Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Australian Same Sex Marriage Vote Wins


psyche101

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Astra. said:

Btw, it's nice to see you back psyche :st

:st

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good job guys! :tu: I wish we didn't have to do it state by state in the US.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't give two boots for love. Love is a crock. Basic rights are more the issue I feel. We have always had such conflicts, good to see as a country we could scape a little more of that sort of thinking of our collective shoe.

The basic rights, that are argued for, aren't extended to intersex couples anyway.  I personally know of a case where a male husband couldn't see his dying female wife.  Her children, from a previous marriage, prevented the visitation.

Australian history shows all (both) plebiscites were "adhered" to by the government of the day.  The marriage legislation will change according to the vote.

If it really changes things - other than the nomenclature of a relationship - I'll take your word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But the people opposed think they actually have an argument. Someone at work yesterday muttered what's to stop brother marrying brother now?

I piped up and said

The same laws that stop brother and sister marrying. The ignorance of the subject is,astounding.

 

Most states were up about 80% NSW was one state that dragged the vote backwards and I suspect it has a lot to do with the region's diverse cultural outlook, a lot of religions insist on staying stagnant. Muslim in particular, where such statistics rise so does ignorance.

Yes, those people are the reason we don’t base human rights on thr popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2017 at 3:19 PM, Golden Duck said:

The basic rights, that are argued for, aren't extended to intersex couples anyway.  I personally know of a case where a male husband couldn't see his dying female wife.  Her children, from a previous marriage, prevented the visitation.

Australian history shows all (both) plebiscites were "adhered" to by the government of the day.  The marriage legislation will change according to the vote.

If it really changes things - other than the nomenclature of a relationship - I'll take your word for it.

Being able to married at all is the basic right I am mentioning 

There are always exceptions to the rule, that happens across the board, and the husband you speak of seems to violated that basic right if his own children felt that was the best course of action, that's a basic right too.

Government is trying to enact the result as law by Christmas. 

It has already changed things like it or not, the conservatives have been rationalized publicly. That's a notable achievement alone.

I think marriage is a crock and stupid, any verbal agreement that has to be resolved in a court of law is one giant scam. Personally I think marriage itself violates basic rights and desperately needs a major overhaul. If gay people want to suffer and be miserable like straight people who are we to deny them that self inflicted pain in the neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2017 at 5:46 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes, those people are the reason we don’t base human rights on thr popular vote.

That's what we just did though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2017 at 8:12 PM, ChrLzs said:

:tu:

Very much approve of the result, but not happy about the process, ie the $122 million and the scaremongering and divisiveness it caused...

I've never understood why so many people are so freaked out about it. What the heck does it matter to them? 

So don't get gay married. Not like anybody's got a shotgun on ya.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Being able to married at all is the basic right I am mentioning 

There are always exceptions to the rule, that happens across the board, and the husband you speak of seems to violated that basic right if his own children felt that was the best course of action, that's a basic right too.

Government is trying to enact the result as law by Christmas. 

It has already changed things like it or not, the conservatives have been rationalized publicly. That's a notable achievement alone.

I think marriage is a crock and stupid, any verbal agreement that has to be resolved in a court of law is one giant scam. Personally I think marriage itself violates basic rights and desperately needs a major overhaul. If gay people want to suffer and be miserable like straight people who are we to deny them that self inflicted pain in the neck.

Speaking of marriage as a basic right Is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2017 at 0:06 PM, ChaosRose said:

I've never understood why so many people are so freaked out about it. What the heck does it matter to them?

1. That $122m is *our* money - it was a complete waste of time, as they could have simply had a parliamentary vote at virtually no cost whatsoever.

2. It only happened to appease conservative factions of the ruling party, and it gave them an opportunity to raise divisive and unrelated scare issues, eg that it would lead to  'unhealthy promotion' of homosexuality in schools, etc.

3. We already knew that the majority supported marriage equality. Whoopee, we now have an actual number...

4. There were many reported examples of harassment (esp social media) and even violence, and it was a particular problem in many schools where it became the schoolyard topic and fuel for additional bullying. Here's an example from the godson of a former prime minister:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920

BTW, the bad behavior was not restricted to one side...

If you are genuinely interested, you should read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mental-health-groups-sound-alarm-over-dramatic-samesex-marriage-survey-spike-20170916-gyizra.html

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations Australia. :tu:

On the other hand how can more than 40 % be against granting a basic right to people ? I just don't get it. We got registered partnership more than 20 years ago (First to do so), yet our country is still here so it can't be that dangerous. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Congratulations Australia. :tu:

On the other hand how can more than 40 % be against granting a basic right to people ? I just don't get it.

Well, I'd say that many of the 40% who were against it, probably were self righteous Christians and the basic narrow minded folk who hate to see change.

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

We got registered partnership more than 20 years ago (First to do so), yet our country is still here so it can't be that dangerous. :rolleyes:

IMO, our parliament are a bunch of dills, who didn't have the backbone to ever pass it through. So they passed the buck decision onto the overall public to decide for them. It was a waste of millions of tax payer dollars that they spent on the ridiculous amount of paper work and postage that every household received.The irony is, there was already a national poll done (before the forms were sent out) where a high percentage of Australians did not have an issue with same sex marriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2017 at 11:02 PM, Michelle said:

Good job guys! :tu: I wish we didn't have to do it state by state in the US.

I thought after the court case it made it legal in all states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
35 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Can I just say, I love the way you Australians call referendums 'plebiscites', it's great. 

Plebiscites and Referenda are two different beasties. 

Referendum refers (sorry, couldn’t resist) to changes to the constitution, while plebiscites are the politicians polling the plebs (again, sorry, couldn’t resist) about certain issues that fall outside the usual purview of the politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

1. That $122m is *our* money - it was a complete waste of time, as they could have simply had a parliamentary vote at virtually no cost whatsoever.

2. It only happened to appease conservative factions of the ruling party, and it gave them an opportunity to raise divisive and unrelated scare issues, eg that it would lead to  'unhealthy promotion' of homosexuality in schools, etc.

3. We already knew that the majority supported marriage equality. Whoopee, we now have an actual number...

4. There were many reported examples of harassment (esp social media) and even violence, and it was a particular problem in many schools where it became the schoolyard topic and fuel for additional bullying. Here's an example from the godson of a former prime minister:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/same-sex-marriage-kevin-rudd-godson-attack-arrest/8947920

BTW, the bad behavior was not restricted to one side...

If you are genuinely interested, you should read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mental-health-groups-sound-alarm-over-dramatic-samesex-marriage-survey-spike-20170916-gyizra.html

 

I'm not talking about the money or the factions or any of that. 

I don't know why gay marriage matters so much to people who have nothing to do with it. 

If they don't wanna get gay married, they don't have to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Plebiscites and Referenda are two different beasties. 

Referendum refers (sorry, couldn’t resist) to changes to the constitution, while plebiscites are the politicians polling the plebs (again, sorry, couldn’t resist) about certain issues that fall outside the usual purview of the politics.

Well, national plebiscite are meant for issues of national significance; and the plebiscites held in WWI certainly were about an issue that very much was the concern of the Parliament. 

Plebiscite, inclding those at State level, are non-binding; but the Government usually follows the vote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I'm not talking about the money or the factions or any of that. 

I don't know why gay marriage matters so much to people who have nothing to do with it. 

If they don't wanna get gay married, they don't have to. 

The only real issue was with wedding industry service providers. However, religious freedoms will still be preserved. 

The compromise that Milo Yiannopli argues for already existed; except in perhaps two States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2017 at 0:29 PM, Golden Duck said:

Speaking of marriage as a basic right Is absurd.

It's not a basic right to officially couple with your partner of choice regardless of others views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It's not a basic right to officially couple with your partner of choice regardless of others views?

No it's not and you made that case in your first post in this thread.

However the Mariage Act has never granted any right that overrules another stipulated under another piece of legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

No it's not and you made that case in your first post in this thread.

No I said the very opposite you are putting words in my mouth. I praised the majority who overturned the laws that refuse that basic right.

17 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

However the Mariage Act has never granted any right that overrules another stipulated under another piece of legislation.

I have no idea what you are referring to, is this word salad a way of saying you don't agree with the vote or outcome?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2017 at 3:29 AM, Golden Duck said:

Speaking of marriage as a basic right Is absurd.

Why ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - ..

Quote

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
...
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

While you might argue semantics and say that 16 is intended to refer to only man+woman marriages, legally you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, especially when you consider Article 7...  Plus, almost all countries provide benefits and legal and monetary advantages to married couples, so denying any marriage is again a breach of 7.

So, yep, I'd call that a pretty basic right.  We're not talking Mazlov's Hierarchy here...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No I said the very opposite you are putting words in my mouth. I praised the majority who overturned the laws that refuse that basic right.

You referred to prohibited relationships didn't you? Admittedly that's a narrow interpretation of 'official'. Hell, Centrelink considers you in a relationship as soon as you start co-habiting - That's official isn't it?

You can't say an artificial concept is a natural, or basic, right.

54 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I have no idea what you are referring to, is this word salad a way of saying you don't agree with the vote or outcome?

Now who's putting words in another's mouth. I'm saying the changes amount to nothing more than symbolism. How is that word salad.

By the way, I don't discount the importance of symbolism - just call it what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You referred to prohibited relationships didn't you?

Specifically same sex marriage.

Quote

Admittedly that's a narrow interpretation of 'official'. Hell, Centrelink considers you in a relationship as soon as you start co-habiting - That's official isn't it?

Lol no they do not. I have been living at a good friends place for a year, earlier this year I suddenly became unexpectedly unemployed and was on benefits for three months although I has been living at my friends place for eight months by the end of that three months and we were not considered to be in a relationship at any point. He would be highly offended too as he voted no on the issue. 

Quote

You can't say an artificial concept is a natural, or basic, right.

Marriage is not only a basic right. It violates basic rights it is not going to dissolve anytime soon.

Quote

Now who's putting words in another's mouth. I'm saying the changes amount to nothing more than symbolism. How is that word salad.

I do not think the majority voice of Australia is symbolism. The government has already stated it is working on enacting the peoples wishes.

A lot of your responses seen like word salad to me. I'm just a construction worker,  find your prose is often convoluted and overly technical. Just say what you mean.

Quote

By the way, I don't discount the importance of symbolism - just call it what it is.

It's obviously very important to many. Marriage is not symbolism, it is dissolved in a court of law despite the initial agreement being verbal. It's a joke and when it affects lives to the extent it does. It moves past simple dismissals of symbolism in a court of law. I'd like to see marriage itself completely overhauled for the basic rights of all people.

Do you agree with the vote and outcome?

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.