

I don't recall hearing that the SSM matter was economically based and the cost of the voting campaign was a political decision.

It was only ever about legal equality and the notion that swarms of couples would be rushing to the altar was only typical media hype and spin. It didn't make anybody "more equal than others" but just the same when it came to matters of property inheritance and next-of-kin legal rights.

So far, the sky hasn't fallen in and nobody has started lobbying to allow people to marry their pets as some had seriously suggested.
These were simply the old phoney "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

It was the same when women were given the right to vote only around 120 years ago.

We get closed to a special type of madness if we think the same sex thing was only about changing to marriage act, not about same sex couples not about fairness

Belly,

Are you able to explain why “we get closed (sic) to a special type of madness if we think the same sex thing was only about changing (sic) to (the) marriage act, not about same sex couples not about fairness”? Of course you cannot: you don’t have the vocabulary or the intelligence. You are just another of the useful idiots used by the Marxists to change the Marriage Act and fool the sheep into thinking SSM is about ‘fairness’. It is laughable that someone like you thinks that he can lecture other people.

Rache,

I am surprised that you, as someone purporting to know so much about everything, missed out on information that was in the popular press and general media. You, too, seem to be in thrall to lunatic Left propaganda. I would not have previously placed you in the same category as our poor unfortunate friend above.

Using tired old cliches like ‘the sky hasn’t fallen in’ because the Marriage Act has been changed only highlights the micro concentration span of the muppets who enthuse over sensational subjects for the obligatory seven days, then forget about them; a more recent example of this is the faux shock horror of a rape/murder that has disappeared from the media. The sky might have fallen in, but the yokels just have not noticed.

It was John Howard who changed the Marriage Act to read what
the Conservatives wanted it to read.

The fact now is that same sex couples can get married, if they
want to. It now is legal to do so.

And to all those who object to that - a great big raspberry.
Get used to it. They may be queer, but they are here, and they are
here to stay!

Foxy,

Don't put words in my mouth.

However, I do believe that secular laws override religious or cultural doctrines, but that secular laws should not censor free speech nor compel someone to do something that is deeply contrary to their deeply held beliefs.

try to be nice, not worth trying to talk with you old mate see you use insults as answers to every one and sit on your missplaced self confidence as long as it makes you happy your view is not upsetting me

Shadow Minister,

I'm not putting words into your mouth - simply
asking for clarification. And what does allowing
civil ceremonies of same sex marriages have to do with religion?
Isn't it simply recognising them legally?

Foxy,

Civil celebrations have nothing to do with religion, and I have said nothing to the contrary. In fact, if a priest feels it's OK to preside over a ceremony I have no problem with that either.

I am struggling to see what you are asking me, as my stance has been clear for years.

Shadow Minister,

I was simply asking for an explanation of your
remarks to Toni on page 1 of this discussion.
Your meaning wasn't quite clear in your second sentence.

The SSM issue was never about equality. If it was then marriage would have been made available to polygamists, related adult couples and polyamorous groups.

//The SSM issue was never about equality.//

No, it was all done just to upset you tories, because the whole world really does revolve around you.

Of course it was about equality. What else do you imagine it could have been about? Let me guess... some far-fetched conspiracy theory. Because they're SO convincing. [sarcasm]

//If it was then marriage would have been made available to polygamists, related adult couples and polyamorous groups.//

Non-sequitur.

To continue to say no to SSM in the name of Conservative Christians was to do so in the name of a God that never existed.
Just maybe we should consider why we let any God and those who follow them have any impact on our law and life

Big Nana,

It’s good to have a sensible woman on OLO. You remind us that all women are not like that fright, Foxy. Perhaps she is not really a woman. I have certainly never come across another such unpleasant and nagging version of the fair sex anywhere.

Belly,

Are you really that ignorant that you are unaware that our ‘laws’ and ‘life’ exist only because of the Judeo-Christian ethic? And not every objector to SSM is a conservative or a Christian. Many homosexuals themselves think the concept is ridiculous and the last thing they would have any dealings with. Your life experience seems to be very limited. Did you not know that 95% of same sex couples have ignored the "experts" and the chatterti and not married?

try to be nice, it is time!I will no longer respond to your insulting trolling

Belly, I get so frustrated with people who keep insisting that opposition to SSM is always based on religious grounds. Many people, like myself, opposite it on social and biological grounds. I am not at all religious and neither are many other people who hold the same view.
As I stated before, equality of marriage means the right of any consulting adults to marry, regardless of number, relationship etc.
SSM only gave marriage rights to gay couples who were not related and only between two people. There are millions of men in the world with more than one wife, who would love that right to extend to western countries. There are adult related couples who don’t have the right to marry. So no, it’s not about equality.
Certainly gay couples should have to right to a legal form of union, as should all other adult couples/groups but marriage has always been about inheritance and paternity and that means children, family and like many others, I believe it should have remained that way.

Dear Big Nana,

Same sex marriage the way it was presented and voted on
was about equality. That is allowing same sex people
to have their relationships recognised legally under
the law - giving them a choice to marry if they so
wished. Polygamy was not being asked for. And as our
PM stated - it was not up for consideration. I guess
in all fairness to your raising this topic - it may be
something Australia may consider in the future - if
enough people demand this recognition. Who knows?
We'll have to wait and see what happens next. In the
meantime - the same sex marriage legislation has passed.
And all the fuss seems to have died down.

ttbn,

I'm so sorry that you find me so offensive.
I hope that I don't upset you too much.
However, for you information - I am a
female - a wife, mother, grandmother,
sister, aunt, and much much more. I get on
with most people - and I try my hardest not
to offend. However I do tend to throw down
the gauntlet when challenged. You say that
you've not met anyone like me before?
Surely that's not a bad thing. It might even
be educational for you. Afterall variety is
the spice of life - so they say. Admittedly
too much spice can give you the runs.
(I'm allergic to too much spice). Anyway,
Thanks for your continued contributions on
my personality in this forum. Your interest
in me is appreciated. And I'm glad that
you do read my posts. That's a start.

ttbn,

You claim that 95% of gay couples have decided not to marry?
How do you know that? Could you give us some evidence please?

Also - do you know what percentage of hetereo couples are not
married?

Statistics often are difficult things to come by. And they
don't always tell the full story.

Belly,

You don’t have to respond to me or anyone or else; particularly if you are insulted by the truth. Some people don’t handle the truth at all well; they would rather be lied to, apparently. Some people even call the truth “trolling”; they are the really ignorant ones who have copied adolescent onliners who don’t know that a troll is actually a mythical Norse gremlin.

Your ‘responses’ to my posts are merely disagreements with anything I say, so you will be doing me a favour. Thankyou.

ttbn,

In internet slang a troll is someone who purposely
goes out of their way to upset people to sew
discord by posting inflammatory, extraneous, and
off-topic messages in an online community such as
discussion forums with the intent of provoking
readers (read angry reactions) to create conflict.

And they tend to do this with anyone whose views
disagrees with their own. The internet is notorious
for attracting these sort of people - who thrive
on anonymity - and feel that they can get away with
things they probably wouldn't normally do in the
real world.

With people like that you can ignore them (as Belly
is going to do) or make light of the situation (as I've
often done - or insult them back), or unmask them, or
don't provide a platform for them, or create a unified
community, or simply listen, and if all else fails -
use the Moderators and online tools.

Hi Belly - in response to your post to me several pages ago - yes, of course you have right to an opinion and the right to avoid gays- I just wanted to know why. I'm sorry to read you had such a past with lascivious men trying to invade your space and right to live unmolested. I had similar issues and hated it - and I'm gay! Further to the article - New Zealand has made an industry out of gay marriage since legalisation in 2013. Many Aussies have gone there to marry. Why people think there should have been a mad rush for same sex couples to suddenly marry here is beyond me. The law will not be changed, it simply means that from now on gays can marry - when they want to.

HereNow I am far from the standard issue anti gay ranter, my job took me in hundreds of klm driven trips, leaving home for 6 am trips and near three hundred klm to drive, believe me some of those early morning toilet stop had to be fast,in truth my best delegates in some work places are openly gay too, but even they trembled at the things they had to see while working in one of our best national parks,your life in this current world can not have been easy, while fighting still for your rights, even if it is a failure in me, I can not abandon my views PLEASE understand I know such people exist in the Hetro sexual world too

Dear HereNow,

Welcome to the forum.

I wonder if we'll ever see the day in this country when
we'll simply accept each other for our individual human
qualities, rather than labelling each other according to
our biological sex, sexual orientation, political views,
race, religion, and so forth.

As history has shown - the times do change - admittedly
sometimes slower than others. In the meantime, all we can
do I guess is find the place where we feel comfortable
safe and secure.

Dear Belly,

I really feel for you and what you had to put up with
from unwanted advances. I guess most of us have had
some of those. Luckily for me - they were not taken
any further - once I made it quite clear that I wasn't
interested. Well, except for my boss in one work
situation where I ended up quietly quitting and moving to a new
job. I didn't complain to anyone about it though. I was more
mindful of not burning any bridges behind me - I just left.

Foxy I am a front row forward and am not under the bed hiding as a result of this, but felt in sharing my view and history in a world that see some still undermining women's rights I could show just what it must be for far too many of them, still shudder as I watch mates do things that are just wrong did not know HereNow was new hope we see more of him/her

Hopefully we shall see the percentage of legal-marriages for heterosexual couples drop similarly.

Not that marriage is bad - in fact it is excellent, but what a shame to invite the regime to your wedding, what a shame to beg it for papers and ask this evil body to certify/approve/bless your intimate life!

What has been so unfair with the recent change of the Marriage-Act, is the lack of provision for previously-married couples to become unmarried: before 2004 it was implicitly implied and between 2004-2017 couples registered their marriage on the explicit understanding that the "marriage" they were entering into was one thing, whereas now it means another. Given this change, they should be able to declare their previous status to be null and void: "No, this is NOT what we entered into, this was NOT our agreement, so let us out and de-register our marriage right now".

Forcing loving couples and families to live apart for over a year just in order to obtain divorce-papers and get rid of this sham-contract, is not good enough!

Yuyutsu,

I still think marriage between a man and a women is a good thing. I've abided it for 50 years. But, it doesn't work out for everyone, particularly these days when many people think it's all anout 'me'.

Here's a cynical take on marriage I saw recently:

"Thinking of getting married? Better not to, you’ll get taken to the cleaners when it comes unstuck, because courts and the social services favour women, don’t they? Go for the one-night stand instead, although even this option is now fraught with difficulty, because that coy ‘no’ that means ‘yes’ will be alleged subsequently to have meant ‘absolutely no way’, and you’ll be on a rap for rape".

Hi Foxy - thank you for the kind words. Actually I have been a member of this forum for 3 or 4 years - I hardly comment because certain responders are incredibly rude and seem to think they own the forum. I do read what is written, however, and have always admired your considered and polite contributions.

Belly - and thank you for your response also, it's appreciated when people of differing opinions don't rant. We can agree to disagree, but I have no doubt there are many other things we can laugh together about.

Dear HereNow,

A sense of humour certainly helps.

I look forward to reading more of your posts in
the future.

Dear Ttbn,

«I still think marriage between a man and a women is a good thing.»

And I certainly agree - but in the context of this discussion, why should a couple even inform the government about their love and marriage, let alone ask them for a piece of paper that recognises it?

Now here we have [heterosexual] couples who foolishly informed the government about their intimate affairs, now the government changed a definition and they cannot get out of something they never agreed about.

Suppose you are a seller who signed a sale-contract where the "definitions" section states that the '$' sign designates Australian dollars (AUD). How would you feel if the buyer comes and overwrites that section saying that '$' means Zimbabwean dollars (ZWD) - that's what they did to all pre-existing marriage certificates!